See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270647210

Design of Geogrid Reinforced Earth Walls: Transition of Limits and Critical

Surfaces

Article  in  Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 1,273

4 authors:

Izzaldin Almohd Osama Kh. Nusier

Petra University Jordan University of Science and Technology
10 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   200 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmed Ashteyat Mohammad Yamin

University of Jordan Minnesota State University, Mankato
24 PUBLICATIONS   82 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Earthquake risk assessment of Greater Amman Municipality View project

Flood management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Osama Kh. Nusier on 01 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design of Geogrid Reinforced Earth
Walls: Transition of Limits and Critical
Surfaces
Izzaldin Almohd, PhD, PE
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
Applied Science University
Amman, Jordan

Osama K. Nusier, PhD*

Professor of Civil Engineering
Civil Engineering Department; Al Al Bait University, Mafraq, Jordan
*Corresponding Author; e-mail: nosama@just.edu.jo

Ahmed M. Ashteyat, PhD

Associate Professor
Civil Engineering Department
Yarmouk University; Irbid, Jordan

Mohammad M. Yamin, PhD

Assistant Professor
Department of Civil Engineering & Construction
Bradley University; Peoria, IL,USA

ABSTRACT
The majority of design approaches or methodologies for reinforced earth walls or slopes are based
on separately investigating the internal and external stabilities of the system. The internal stability is
examined by satisfying the local stability of reinforcements at each level based on the predetermined
critical slip plane (line of maximums) and the tributary area of each reinforcing layer. Recent
research aimed at incorporating the contributions of the various elements of reinforced earth walls,
some of which are mostly based on statistical correlations. The German code of practice for
design/analysis of reinforced earth walls and slopes offers slightly different methodology for
analyzing the internal stability of the reinforcement. It is mainly based on investigating numerous
circular and random slip surfaces, within and beyond the reinforcement zone (internal and external),
while accommodating the axial (resistance) forces provided by all reinforcement layers intercepting
these surfaces.
This paper presents some of the technical and design considerations and possible improvements on
design methodology for reinforced soil walls and slopes. Of particular interest is the use of the
apparent cohesion concept in the design of geosynthetic reinforced soil systems and the transition of
limit equilibrium states (mobilization of actual state of equilibrium critical surfaces instead of the
presumed or predefined most critical surface) for reinforced earth walls. The equivalent cohesion
concept was used to transform reinforced soil masses into equivalent cohesive soil masses with
friction capacity. Cases of analyses with comparisons between reinforced soil walls and the
equivalent cohesive masses were performed and the results revealed very similar results between the
two systems in terms of the safety of the walls.
KEYWORDS: Geogrid reinforced walls, Limit Equilibrium Analyses, equivalent soil
cohesion, DIN 4084, utilization factors of retaining structures.

- 8497 -
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8498

INTRODUCTION
Since the development of the modern concept of soil reinforcement (1), worldwide research and
demonstration projects on soil reinforcement have continuously evolved under the sponsorship of
several agencies, such as: The U.S. Department of Transportation (2), United Kingdom
Transportation and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) (3), as well as various leading agencies and
laboratories in France (4).
Currently, there are many methods (5 to 19) that can be used for the analysis and design of
reinforced earth walls and slopes. In the United States, the design/analysis of reinforced earth walls
is mostly based on the working stress method, limit equilibrium analyses, Load Factor Design
(LFD) method, or the recently developed Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method. The
concept of working stress has been widely described and recognized, due to the involvement of
equilibrium states and equations. It is mainly based on the stress-deformation behavior of the
reinforced soil mass, which is assumed to be coherent, under the external and internal applied
stresses. These stresses should not exceed the anticipated allowable strength of the mass. Although
the existing design methods may provide conservative design results, they have failed to clearly
demonstrate the basic advantages of the optimum reinforcement distributions upon which the design
is based. This could be attributed to the simplified assumptions and, in some instances, the
predetermined and fixed critical surface as well as the predetermined reinforcement layout (lengths
and spacing). The resulting conservative designs are still acceptable and practical considering the
relatively low cost of the reinforcement materials. However, certain conditions may require
deviations from the normal and simple design methodology to verify the safety of a reinforced soil
wall with unusual distributions, very complex geometries or at cases where the reinforcement
lengths could be less than the minimum lengths specified by many standards (typically ranging from
0.6H to 0.7H).
In this paper, the “Equivalent Cohesion” concept will be employed to analyze earth walls and
slopes. The apparent cohesion will be used as a method of transforming the reinforced soil mass into
a homogenous soil mass. Additionally, the transition of the limiting line of equilibrium and critical
surface will be demonstrated in this context.

GERMAN DIN 4084 NORM

The current German design norm DIN 4084 (2005) and its supplement (Terrain Rupture and
Slope Rupture) issued by the German “Deutsches Institute für Normung” is based on the partial
safety concept according to the European regulations for different load cases. It utilizes the limit
equilibrium analyses for internal stability, external stability and compound (internal and external)
stability. Driving forces are factored up (amplified) and resisting forces are factored down (reduced)
in order to achieve a defined margin of safety depending on the individual load case. The load cases
(LC) are described as follow:
- Load Case 1: Permanent or common situations
- Load Case 2: Seldom and temporary situation (e.g. construction stages)
- Load Case 3: Extraordinary and rare situation (e.g. earthquake)
The partial factors vary for each load case depending on the likelihood of their occurrence. The
partial factors applied to the soil properties and boundary loads, for each load case, are summarized
in Table 1. For the geosynthetic reinforcements in permanent or long-term structures, the maximum
allowable design strength (Fd) of reinforcement is evaluated based on ultimate (manufacturer’s)
tensile strength (Fk) according to the following equation:
Fd = Fk / (A1 × A2 × A3 × A4 × γB)
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8499

where (A1) is a reduction factor for creep; (A2) is installation damage factor; (A3 ) is the connect-
ions/seams reduction factor; (A4) is the durability reduction factor; and (γB) is a global factor of
safety for design. The factors (A1 through A4) are dependent on the material type, design life and
type of backfill. They may vary depending on the type, geometry, and strength of the geosynethitic.
The global factor (γB) depends on the considered load case and is equal to 1.4, 1.3 and 1.2 for LC1,
LC2 and LC3, respectively. The German and European standards allow for a design life of 120 years
for geosynthetic reinforced soil structures.
After all partial factors are applied, the design/analysis is performed based on the Limit
Equilibrium approach for internal stability, external stability, and the compound stability of an
assumed reinforcement scheme for steep slopes or walls. According to the new DIN 4084, different
methods and theories such as Bishop’s and Krey’s sliding circles (20, 21, DIN 4084) or block
sliding and non-circular surfaces by Janbu (21, DIN 4084) can be used. In common practice, the
following stability conditions need to be checked:
- Internal and compound stability using Bishop method
- Internal and compound stability using the block sliding method
- External stability using Bishop (Deep seated slip circle) method
For each analysis, the outcome is provided in the form of degree of utilization of the structure.
The degree of utilization is an expression of the ratio of the total factored loads to the total reduced
resistances produced by both soil and reinforcement. Accordingly, for a safe design for any load
case, the utilization factor should not exceed a value of 1.0.

Table 1: Partial safety factors for load and soil properties

Parameter Load case 1 Load case 2 Load case 3
Soil Properties Divide by:
Angle of friction 1.25 1.15 1.10
Cohesion 1.25 1.15 1.10
Loading multiply by:
Permanent 1.00 1.00 1.00
Live loads 1.30 1.20 1.00

APPARENT COHESION
The concept of apparent cohesion was fully explained in the literature. One can refer to the
theoretical and laboratory testing works performed by [4]. Based on this concept illustrated in Figure
1, the reinforcement produces an apparent cohesion due to its tensile capacity. This concept may be
more applicable to geogrid reinforcements due to their extensibility, strain compatibility with soils,
as well as the coverage ratio of the geogrids. However, only the mobilized tensile forces in the
reinforcement are responsible for the apparent cohesion. Assuming a layer of cohesionless soil
having a thickness (S), with a layer of geogrid reinforcement, spread over the entire width of the
soil, having a mobilized tensile force per meter width of geogrid (T), the equivalent (apparent)
cohesion, Ceq may be expressed as:

Ceq = T x Rc/S (1)

where Rc is the coverage ratio of the geogrid reinforcement (in decimals). The equivalent cohesion
shall produce about the same contributions to the stability of a given slip surface to that of the
reinforcement’s mobilized force (T). The mobilized force (T) is a function of the soil-reinforcement
interface strength, level of stress (embedment), and the mobilization length (Lo) of the
reinforcement as follows:
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8500

Rc T = σ ( f ⋅ tan φ ) Lo (2)

f is an interface friction reduction factor. The mobilized tensile force per meter width of geogrid
shall not exceed the tensile strength of the reinforcement (TD) at short-term or long-term stages
depending on the application. Accordingly, for any depth, the minimum length (Lo) required for full
strength mobilization is interpreted as:

Lo = Rc T σ ( f ⋅ tan φ ) (3)

For the geogrid reinforced soil walls, the equivalent cohesion (Ceq) is likely to vary with depth
and location along the grid. Additionally, the horizontal force (Fhi) to be provided by a
reinforcement layer (i), can be estimated based on the tributary area of the reinforcement (S x 1.0) is
calculated as:

Fhi = (σ + qs) Ka S = (γ z + qs) Ka S (4)

where γ is the unit weight of the soil, Ka is the active lateral earth pressure coefficient, and qs is the
equivalent surcharge. With Fhi < T, the required equivalent cohesion (Ceqi) at a given reinforcement
layer (i), can be expressed as:

Ceqi = (γ z + qs) Ka (5)

Also, by comparing Eqns. 2 and 4, yields,

σ ( f ⋅ tan φ ) Lo = (σ + qs ) Ka S
(σ + qs ) Ka S
Lo =
σ ( f ⋅ tan φ )
Hence, yielding the following:

Lo =
(1+ λ ) Ka S ; λ = q s /σ (6a)
( f ⋅ tan φ )

Assuming no surcharge (qs) is present, eqn. (6a) can be reduced to:

Ka S
Lo = ; qs=0.0 (6b)
f ⋅ tan φ

Equations (6a and 6b) indicate that the level of stress effects on the mobilization length of the
reinforcement is insignificant and that the mobilization length is approximately the same for all
reinforcement layers. For typical ranges of φ (30 to 36 degrees), the mobilization length will range
from 0.16 to a maximum of 0.6m. However, this length is adequate to mobilize resistance that is
equal to the active horizontal loads. Additionally, the effects of the stress level on the friction angle
and on the friction reduction factor are also not accommodated.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8501

Figure 1: Apparent cohesion in reinforced granular soil [4].

Equation (1) can be generalized for zones within the reinforced earth walls to transform the
reinforced cohesionless mass into an equivalent cohesive mass or masses. The equivalent cohesion
(Ceq) within a height (h) containing (n) number of geogrids having a long-term strength of TD is
given as:

Ceq =
∑R c TD
=
n TD
(7a)
h h

For uniformly spaced geogrid reinforcements, Equation 7a can be simplified as:

Rc T D
Ceq = (7b)
S

In this transformation, the geometry, boundary loads, drainage characteristics, as well as the unit
weights and angles of internal friction remain the same. One should note that the angle of internal
friction of the reinforced soil mass must be corrected during the transformation. Say, a reinforced
earth wall, shown in Figure 2a, is approximately 10.0m high and consists of 25 reinforcing grids at
40-cm spacing with 100% Rc. Each of the bottom twelve grids provides long-term strength of 26.7
kN/m-width of grid. However, each of the remaining 13 grids provides a long-term strength of 18.3
kN/m. Assuming the reinforced soil has an angle of internal friction of 34o, the equivalent cohesive
mass system (Figure 2b) consists of the following two blocks:

Lower block:
- Thickness = 4.8m.
- Equivalent cohesion, Ceq1 = (12 x 26.7)/4.8 = 66.75 kPa. Since the geogrids are
uniformly spaced, Ceq1 = 26.7/0.4=66.75 kPa.
- Angle of internal friction and unit weight = same as those for reinforced soil.
Upper block:
- Thickness = 5.2m.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8502

- Equivalent cohesion, Ceq2 = (13 x 18.3)/5.2 = 45.75 kPa (=18.3/0.4 kPa)

- Angle of internal friction and unit weight = same as those for reinforced soil.

13 grids Ceq-2= 45.75 kPa

Td = 18.3 kN/m 5.2m 5.2m

10 m 10 m

12 grids 4.8m 4.8m

Ceq-2= 66.75 kPa
Td = 26.7 kN/m

7.0 m (min) 7.0 m (min)

a) b)
Figure 2: Equivalent systems: a) Reinforced soil mass, b) Equivalent cohesive mass.

Transformed mass angle of friction:

According to the DIN-4084, the angle of internal friction is reduced by a factor of 1.25 for static
(1.10 for seismic), as follow:

tanφD = (tan φ)/1.25 (DIN 4084; 2005) (8)

For other methods, different reduction factors may apply.

Accordingly, the design angle of friction for the transformed mass is equal to 28.35-degrees.
The equivalency of the two systems (reinforced granular soil and the equivalent cohesive soil)
will be verified and useful application of this transformation will be demonstrated in the next
section.

TRANSITION OF LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM AND CRITICAL

SURFACES
The current practices pertaining to reinforced earth walls in the United States as well as other
parts of the world require to meet a set of specifications for design of reinforced earth walls. For
example, specifications require that the minimum length of the main reinforcements shall not be
shorter than 70% of the wall height. This is mainly based on experience, comparative design
problems, and the presumptive and predetermined internal slip surface within the reinforced soil
mass. For a typical geogrid reinforced soil mass, the portion of the reinforcement located within the
presumptive active wedge is approximately 50% to 55% of the height above the leveling pad. With
the reinforcement length equal to 70% of the wall height, about 20% of the reinforcement length
will be left in the resistance zone. The critical slip surface is also assumed to start from the toe of the
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8503

wall (bottom of wall face). Accordingly, longer reinforcement is required for the upper portion of
the wall.
These assumptions can be argued since the pre-determined critical surface location and shape ignore
the combined influences of the reinforcement matrix. A reasonable justification for such an
argument is the need for shorter geo-grid reinforcement lengths within the upper zone of the wall to
leave a room for possible future installations of for example, utilities (power, cable, water, gas,
sewer, etc.). For some cases, it may be strictly required to minimize the excavation works as part of
wall construction at the bottom of walls. These arguments are justified by the following
considerations:
1- For internal stability, the critical surface may intersect the wall facing at any point within the
facing and not necessarily the bottom of the wall. Considering the separated and combined
effects of the reinforcements, the slip surface may be transformed to any point within the
wall facing depending on the reinforcement’s patterns and intensities (length, spacing and
strength). The bottom of wall can be designed such that the lower reinforcements
significantly exceed the active loads up to a point where the critical surface will be shifted
away from the bottom of the wall (upwards or downwards) depending on the foundation
subsoil and the reinforcement’s patterns within the upper parts of the wall.
2- The current design method takes into consideration the minimum resistance length beyond
the presumptive active wedge used in internal sizing of reinforcements. Accordingly, it may
be needed to stage the design of the wall by dividing the wall into segments to investigate
the transitions of the location and shape of the critical surface within the soil mass.
It is extremely important not to alter the geometry of the reinforced soil mass and surroundings
during the stage design and transition. Vertical or inclined walls shall remain vertical or inclined to
the same degree. Replacing the upper wall segments by an equivalent surcharge load, results in
conservative design of lower reinforced earth walls. This can be attributed to (1) ignoring of the
contributions of the reinforcements within the upper wall, and (2) increasing the effects of the
existing actual loads that are originally and actually located at higher elevations than the elevations
analyzed. For instance, assume that the lower 6.0m of a 10-m height wall shall be analyzed
separately. A wide surface load (surcharge) of about 100 kPa is present on the top of the wall (i.e.,
10m above the bottom of wall). Also, assume that the upper 4.0m of the wall will be represented by
an equivalent dead surcharge load (qs) that is equal to 4 x γ = 80kPa. The reinforcements within the
upper 4.0m will not be accommodated in the design, and the 100 kPa surcharge will now be located
at 6.0m above the bottom of the wall, producing erratically significant effects on the lower
reinforcement layers and possibly the wall foundation. Similarly, if the lower portion of the wall is
to be excluded from the design/analyses of the reinforced earth wall, the geometry of the bottom
wall shall also remain the same. For instance, replacing the bottom wall by a horizontal ground
results in less conservative, maybe risky and erratic design.
A successful equivalency can be accomplished by transforming the reinforced soil mass into an
equivalent cohesive soil mass in the manner described earlier (cohesion is based on the predicted
reinforcement’s mobilized tensile forces). The next section of the paper demonstrates the use of
these transitions for optimizing the distributions of reinforcements. The results of transformed
sections will be compared with actual designs for validation of results.

APPLICATION EXAMPLES
Two cases (design examples) will be analyzed using the straight-forward design approach and
the equivalent cohesion and transition method. The analyses/design will be performed using the
computer program GGU-stability developed by CIVILSERVE software (GGU GmbH). This
software utilizes the limit equilibrium analyses method to check stability and design reinforced soil
walls and reinforced soil slopes. The software allows for using different sets of factors for the
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8504

reinforced soil system elements to comply with different standards (DIN, U.S., BS and others). For
analyses performed according to the DIN standard, the results are displayed in the form of utilization
factors (which should not exceed 1.0), or according to the BS and U.S. where the results are
displayed in the form of factors of safety (FS, which should not be less than 1.30). In this paper,
only the DIN 4084 will be utilized for illustration purposes.
Using this computer program, two design problems are presented; the first being a design that is
safe and the second being a risky design (critical design according to the DIN). The analyses are
performed using the Bishop Circular slip surfaces with tensile elements (20). The analyses cover
both internal stability and deep (global) stability. The computer program also calculates the
mobilized reinforcement forces and compares them to the long-term tensile strengths of geogrids. It
should be emphasized, however, that these examples are presented for comparisons between the
straight-forward design and the transition with equivalent cohesive layers.

Table 2: Summary of design utilization factors for all design cases.

Example No Wall height
Case Shape DIN4084
(m)
Example-1
10.0m wall with 12kPa
(Relaxed Design) surcharge: Uniform 0.80
10.0
Reinforced

reinforcement (Fig. 4)
length =7.0m

10.0m wall with 12kPa

surcharge: Reinforcement 0.90
Reinforced
3.0m
length =7.0m (lower 7m), (Fig. 5)
=2.5m (upper 3.0)

Reinforced
3.0m high reinforced wall
Equivalent
overlying cohesive segments 1 0.79
3.0m
and 2: Uniform reinforcement Equivalent
(Fig. 6)
length =7.0m

Reinforced
3.0m wall overlying cohesive
Equivalent
segments 1 and 2 (Static): 0.91
3.0m
Uniform reinforcement Equivalent
(Fig. 7)
length =2.5m

Example-2
10.0m wall with 12kPa
(Critical Design) Reinforced
1.0
surcharge, variable 10.0
(Fig. 8)
reinforcement lengths

Reinforced

3.0m wall overlying cohesive Equivalent

0.99
3.0m
segments 1, 2 and 3 (Fig. 9)
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8505

Example Case (Safe Design Comparison):

A 10-meter height reinforced earth wall is needed to be designed with 1:10 face inclination. The
material properties for reinforced fill, retained mass and the foundation soils are as follow:
- Reinforced Fill:
Unit weight = 20 kN/m3
Angle of internal friction, φR=34o
Cohesion, C = 0.0 kPa
- Retained soil and foundation Soil:
Unit weight = 20 kN/m3
Angle of internal friction, φ=32o
Cohesion, C = 10.0 kPa
- Horizontal backfill.
- No water table within the depth of influence.
- Traffic surcharge, q = 12 kPa.
- Seismicity; horizontal and vertical (kh =0.15g; and kv=0.05g, respectively).
- The design should leave a space for installation/placement of future utilities that can be
located not closer than 3.0m from the wall within a depth not exceeding 2.5m beneath
the upper finished grade of the wall.

Design/Analysis:
The design/analyses are performed using the GGU computer program for reinforced soil walls
and reinforced soil slopes. The design was performed according to the new DIN 4084 standard. An
initial design was performed with two cases of reinforcement lengths: (1) uniform length equal to
7.0m, which corresponds to 70% of the wall height and (2) 2.5m long reinforcements within the
upper 3.0m and 7.0m long reinforcements for remaining depth. All reinforcement layers were
vertically placed at 40-cm spacing. The short-term and long-term tensile strengths of the
reinforcement are as follow:
Layers Short-term Strength Long-term, Design Strength (kN/m)
No (kN/m)
1-7 80.0 33.3
8-25 55.0 22.9
For each design, numerous slip surfaces were created using a predefined search grid as shown in
Figure 3. For this design, the resulting maximum utilization factors are summarized in the first two
rows of Table 2, and the graphical results in the form of contours of the utilization factors for this
case are presented in Figures 4 and 5.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8506

Figure 3: Demonstration of analyses: Generation of utilization contours and most critical

surface.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8507

Figure 4: Stability results (10-m tall reinforced earth, wall with uniform reinforcement
lengths and spacing=40cm): Example 1.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8508

Figure 5: Stability results for the 10-m tall reinforced earth wall with 7.0m and 2.5m
reinforcement lengths (Spacing =40cm): Example 1.

The equivalent (transformed) cohesive systems for the lower portion of the wall (from 0.0 to
7.0m from the bottom) were then generated utilizing the long-term design strengths and actual
reinforcements’ distributions. The transformed sections consisted of 3.0m high reinforced earth wall
with 7.0-long and 2.5m long geogrids underlain by two equivalent cohesive segments created based
on the variable strength orders, as follow:
- Segment-1 (Bottom 2.8m of wall; from 0.0 to 2.8m):
Ceq1 = (7layers x 33.3kN/m)/2.8m= 83.25 kPa.
- Segment-2 (next 4.0m of wall; from 2.8 to 6.8 m):
Ceq2 = (10layers x 22.9kN/m)/4.0m = 57.25 kPa.
It should be emphasized that the long-term design forces are not necessarily the actual forces to
be mobilized especially at shallow depths. However, for segments 1 and 2, the long-term tensile
forces can be actually mobilized considering their embedment depths. For both segments, the angle
of internal friction was reduced in compliance with the correction in Eq. (8). The corrected angle of
internal friction was calculated to be 28.35o.
The GGU-stability results for the transformed sections are depicted in Figures 6 and 7 and the
maximum utilization factors are reported in Table 2. By examining the values of maximum
utilization factors and the graphical results of the original sections and the transformed sections, the
following remarks can be made:
- The maximum utilization factors of the transformed sections are approximately the
same as those for the original (entirely reinforced) sections. The differences in these
factors are less than 1%.
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8509

- There is a very good resemblance between the utilization contour maps for the original
and the transformed sections.
- The locations of the most critical surfaces (center and radius) for the transformed
sections are in close proximity to those of the original sections.

Example Case (Critical Design Comparison):

For the same geometry, loads and conditions given in the previous example, a critical design
was also performed with the following reinforcement pattern:
- Reinforcement spacing is uniform at 60-cm.
- Reinforcements lengths and long-term factored (design) strengths are as follow:

Short-term Strength Length (m) TD

Zone Layers No
(kN/m) DIN 4084
1 1-5 110.0 4.0 45.8
2 6-10 80.0 7.0 33.3
3 11-12 55.0 7.0 22.9
4 13-17 55.0 2.5 22.9
The first design was performed with all layers shown above and a second design was performed
with the equivalent cohesive mass for zone 4 and all remaining reinforcements. The results of the
two designs are depicted in Figures 8 and 9 and the resulting maximum utilization factors are
summarized in Table 2. The results also reveal that the maximum utilization factors are
approximately the same. Additional research is being performed to expand the use of the equivalent
cohesion concept to directly relate it to the geogrid-soil interface interaction and the coherent
gravity concept with tributary areas (Eqns. 3 and 5). This will be extremely important for shallow
depths at which the maximum mobilized tensile forces may be significantly less than the long-term
design strength of the geogrid, which may lead to misleading equivalent cohesion values. The
investigation also aims at verifying the method for analysis/design under seismic conditions.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The use of the “Equivalent Cohesion” concept for reinforced soil walls was demonstrated and
verified. The equivalent cohesive masses were produced based on the mobilized tensile forces of the
geogrid (not exceeding the long-term tensile strength), the reinforcement spacing and depth. The
equivalent cohesive masses are anticipated to enable the design of walls with shorter reinforcements
to avoid the design code limitations as well as the limitations of some of the computer programs.
Along with the equivalent cohesive mass, the transition of limiting equilibrium state (critical
surfaces) were also described from the perspective of the German Standard. Two cases were
analyzed with two equilibrium conditions (adequately designed and critically designed systems).
The results of fully reinforced masses were compared to partly reinforced masses with equivalent
cohesive masses (transformed systems). The results revealed the adequacy of the apparent cohesive
systems with less than 1.0% tolerance. However, this concept may only be implemented for cases
where shorter reinforcements are needed. It is still being expanded to provide a handy and effective
way for analyses/design for variety of conditions.
The German standard norm (new DIN 4084) was also briefly described and utilized in the
analyses of the presented cases. The reason being that it is based on the limit equilibrium based on
 Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8510

the formulation by Bishop and other limit equilibrium analyses methods. This standard, as such,
does not specify a predetermined critical plain (active wedge), and the critical plain or surface is
merely dependent on the reinforcements types and layouts. This is believed to result in a less
conservative, yet adequate design.

REFERENCES
1. Vidal, H. The Principle of Reinforced Earth. Transportation Research Record, 282,
1969, 1-16.
2. Walkinshaw, J. L. Reinforced Earth Coonstruction. Department of Transportation
FHWA Region 15. Demonstration Project No. 18, 1975.
3. Murray, R. T. Research at TRRL to Develop Design Criteria for Reinforced Earth.
Symp. Reinforced Earth and other Composite Soil Techniques. Heriot-Watt
University, TRRL Sup. 457, 1977.
4. Schlosser, F.M. Experience on Reinforced Earth in France. Symp. Reinforced Earth
and other Composite Soil Techniques, Heriot-Watt University, TRRL Sup. 457,
1972.
5. Mitchell, J.K., and Villet, W.C.B. Reinforcement of Earth Slopes and Embankments.
NCHRP Report No. 290, Transportation Research Board, Washington D. C., 1987,
pp.323.
6. Leshchinsky, D., and Perry, E.B. A design procedure for geotextile-reinforced walls.
Proceeding of Geosynthetics’87, New Orleans, LA, 1987.
7. Jewel, R.A. Reinforced soil wall analysis and design. Proceedings of the NATO
Advanced Research Workshop on Application of Polymer Reinforcement in Soil
Retaining Structures, 1990.
8. Bonaparte, R., and Schmertmann, G. Reinforcement extensibility in reinforced soil
and soil wall design. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on
Application of Polymer Reinforcement in Soil Retaining Structures, 1988.
9. Gourc, J.P, Ratel, A., Gotteland Ph. Design of reinforced soil retaining walls:
analysis and comparison of existing design methods and proposal for a new
approach. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Application
of Polymer Reinforcement in Soil Retaining Structures, 1990.
10. Christopher, B.R. Deformation response and wall stiffness in relation to reinforced
soil wall design. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1993.
11. Elias, V., and Christopher, B. R. Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced
soil slopes design and construction guidelines. Report No. FHWA-NHI-00-043,
FHWA, Washington, D.C. March 2001.
12. Ilan Juran and Chao L. Chen, Strain Compatibility Design Method for Reinforced
Earth Walls
13. J. Geotech. Engrg., 1989, 115, 435.
14. Ilan Juran, Halis M. Ider, and K. Farrag, Strain Compatibility Analysis for
Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil Walls,J. Geotech. Engrg., 1990, 116, 312.
Vol. 19 [2014], Bund. Y 8511

15. Mauricio Ehrlich and James K. Mitchell. Working Stress Design Method for
Reinforced Soil Walls, J. Geotech. Engrg., 1994, 120, 625.
16. William J. Neely, Working Stress Design Method for Reinforced Soil Walls, J.
Geotech. Engrg., 1995, 121, 818.
17. B. R. Christopher, D. Leshchinsky, and R. Stulgis. Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil
Walls and Slopes: US Perspective, International Perspectives on Soil Reinforcement
Applications, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 141, 2005, 167, 12.
18. Almoh’d, I.A. A new method for the design and analysis of reinforced earth walls. A
PhD thesis submitted to the University of Akron, Ohio, 2003.
19. Schlosser, F. M. Mechanically stabilized retaining structures in Europe- Design and
Performance of Earth retaining Structure. Edited by Philip C. Lambe and Lawrence
A. Hansen, New York, 1990.
20. Jewel, R.A. Reinforced soil wall analysis and design. Proceedings of the NATO
Advanced research Workshop on Application of Polymer Reinforcement in Soil
retaining Structures, 1985.
21. Bishop, A.W. 1954. The use of the slip circle in the analysis of slopes. Proc.
European conf. on stability of earth slopes. Vol. 1, Stockholm.
22. Krey, H.D. 1926. Active earth pressure, passive earth pressure and load bearing
capacity of the subsoil. 3rd ed, Published by W. Ernstund Sohn, Berlin.
23. Janbu. 1955. Application of Composite slip surfaces for stability analysis. Proc.
European conf., Stockholm, Vol. 3, 43.

© 2014 ejge
Figure 6: Stability results for the equivalent system consisting of 3.0m tall reinforced earth
wall with 7.0m long reinforcement lengths and equivalent cohesive layers (Spacing=40cm):
Example 1.
Figure 7: Stability results for the equivalent system consisting of 3.0m tall reinforced earth
wall with 2.5m long reinforcement lengths and equivalent cohesive layers (Spacing =40
View publication stats