Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SYNOPSIS
The paper reviews selccted results frolll two I:lrge-st:ale retainiJlgwail testscalTiedolll ill the RM(' Hetaining Wall 'Icst rildlity. The teslscolllpris\",1 two
geogrid reinforced structures 3m in height that were taken to collapse under st:lged uniform surch:llgc pressurc applied to the hori7.0ntal hackfill s: rlace.
The tests were carefully monitorcd and illllstrated that initial failme of thc compositc system was duc to soil shcar failure. The failurc location was con-
trolledhythefadng treatmcnt whichwas ascgmcntal struCtUlC inoncwall amI a full height panel structure in the second. Themcasureosurchargc prcssure
at soil failure was compared to prcdicted capacity usin!! conventional Ii III it -cquilihriumlllcthods of design. 'nle obselvcd maximulII surchargc capacitics
of the walls arc significantly greater than those predicted hy tl)eory. The S()\II'ce of the discrepanq· is identified usillg a 3Dwedge analysis which explicitly
includes the restraint offered by the footing at the base of each wall facing and side wall friction due to the test facility. Obselved maximum surchargc loads
are corrected for side wall friction to demonstrate that in a tllle plane strain condition with realistic footing restraint the footing provides a significant
portion of wall c:lpacity. A major condusion of the paper is that footing restraint is likely an important contributor to conselvativeness in current limit
eqUilibrium -based methods of analysis in North America.
INTRODUCTION
This paper is focused on the results of two tests that were carried out in FRONT EDGE
the RMC Retaining Wall lest Facility. The facility was conceived to pro- OF TEST
vide a general purpose large-scale apparatus to test a variety of rein- FACILITY
forced soil wall systems. The inside dimensions of the test facility at the ANCHOR
time of this study were 3.8m high x 6m long x 2.4m wide. Experimen tal
BOLTS
wall facings are constructed at the front of the test facility and the back Figure I RMC Retaining Wall 'Iest Facility
of the test facility is used to mountextensometers attached to the inter-
nal reinforcement layers. The facility side walls are comprised of a com-
posite plywood/plexiglas/polyethylene sheeting that assists to reduce .lru:J:kU\cntall'anel Wall Confieyru1i.!m
sidewall friction. Thesoilsurface c;tn besurcharged hy inflating airhags
at the top of the facility. The current surcharging arrangement allows a 'Ille incremental panel wall test is illustrated in Figure 2a.ln this meth-
vertical pressure of up to 1O() kPa to be applied to the soil surface. od each row of panels was placed sequentially as the height of the re-
tained suil was increased and each row was temporarily supported until
the soil hehind the wall had reached the top of each row of panels. The
The test facility is illustrated in Figure I. 'The two test configurations wall facings were constructed with 0.75m high articulated panels and
that are the focus of the paper are illustrated in Figure 2. The retained each panel was connected to a separate strip of geogrid reinforcement
soil was a well-compacted coarse angular sand. extending 3m into the soil backfill. 'The reinforcement layer spacings
389
size distribution for the sand has a uniformity coefficient Cu =5.0 and a
backfill soil
coefficient of curvature C c = 1. The compacted bulk unit weight was 18
kN/m3 and itwas placed at a moisture content of 1 to 3%. The results of
direct shear box tests carried out at two different laboratories on com-
T pacted RMC sand gave a peak (secant) friction angle of <P = 53 degrees
4 panels (Jewell 1987, Bathurst et aL 1987). The high strength of the sand is con-
O.75m high sidered to be due to the angularity of the constituent sand particles. This
=3m material would be considered an ideal material in a field application due
i to its high friction angle, permeability and ease of compaction.
J- 3m-l
instrumented section
a) incremental panel wall
Reinforcement
reinforced soil
The full height panel wall test configuration is illustrated in Figure 2b. Tensar SR21 1096 79 17
In this test the panel facing units were bolted together to form three in-
dependent 3m high facing panels. The panelswere braced externally for Tensar SS1 2
the duration of construction (i.e. until the retained soil had been placed transverse (strong) 292 20 14
and compacted to the top of the wall). The reinforcement arrangement longitudinal (weak)3 204 12 14
and boundary condition at the base of the facing units was identical to
that described for the incremental panel wall.
1 high density polyethylene uniaxial geogrid
2 polypropylene biaxial geogrid
3 SSI oriented in weak direction for RMC test walls
A uniformly graded coarse angular sand material with some fine gravel SOURCE: Manufacturer's literature.
has been used for all retaining wall tests carried out at RMC. The grain
390
30~---------------------.
P
6.25 kN/m
l?ad
nng
TI
3m
20
--#.
c
·m
5
extensometer '::;:,<5:::
_H-~~--""""";;';;;;;;;;;""","" '
Geokon pressure: ~11 ~ , ',.
...... 1
-....
en
10
3.75
displacement potentiometer
-~
CL.
"'0
4
cepts of earth pressure theory and Coulomb materials (e.g. FHWA
1989, AASHTO 1990). By definition, limit-equilibrium based meth-
ods of analysis can be used to predict collapse conditions for earth re-
tainingwall structures. In practice, factol's of safety are applied to fully-
ca mobilized stabilizing forces to ensure safe design and failure of the
o 2.8 polymeric reinforcement is defined by strain -limited (serviceability)
criteria. The advantage of tests of the type carried out at RMC is that the
2 accuracy oflimit-equilibrium models can be examined directly since a
collapse condition was achieved in each test. The essential features of
current design methodologies recommended by US federal agencies
and the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual for the class of
structures described here have been reviewed in an earlier paper (Ba-
thurst 1991b). These structures are treated as conventional gravity
0~--~--1---~---r---.---;
structures in which the reinforced soil zone is assumed to act as a mono-
o 0.05 0.10 0.15 lithic body whose mass ensures adequate resistance to translational slid-
ing at the base of the reinforced zone and overturning about the toe.
strain, e (mm/mm) Similarly, the length and height of the reinforced soil zone measured
from the front of the structure must not lead to collapse of the founda-
b) 100 hour isochronous 10ad-strainculVe
tion soils (bearing capacity failure). These collapse mechanisms are
called external stability failure mechanisms and are treated in the same
Figure 3 100 hour isochronous load-strain behaviour of
manner as any rectangular gravity wall structure in geotechnical engi-
geogl'id reinforcement
neering. More challenging are the calculations associated with internal
stability of the reinforced zone. The density, strength and length of the
Instrumentation reinforcement in the reinforced soil zone must be adequate to ensure
that the reinforced soil zone acts as a monolithic body. Internal stability
Since the RMC test facility is indoors where construction quality can be calculations are based on a "tie-backwedge" approach in which an ac-
carefully controlled and instrumentation protected, a comprehensive tive failure plane is assumed to propagate up into the soil from the heel
instrumen tation program is possible. In addi tion, expensive instrumen- ofthe facing units at an angle of 45+4>/2 degrees from the horizontal
tation can be recovered between tests. The instrumentation arrange- where 4> is the peak friction angle of the purely frictional soil. The ap-
391
proach is illustrated in Figure 5. Each layer of reinforcement is required (2)
to carry a portion of the distributed lateral earth pressure calculated
from active earth pressure theory expressed as follows:
Theparameters in equation (2) can be referenced to Figure 6. Thecoef-
ficient a is a measure of the effiCiency of load transfer between the an-
T max = Sv Ka (yz + q) (1) chorage zone soils and the geogrid reinforcement. A minimum value of
0.5 is recommended by AASHTO but manufacturers literature quote
The contribu tory area Sv is calculated using the mid - elevation between numbers as high as 0.9. Regardless of the choice of coefficient, pullout
layers. Th.e tensile capacity Teap of the reinforcement must be adequate capacity failure is not a possibility in these tests due to the long embed-
over the hfe of the structure so that T max is not exceeded. Based on the ment length Le employed in the standard test configurations.
assumption ofa 100hrpost-construction design life and the data illus-
trated in Figure 3, the maximum tensile load is 2.8 kN/m and 4.9 kN/m l!sing gen~ric calculati~ns for external and internal stability it is pos-
SIble to estImate the maxImum surcharge pressure required to achieve a
b~sed?? 5% ~nd .10% strain criteria respectively. The 5% strain (ser-
factorofsafetyofunity for the failure mechanisms described above. The
vlceablhty) crltenon can be found in AASHTO (1991) and FHWA
(1989) guidelines. At the time of the RMCwall constructions the strain calculations for this paper were carried out using simple computer
codes. The essential computational details of these codes are described
l~mit criterion was 10% and this value appears in other current guide-
hnes (e.g. GRI GG4, 1991, NCMA 1993). The 10% strain value was in the paper by Bathurst and Simac (1993).The results of calculations
used in the design of the experiment to ensure collapse of the wall with show that ~actors of safety against base sliding, overturning and pullout
the surcharge capacity at hand. These empirically established strain- are exce.sslvely la~ge even when a 100 kPa pressure is applied to the top
limited criteria are adopted in North American practice to ensure that of the tnal walls (I.e. factors of safety> 10). The rigid concrete base slab
wall facing deformations are not excessive. that forms the base of the test facility precluded any investigation of
bearing capacity failure. The only possible failure mechanism that could
In practice, partial factors are applied to in-isolation tensile capacity be generated according to theory was over-stressing of the reinforce-
values to account for mechanical damage and chemical degradation. In ment as illustrated in Figure 7.
addition, an overall factor of safety is used to further reduce Teap to ac-
The data in Figure 7 shows the factor of safety against over-stressing of
count for overall uncertainties in soil properties, geometry and bound-
the reinforcement plotted against surcharge pressure. The data reveals
ary loadings. In this experimental program these partial factors can be
that according to conventional theory the wall would exhibit unaccept-
taken as unity since the test facility and construction method creates a
able performance at the end of construction based on a 5% strain crite-
benign environment for the polymeric reinforcement with respect to
rion. Based on a 10% strain criterion, the maximum acceptable sur-
mechanical and chemical degradation. Constant load tests carried out
charge load would be achieved at a surcharge pressure of20kPa which is
on exhumed geogrid samples from earlier tests have demonstrated that
well within the capacity of the RMC Retaining Wall Test Facility. The re-
the load -strain - time properties of these materials placed in the RMC
inforc.ement layer with the minimum factor of safety against over-
test facility do not change as a result of method of construction (Bush
stressmgwas the second layer from the bottom. These predicted capaci-
and Swan 1987). This is not surprising since the soil particle sizes are
ties represent the best possible estimates based on current methods of
small and the granular material is placed carefully and compacted using
analysis and unusually accurate input parameters.
a light-weight vibrating plate tamper.
392
2.0~----------------------------~
1.5 monitoring
point
a;>- 10% strain criterion
m 120~--------------------------------4.
-----11-[",
-
en
0
~
0
1.0
geogrid rupture
t5
-
surcharging
<tS
end of
0.5 construction
5% strain criterion
12
0+----+----~--~----~--_4
o 20 40 60 80 100
surcharge pressure (kPa)
Figure 7 Factor of safety against reinforcement over-stressing o 400 800 1200 1600
elapsed time (hrs)
inforcement layers and panels was qualitatively similar. The data shows
that as the surcharge load increased there were corresponding increases Figure 9 Panel displacements during full height panel wall test
in wall deformations and that the time-dependent (creep) deforma-
tions of the composite system due to the reinforcement increased with
magnitude of surcharge. Duringthe application of the 70 kPa surcharge
load, time-dependent deformations increased dramatically until a tic reinforcing layers and visco -elastic creep of these polymeric materi-
well-developed shear plane (soil failure) occurred within the rein- als led to ultimate collapse of the wall many hours after soil failure.
forced soil zone. Thereafter, load was shed to the extensible geosynthe- Additional performance data for this wall can be found in the papers by
Bathurst et al. (1989) and Karpurapu et al. (1991).
i
load was 70 kPa which is significantly greater than the predicted design
6 54 1 value of 20 kPa based on a 10% serviceability strain criterion applied to
3m the reinforcement.
extenso meter 32 wall
collapse
1 soil
distance
behind
Full Height Panel Wall Test
100
80
~--------------------------~~--pa~nel
LAYER 3
failure panel
I Qualitatively similar results were reported for outward facing move-
ments of the full height panel wall (Figure 9) as for the incremental pan-
el wall test. This structure also exhibited time dependent deformations
that increased with surcharge magnitude resulting in soil failure at 80
E 1 .07m kPa surcharge followed thereafter by reinforcement failure. In this test
..s60 2 .25m the surcharge was released just as the reinforcement in the topmost lay-
surcharge
c: 3 .40m er was observed to rupture. This allowed the internal state of the rein-
0 OkPa
~40 forced zone to be visually examined by carefully removing the surcharg-
~20
u
E
0
Il 12
~t=S====~4j .80m
..
6
1.2m
3.0m
ing arrangement. The internal failure surface was observed to exit at the
surface of the backfill at about the location predicted by Rankine theory.
The collapse pressure was 80kPa as opposed to 70kPa for the nominally
identical test constructed with segmental units. The difference may not
be unexpected since the single panel structure was constructed with a
more rigid facing treatment. An important observation made during ex-
-20+----.---.----.---.---~----.-~ cavation was that rupture ofthe reinforcement occurred at the rigid con-
o 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 nection between the topmost layer and the facing. This failure mecha-
nism is not surprising since the soil surface immediately behind the wall
elapsed time (hrs)
was shown to have settled about 65mm (Le. 2%ofthe height of the wall).
Figure 8 Horizontal geogrid displacements recorded by Additional performance data for this trial wall can be found in the paper
extensometers during incremental panel wall test by Bathurst and Benjamin (1990).
393
Strains at Failure when compared to the de-stabilizing vertical force W. For example.
approximately 25% of the combined vertical load of the failed soil and
Strains recorded using strain gauges mounted directly on the reinforce- surcharge load is transmitted to the footing in each test at collapse.
ment layers and extensometers are summarized in Figure 10 for both
walls at incipient soil failure. The data shows that the peak strains for all
THREE-DIMENSIONAL WEDGE STABILITY ANALYSIS
but the bottom layer fall between 5% and 10% which is consistent with
the range of strain -limited values assumed in the initial conventional In order to quantify the contribution of boundary effects on wedge sta-
analysis presented at the beginning of the paper. There is an important bility at collapse it is necessary to investigate vertical and horizontal sta-
difference in the location of the peak strains, however, as illustrated for bility of the 3D wedge of soil observed in each trial wall. For the pur-
the top two layers. The peak strains for the flexible facing structure are
located within the soil mass while for the full height panel structure the Q
peak strains are located at the connections confirming visual observa-
tions made during wall excavation.
Footing Reactions
394
poses of this paper, failure of the wall is taken as the condition at relationshipS= NtanQ>. The sum of the horizontal restraining forces due
incipient soil failure rather than reinforcement rupture. The outward to toe restraint and the reinforcement can be expressed as:
wall deformations of the two walls at soil failure were in excess of 2% of
the height of the wall and visual distress was apparent to the observerin 4
both cases. The theoretical model presented below is based on a 3D
wedge analysis reported by Bathurst and Benjamin (1987) for unrein-
PAh = Rh + I Fi (8)
forced soil structures constructed in the RMC test facility. In this earlier i=1
investigation, an unreinforced wall was taken to failure in order to cali- The horizontal and vertical toe forces can be equated through an equiv-
brate the test facility for side wall friction effects. The experiment con- alent wall friction angle A. where tan A. = Rv /PAb. Here the quantities Rv
sisted of an unreinforced, externally supported, 3m high single panel and PAh are equivalent to vertical and horizontal components of the to-
wall taken to failure by allowing the face to slowly rotate about the toe. tal active earth force PA in classical Coulomb wedge theory. Horizontal
The analytical model is modified here to incorporate reinforcement and vertical eqUilibrium ofthewedge in Figure 12 leads to the following
forces. solution:
Thesidewall resisting force Xswdue to wedge self-weight is assumed to The solution to PA is obtained when dPA/d~=O.
act parallel to the internal failure plane. Parametric analysis showed
that numerical solutions were insensitive to the orientation of this vec-
tor over the range from vertical to ~. Selection of Parameters
The unit side wall friction fsw can be expressed as: With the exception of the side wall earth pressure coefficient Ksw, all
variables in the above equations are known or can be estimated with
(3) confidence from independent direct shear box test data and isochrono-
us load-strain data for the reinforcement. Direct shear box tests were
carried out to determine the mobilized friction angle Q>sw between the
Here qz=Yz and is the vertical stress due to soil self-weight acting at sand and facility side walls. The surface of the side walls was covered
depth z below the top of the wall. Ksw is the coefficien t of side wall earth with three layers of polyethylene sheeting lubricated with machine oil.
pressure and Q>sw is the side wall friction angle. Integration of equation These tests showed that Q>sw was in the range of 10 to 15 degrees and that
(3) over the height of the wedge H and considering two side wall gives: shearing resistance was mobilized essentially instantaneously. Hence,
any assumed value of Q>sw can be assumed to be operative for the dura-
KswyH3 tion of both large-scale models including construction, surcharging
Xsw = 3 tan <l>sw tan (~ -~) (4) and incipient failure. The back-calculated equivalent wall friction
angle A. was 58 degrees and 51 degrees for the full height panel and incre-
mental panel walls respectively at soil failure. A reasonable estimate of
The additional side wall friction generated due to surcharge loading is Ksw is 0.3 to 0.4 based on previous test facility calibration work on an un-
represented by a force vector Xq acting upwards. The attenuated verti- reinforced retaining wall test reported by Bathurst and Benjamin
cal stress qz acting at depth z can be described by: (1987) and related work by Jewell (1987). Nevertheless, a wider range of
solutions using Ksw = 0 to 0.5 is examined.
(5)
Results of Wedge Stability Analyses
where:
2Ksw A range of possible solutions to the horizontal and vertical component
C2 = --w- tan <l>sw sin ~ (6) of PAine quat ion [9) is presented in Figures 13 and 14 for the walls at soil
failure.Selecting Q>=53 degrees,Ksw =0.35, and Q>sw = 15 degrees gives
and w represents the length of the wedge in the direction parallel to the values for force components PAcos A. and PA sin A. that fall within mea-
facing unit (2.4min this investigation). Solution of equations [3), [5) and sured data for both walls. A peak friction angle of 53 degrees is consis-
[6) lead to: tent with results of direct shear box tests discussed earlier. However, un-
der conditions approaching plane strain the peak friction angle of 53
Xq = C 2 wq tan(~ -~) t H
(H - z)e -C2z dz (7)
degrees interpreted from direct shear box tests may actuallyunder-es-
timate the peak friction angle. Jewell (1987) argues that the peak fric-
tion angle for the RMC sand maybe as high as 55-56 degrees in which
case the sidewall friction effects are even less than those computed here.
The Ksw=O condition identified on the figures corresponds to the ideal
Forces acting at the soil failure surface are described by the Coulomb condition of no side wall friction (i.e. true plane strain condition). As
395
may be expected the measured and vertical and horizontal restraining This range is consistent with the results of an unreinforced wall test re-
forces PA cos Aand 1',\ sin Afall below these values illustrating that side ported by Bathurst and Benjamin (1987) that showed that the side wall
wall friction does contribute to the surcharge capacity of the test walls. contribution tostability in the RMC Retaining Wall Facilitywas 14% of
Using the best estimate of cj>, cj>sw and Ksw reveals that the contribution the active earth force developed against an externally supported unrei n-
of side wall friction to wedge stability ranges from 12% to 14% of the forced wall with similar toe restraint.
equivalellt restraining force I'A developed by both walls at soil failure.
Adjusted Maximum Surchar~ Pressures
3m cj>sw = 10 degrees
cj>sw = 15 degrees
60~----------------------------,
E
-... 55
z ct>
~
<J)
Q) 50
e 50°
Q
Iii 45
C
0
0g
N 53°
40
.r::.
'0
E 35 56°
:::l
<J) measured range at soil failure
30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
T
Ksw
a) horizontal forces (PA cos A)
N tan <t>
500
--- ---
--
measured range at soil failure - - _ _
40+--'--.--.--.---~-r--.--.--r-~
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Ksw
b) vertical forces (I'A sin A)
396
<l>sw = 10 degrees pressure for the walls constructed at RMC can be assigned to the
additional restraint offered to the retaining wall structures due to
<l>sw = 15 degrees the footing support.
60
3. Based on the the results of reinforcement strain measurements
E taken at incipient soil failure, the 10% strain criterion applied to
--e-z 55
<I> isochronous load-strain data does result in a reasonable estimate
of reinforcement forces in the top three layers at soil failure. How-
rn
Q) 50 50° ever, this concurrence may be fortuitous and the actual strain at fail-
~
.E ure in other structures may be influenced by the stiffness of the re-
Iii 45 inforcement employed and soil materials.
',:::'::
'E ~~ :~ 53°
0
~
N
'8
'0
E
40
35
-- -- -- --- ...::
SSO
TABLE 2--
Comparison of maximum surcharge pressures
Experimental Theory
:l
rn measured range at soil failure
30 Measured Corrected Tie-back
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 (<I>sw=O) wedge
method
Ksw
a) horizontal forces (PA cos i..)
Incremental panel wall 70kPa 60kPa 0-20 kPa
100
Full height panel wall 80kPa 68kPa 0-20 kPa
95
E
--e-z 90
85
rn
Q) IMPLICATIONS TO CURRENT DESIGN METHODOLOGY
~ 80
.E Based on the experimental results presented in the paper it can be ar-
:sc 75
gued that current me thods of analysis and design have a built in factor of
0 70
N
'§ 65
--- -- -- -- safety of three against failure due to surcharging. This conclusion is re-
stricted to structures of the type investigated (i.e. short height, heavily
---
~
surcharged retaining walls constructed with high quality granular fill
'0 60
and facing units that can transmit shear). However, it is not unreason-
E 55 measured range at soil failure - -
:l
rn
able to believe that a portion ofload-carrying capacity due to toe re-
50 straint is present in every reinforced soil wall constructedwith panel fac-
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ings. This toe restraint offers an additional margin of safety not
considered in routine calculations.
397
construction (e.g. Bathurst et al. 1993, Simac et al. 1993). The strain BATHURST, RJ. and SIMAC, M.R.1993.
data illustrated in Figure 10 for the two top reinforcement layers shows Two Computer Programs for the Design and Analysis of Geosyn-
that peak strains occur within the reinforced soil zone rather than at the thetic - Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls, Geotextilesand Geomem-
connections. Similarrelative trendsforconnectionstrains have been re- branes, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 381-396
ported by the author and co-workers for walls constructed with a stiffer
reinforcement (Bathurst et al. 1987, Bathurst 1990). BATHURST, RJ., SIMAC, M.R, and BERG, R.R., 1993.
Review of the NCMA Segmental Retaining Wall Design Man ual for
The inherent conservativeness of current methods of design is com- Geosynthetic- Reinforced Structures, Trans. Res. Record (in press)
pounded by the use of other partial factors applied to the laboratory in- BATHURST, RJ., WAWRYCHUK, W. and JARRETT, P.M. 1987.
dex tensile strength of the reinforcement to account for mechanical Laboratory Investigation ofTIvo Large-scale Geogrid Reinforced
damage and chemical attackandoverall uncertainty. In the paper by Ba- Soil Walls, The Application of Polymeric Reinforcement in Soil Re-
thurst (1991b) it is demonstrated that in some extreme cases the engi- taining Structures, NATO Advanced Study InstitutesSeries, Kluwer
neermay be required to use only 2% of the laboratory tensile strength of Academic Publishers, pp 71-125, P.M. Jarrett and A McGown (ed)
the geogrid reinforcing product for internal stability calculations
against over-stressing based on default partial factors of safety found BUSH, D.l., and SWAN, D.B.G. 1987.
in AASHTO guidelines. An Assessment of the ResistanceofTensar SR2 to Physical Damage
during the Construction and Testing of a Reinforced Soil Wall, The
Application of Polymeric Reinforcement in Soil Retaining Struc-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS tures, NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, pp 173-180, P.M. Jarrett and A McGown (ed)
The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of DJ. Benja-
min (formerly a graduate student at RMC) who supervised the exper- CHRISTOPHER, B.R, GILL, S.A., GIROUD, J - P., JURAN,
imental work reported in the paper. The financial support of the De- l.,SCHLOSSERF.,MITCHELL,J.K.andDUNNICLIFF,J.1989.
partment of National Defense through the ARP program is gratefully Reinforced Soil Structures: Volume I. Design and Construction
acknowledged. Guidelines (prepared for FHWA).
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOIIT, UK, 1978.
Reinforced Earth Retaining Walls and Bridge Abutments for Em-
REFERENCES bankments. Thchnical memorandum BE3/78.
BATHURST, RJ. 1990. Design Guidelines for the use of Extensible Reinforcements for Mech-
Instrumentation of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Walls, Trans. Res. Re- anically Stabilized Earth Walls in Permanent Applications 1991.
cord 1277,pp.102-111 Task Force 27 AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA Joint Committee
398