- 14 -

9. S&P Slope geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes

9.1 Introduction
Soil is an abundant construction material that, similar to concrete, has high compressive
strength but virtually no tensile strength. To overcome his weakness soil may be reinforced,
similar as this is done for concrete. The materials typically used to reinforce soil are relatively
light and flexible, although they are extensible they possess a high tensile strength. Exam-
ples of such material include thin steel strips and polymeric material commonly known as
geosynthetics (i.e. geotextiles and geogrids). The S&P high performance mesh, which is
used as tension element in S&P Slope, is a polymeric mesh with a tensile strength of
50 kN/m. The mesh disposes of a very good adhesion at nodes, which allows the load trans-
fer into the S&P mesh. When soil and reinforcement are combined, a composite material
processing high compressive and tensile strength is produced. In principle, this so-called re-
inforced soil is similar to reinforced concrete.
The increase in strength of the reinforced earth structure allows for the construction of steep
slopes. Compared with all other alternatives, geosynthetic reinforced soil slopes are cost-
saving. Consequently, more and more geosynthetic reinforced earth structures are being
constructed worldwide.
This document describes a design process for geosynthetic reinforced S&P Slopes. To facili-
tate the design, the stability analyses are performed with the computer program ReSlope,
this user-friendly programme was specifically compiled for the design of steep slopes. It in-
cludes user-specified reduction and safety factors, ultimate strength of geosynthetics, soil
cohesion, approximate porewater pressure as determined from a piezometric line or porewa-
ter coefficient, external load and seismicity. Depending on the hydrological conditions behind
the reinforced S&P Slope a drainage system may be necessary. This case is not treated in
this document.
The S&P design department uses the computer program ReSlope to optimally design your
geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes for your specific input parameters, and provides the
statics as well as the necessary submission documents.

Figure 1: The S&P Slope system

- 15 -
9.2 Analysis
9.2.1 General
Limit equilibrium is usually used for the design of earth slopes, i.e. the equilibrium is calcu-
lated along assumed slip surfaces. This approved method requires relatively little input data,
and the results may easily be checked for reasonableness. The main drawback of limit equi-
librium analysis is its inability to deal directly with displacements. Adequate selection of prop-
erties of material and factors of safety should assure acceptable displacements, including a
safe level of reinforcement deformation.
The same method is applied for the design of S&P Slope with the computer program
ReSlope. In principle, inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement in limit equilibrium analysis is a
straightforward process; the tensile force in the S&P high performance mesh 50 kN (PES) is
included directly in the limit equilibrium equations to asses its effects on stability. The inclina-
tion of this tensile force must be assumed: physically, the angle may vary between the as in-
stalled (typically horizontal) and tangent to the potential slip surface. Leshchinsky and Boe-
deker (1989) and Wright and Duncan (1991) have demonstrated that for cohesionless back-
fill, this inclination has little effects on both the required strength and the layout of reinforce-
ment. They have shown that for cohesionless soil, horizontal tensile force yields slightly con-
servative results with respect to the required strength of the geosynthetics. Conversely,
Leshchinsky (1992) pointed out that for problems such as reinforced embankments over soft
soil (
u
=0; c
u
), the inclination of the reinforcing geosynthetic, located at the foundation and
backfill interface, plays a significant role. Since in man-made reinforced slopes the long-term
value of cohesion used in design is typically small, inclination has little effects and therefore,
it may be assumed horizontal without being overly conservative.
Design of S&P Slope with the computer program ReSlope has to guarantee the internal and
the overall stability. The internal stability estimates the required reinforcement tensile resis-
tance of each layer via a tieback analysis. The designer can then verify whether an individual
layer is overstressed or understressed. Overall stability of the slope is assessed through ro-
tational and translational mechanisms. In the rotational mechanism (termed here as com-
pound failure), slip surfaces extending between the slope face and the retained soil are ex-
amined.

9.2.2 Tieback analysis
Tieback analysis, i.e. internal stability analysis, is used to determine the required tensile re-
sistance of each layer needed to assure a reinforced mass that is safe against internal col-
lapse due to its own weight and surcharge loading. This analysis is equivalent to identifying
the tensile force needed to resist the active lateral earth pressure at the face of the steep
slope. The reinforcement tensile force capacity is made possible through a tieback mecha-
nism in which sufficient anchorage of each layer into the stable soil zone is provided. At its
front end, the S&P high performance mesh 50 kN (PES) can develop tensile force only if
some type of facing or a trace of cohesion exists. For the S&P Slope the facing is realized as
wire basket lined with the S&P erosion mesh 120 kN or a jute-coping. This guarantees
growth of a root mat and cohesion of the slope face.


- 16 -
Figure 2: Notations in ReSlope


Figure 2 shows the notation and convention used in ReSlope. Reinforcement consists of
primary and secondary layers, however, ReSlope only considers the primary layers. Secon-
dary layers allow for better compaction near the face of the steep slope, and thus reduce the
potential for sloughing. The secondary layers are narrow (typically 1 m wide) and are in-
stalled only if the primary layers are spaced far apart (more than about 0.6 m). To stabilize
the slope face of the S&P Slope, the S&P high performance mesh 50 kN (PES) is connected
to wire baskets. If some cohesion exists and the slope is not as steep (e.g. less than 45 de-
grees), the layers may simply terminate at the slope face (Figure 2). Surcharge loading along
the top of the slope may assume three different values (area A, B, crest). The phreatic sur-
face is defined by a total of four nodes, starting at the origin of the coordinate system (i.e. the
toe of the slope) and extending into the slope. Each of the soils (i.e. reinforced soil, backfill or
retained soil and foundation soil) may possess different material properties.
Steep slopes of granular materials with an inclination steeper than its angle of repose
d
are
considered as unstable. In steep reinforced slopes the force in each reinforcement layer is
activated by an unstable soil mass. That is, the reactive force in each reinforcement layer
has to restore a limit equilibrium state. These unstable layers are bounded by log spiral fail-
ure surfaces. For these failure surfaces the moment equilibrium equation about the pole can
be written explicitly.
Seismic activity is considered through a pseudo-static approach introducing the coefficients
K
h
and K
v
. The horizontal coefficient K
h
defines the horizontal seismic ground acceleration
as fraction of the gravitational force g, acting on the weight of the soil and the surcharge load.
The vertical coefficient K
h
considers the increase or decrease of all loads including the
porewater pressure.


- 17 -
Figure 3: Transfer of tensile reaction into soil adjacent to active zone


This computation assumes that no sliding is possible at the front of the slope, i.e. ReSlope
does not include the aspect of local instabilities. Secondary reinforcement layers that are 1 m
wide and spaced approximately 30 cm to the primary layers, wrap-around of the S&P high
performance mesh 50 kN (PES) at the slope surface or a cover of the slope surface with the
S&P erosion mesh increase the surfacial stability.

9.2.3 Compound stability assessment

For a given geometry and material properties, the tieback analysis provide the minimum re-
quired tensile resistance at the level of each reinforcement layer to insure an internally stable
structure. It also yields the trace of the outermost log spiral surface defining the active soil
zone.
In reinforced wall structures, the capacity of the reinforcement to develop the required tensile
resistance depends also on its pullout resistance; i.e. the material quality and the length an-
chored into the stable soil zone. Potential slip surfaces that are deeper into the soil mass
than the outermost log spiral (outside or within the effective anchorage length) will never be
critical. However, such surfaces will reduce the pullout resistance capacity and may produce
an unstable system. To determine the required reinforcement length, ReSlope uses a con-
ventional slope stability analysis according to Bishop. This method prevents the formation of
critical slip surfaces and reduces the probability of compound failure to a minimum.

- 18 -
9.2.4 Direct sliding analysis

Specifying reinforcement layout that satisfies a prescribed Fs against rotational failure does
not assure sufficient resistance against direct sliding of the reinforced mass along its inter-
face with the foundation soil or along any reinforcement layer. The length L
ds
required to
yield stable mass is determined from a limit equilibrium analysis that satisfies force equilib-
rium, i.e. the two-part wedge method.
Figure 4: Two-part wedge mechanism
Q1
Q2
Q3
foundati on soi I
L
ds
backfi I I
soi I
rei nforced soi I
wedge B
wedge A


Seismicity is incorporated through a pseudo-static approach. This method may produce un-
realistically large reinforced blocks B. ReSlope allows to eliminate inertia from wedge B,
analogous to the Mononobe-Okabe model used in analysis of gravity walls. Resistance
against direct sliding is calculated with reduced shear strength parameters of the soils, i.e.

d
und c
d
. Introduction of the factor of safety against direct sliding Fs-ds introduces a sec-
ond safety. Its specified value could range between 1.0 and 1.3.


9.3 Design considerations

The analyses in ReSlope are all based on a limiting equilibrium state. Such an analysis as-
sumes that the S&P high performance mesh 50 kN (PES) and the soil will contribute their full
design strength simultaneously after some deformation. Therefore, the following points
should be considered:


9.3.1 Shear strength and factor of safety

To activate the system some deformation takes place, consequently, for soils the residual
strength and c should be specified. If the residual strength is not known, then the labora-
tory values, which often correspond to peak strength values, should be reduced by the factor
Fs =1.3:

d
=arctan (tan
max
/ Fs) and c
d
=c
max

For soils with approximately identical peak and residual strength, a factor of safety Fs =1.0
can then be used.
- 19 -
9.3.2 Cohesion
Cohesion has significant effects on stability, and thus the required slope stability. In nature,
cohesion in man-made embankments tends to drop and nearly diminishes with time. For
permanent embankments it is therefore recommended to limit the design value of cohesion
to c
d
5 kN/m
2
or to ignore it completely.

9.3.3 Reduction and safety factors related to the S&P high performance mesh

As the installed geosynthetic does not everywhere reach the design strength simultaneously
(interaction with the soil, deformation), some overstressing of the reinforcement should be
possible without breakage. For this case, ReSlope uses a general factor of safety Fsu, typi-
cal values range from 1.3 to 1.5. Additional reduction factors should be applied for an ade-
quate ultimate strength of the geosynthetic. These may me chosen as follows
1
:

material installation damage
RF
id

durability
RF
d

creep
RF
c

S&P high performance
mesh 50 kN (PES), black
1.1 to 1.4 1.0 to 1.2 1.5 to 1.7

technical data S&P high performance mesh 50 kN (PES), black
tensile strength longitudinal/transverse 2 % elongation 10 kN/m
5 % elongation 17 kN/m
10 % elongation 40 kN/m
resistance to tearing t
B
>50 kN/m

For normal conditions (i.e. pH 4-9, not cement stabilized, not aggressive, not salt affected, no
peat, no acid sulfate soil, no calcareous soil) and well-controlled construction the following
values can be used
2
:

material installation damage
RF
id

durability
RF
d

creep
RF
c

1.05 to 3.0 1.05 to 1.5 1.5 to 3.0

When actual test documentation is not available, the following conservative values are rec-
ommended
3
:

3.0 5.0 2.6

The following provisions apply to these default values:
A creep default value RF
c
may be used only for preliminary design, actual test data is
required for final design.

1
Elias und Christopher, 1997
2
Leshchinsky
3
Berg, 1992
- 20 -
Durability default value RF
d
should not be used for these soils:
- acid sulphate soil
- organic soil
- salt affected soil
- ferruginous soil
- calcareous soil
- cement or lime stabilized soils

The above mentioned factors allow to determine the resistance to tearing as follows:
t
B
=t
required
Fsu RF
id
RF
c
RF
d


Resistance to tearing of the S&P high performance mesh 50 kN (PES) was determined for a
wide-width tensile test. Some designers concerned with performance prefer to use the
strength at 5% elongation strength t
5%
. In this case, the factor of safety for uncertainties Fsu
can be reduced to 1.1 1.3 since the actual strength is significantly larger. The deformation
of steep slopes is less critical than that of retaining walls and therefore, the use of t
5%
is un-
necessary for most practical purposes.

If seismicity is considered in the design, the reduction factor for creep at the seismic event
can be set to RF
C
=1. For control, ReSlope should be run again without seismicity but fully
specified creep reduction factor. The larger strength value from static and seismic runs
should be specified.

9.3.4 Other specified safety factors

ReSlope uses additional safety factors, as specified in the following:

Fs-ds Factor of safety against direct sliding. A similar factor is used for the analysis of re-
taining walls.
It is recommended to use Fs-ds =1.2 if the soil safety factor Fs is 1.3 or less. For
large specified values of Fs (i.e. values rendering shear strength less than the resid-
ual strength) the value for Fs-ds may range from 1.0 to 1.3.
C
ds
Coefficient for direct sliding.
There are two direct sliding coefficients. The first signifies the ratio of shear strength
of the interface between the reinforcement and reinforced soil and the shear strength
of the reinforced soil alone. The second coefficient signifies a similar ratio but with re-
spect to the strength of the foundation soil. To avoid the dilemma of the development
of progressive failure, it is recommended to use the residual strength values for both
interface strength and soil strength to calculate the ratio C
ds
.
Recommendation: C
ds
=0.5 to 1.0, depending on the type of soil and reinforcement
C
ds
=0.8 for granular soils and common geosynthetics
In many cases the required length of the bottom layer (L
B
in Figure 5) may increase
significantly as C
ds
decreases below 0.8.

- 21 -
Figure 5: Reinforcement length specified by ReSlope
L
T
foundati on soi I
pri mary rei nforcement,
speci fi ed by ReSI ope
secondary rei nforcement,
speci fi ed by user, as
needed
L
B


Options:
(1) L =L
B
=L
T
longest length required for tieback analysis, compound failure
analysis, and direct sliding analysis

(2) L
B
=L in (1)
L
T
longest length required for tieback analysis and compound failure
analysis

FS-po Factor of safety against pullout.
This factor should multiply the calculated required allowable tensile force of each rein-
forcement layer. Anchorage length is then calculated for the increased tensile force.

Recommendation: FS-po =1.5; under seismic conditions FS-po =1.8
C
i
The interaction coefficient relates the strength of the interface between the reinforce-
ment and soil to the shear strength of reinforced soil or foundation soil. The required
anchorage length is calculated based on C
i
. The value is normally determined from a
pullout test
4
.
Recommendation: C
i
= 0.5 to 1.0 depending on the type of soil and reinforcement
C
i
= 0.7 for granular soils and the S&P high performance mesh
50 kN (PES)
It should be considered that for reasonably spaced (i.e. vertical spacing of 0.3 to
0.6 m) continuous reinforcing sheets, the anchorage length is in general quite small
relative to the final layout. A parametric study using ReSlope allows to verify easily
whether a sophisticated procedure to determine accurately the value of C
i
is indeed
worthwhile.


4
for test details refer to Koerner (1998) or Elias and Christopher (1997)
- 22 -
9.3.5 Specified layout of reinforcement
Two practicable options for specifying reinforcement length are available in ReSlope (see
Figure 5). The first option simplifies construction by specifying all layers to have a uniform
length. This length is selected as the longest value obtained from the tieback analysis, the
compound failure analysis, or the direct sliding analysis.
The second option is to specify L
B
and L
T
at the bottom and top, respectively, where L
B
is the
longest length from all analyses and L
T
the longest length obtained from compound and tie-
back analyses. Length of layers in between is linearly interpolated. This specification is more
economical; however, it may result in misplaced layers at the construction site. ReSlope al-
lows the designer to select uniform (option 1) or nonuniform (option 2) lengths.
Figure 5 shows primary and secondary reinforcing layers. ReSlope only considers primary
layers. However, layers spaced too far apart may promote localized instability along the
slope face. Therefore, secondary reinforcement layers should be used. Their width should
extend at least one meter back into the fill and, for practical purposes, their strength may be
the same as the adjacent primary reinforcement. The vertical spacing of a secondary rein-
forcement layer from either another secondary layer or from a primary one should be limited
to 30 cm. Secondary reinforcement provides the necessary local stability at the slope face.
Furthermore, it allows for better compaction of the soil at the face of the steep slope. This, in
turn, increases the sloughing resistance and prevents surficial failures. If wrap-around is
specified, secondary reinforcement can be used to wrap the slope face as well. In this case,
it should be backfolded at least one meter back into the soil, similar to the wrapping of pri-
mary reinforcement.


9.3.6 Erosion control

Steep slopes are especially vulnerable to erosion damage. The most common method to re-
duce erosion due to surface water runoff is through use of vegetation. Establishment and
maintenance of vegetative cover over steep slopes can be difficult (Berg 1992). For example,
the steep grades limit the amount of water absorbed by the soil before runoff occurs. Estab-
lished vegetation must be maintained over the entire slope throughout time. The S&P erosion
mesh 120 kN effectively controls erosion at the slope face. The S&P erosion mesh 120 kN
accomplishes three functions:

1. Protection of the bare soil face against erosion until vegetation is established.
2. Reduction of runoff velocity for increased water absorption by the soil, thus promoting
long-term survival of the vegetative cover.
3. Reinforcement of the root system of the vegetative cover.

Maintenance of vegetation (e.g. re-seeding, mowing, etc.) may be required and therefore
should be considered in design when specifying the slope angle.
For slopes inclined less than 45 degrees, low height slopes, and/or moderate runoff, a per-
manent S&P erosion mesh 120 kN may not be required (Berg, 1992). A degradable erosion
blanket (jute or coco blanket) may be specified to promote growth until the vegetative cover
is firmly established. Such a blanket will typically lose its integrity after about one year.
- 23 -

Figure 6: Erosion control blanket/mesh embedded at upstream and downstream ends



S&P provides detailed installation guidelines for your erosion blankets and meshes. As a
rule, blankets/meshes should be placed over a smooth and compacted grade that is covered
by a few inches of topsoil. Anchor trenches should secure the blanket/mesh at the upstream
and downstream ends; these trenches should be at least 0.30 m deep and 0.30 m wide (Fig-
ure 6). S&P rock clamps or bolts can be used to fasten the blanket/mesh to the surface. If the
slope is longer than approximately 10 m, the blanket/mesh should be secured at intermittent
intervals. In this case the blanket/mesh is fixed at a distance of 10 meters in 0.30 m deep
and 0.30 m wide anchor trenches (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Erosion control blanket/mesh secured at intermittent intervals.


S&P rock clamp / S&P rock bolt
S&P rock clamp / S&P rock bolt
- 24 -
9.3.7 Tension cracks

When cohesive soil is used for steep slopes (e.g. leeves), tension cracks (or shrinking
cracks) are likely to develop at the crest. This risk increases when the soil is compacted
above its optimal moisture content, as is the typical case in levee construction.
Using Mohr-Coulombs failure criterion, it can be shown for =0 that the depth Z
c
to which
tensile normal stresses extend, approximately equals 2c/ where c =cohesion and =moist
unit weight of soil.
Several techniques can be used to reduce the possibility of a tensile crack development.
Placing a granular soil cover of thickness Z
c
over the crest will provide sufficient overburden
pressure to eliminate tensile stresses within the clayey soil. In the stability analysis and the
design, the granular cover should be considered as a surcharge load Q=Z
c
. A more practi-
cal solution would be to install geogrid layers, spaced at 0.15 m intervals, within the tensile
stress zone Z
c
. These grid layers should be placed along the entire crest width. The mini-
mum allowable strength of these grids should exceed t
allowable
>cZ
c
/n, where n =number
of grid layers within Z
c
. If this strength is less than that required for the primary reinforcement
layers, it will be less confusing at the construction site to use the same S&P high perform-
ance mesh 50 kN (PES) as the primary layers. The end result will be tension cracks with
negligible depth.


9.3.8 Slope repair

Reinforced soil can be used effectively to repair failed slopes. Because only a minimal cut
into the undamaged slope is conducted costs are low. The collapsed material is removed
and then a minimal cut into the undamaged slope is conducted. Such a process implies that
the length of bottom reinforcement layers is restricted.

Figure 8: Slope repair using reinforced soil.

- 25 -
To make use of ReSlope for restricted reinforcement length, the following procedure should
be applied:

a) Specify reinforcement layers at lower elevations (see Figure 9). Run ReSlope and verify
that the calculated length is adequate. If length is too long, lower the elevation of specified
reinforcement. Conversely, if unacceptably short, run with higher specified elevations.
b) Second run for a slope H1 high (see Figure 9). In this run, the reinforcement required to
assure stability above point A (Figure 9) will be determined.
c) Specify the final optimized layout based on maximum required lengths as obtained from a
and b.

Figure 9: Procedure for running ReSlope when length of reinforcement is restricted.


This procedure utilizes only the lower layers to stabilize the full height of the slope. The lay-
ers above A provide just local stability to the upper portion of the slope. The end result is
shorter reinforcement length. The trade-off is higher required strength of bottom layers.


9.4 Conclusions

The computer program ReSlope enables a professional and economic design and evaluation
of the geosynthetic reinforced steep S&P Slope. The analyses involved in the design process
are based on limit equilibrium. These analyses lead to the design of reinforced soil structures
that are internally and externally stable. For practical application of these analyses, the com-
puter program ReSlope was developed. This program allows the user to optimize the layout
of the reinforcement layers by accounting for elements such as user-specified reduction and
safety factors, selected ultimate strength of geosynthetic, cohesive soil, porewater pressure,
external loads and seismicity.

This document describes the analyses conducted by ReSlope. In addition, the document
also provides recommendations regarding the selection of soil shear strength parameters
and safety factors. Because reinforced slopes consist of materials possessing different prop-
erties (i.e. soil and polymeric materials), it is recommended that the soil shear strength pa-
rameters should correspond to residual strength. In addition, it is recommended to limit the
value of cohesion used in the design of reinforced slopes.
- 26 -

This document presents briefly the design aspects related to erosion control of steep slopes.
Furthermore, a schematic procedure for the construction of reinforced steep slopes is illus-
trated. Finally, tips regarding arrest of tension cracks and an economical procedure for re-
pairing a failed slope are given.

The computer program ReSlope together combined with this document produces an efficient
design tool for the steep S&P Slope reinforced with geosynthetic layers. Only qualified S&P
engineers who are familiar with slope stability analysis and soil reinforcing, use this tool. The
S&P design department provides the statics as well as the necessary submission docu-
ments.


9.4.1 Design example

A design example should show the possibilities of the computer program ReSlope. In this
example, the optimized length and distance of reinforcement layers is calculated by the pro-
gram. Uniform length is assumed for the reinforcement layers.

geometry and surcharge loading
height of slope H =3 m
slope angle i =60
horizontal crest length A =2 m
horizontal crest length B =1 m
slope at bottom of wall =10
backslope angle =30

surcharge load Q1 =20 kN/m
2
surcharge load Q2 =0 kN/m
2
surcharge load Q3 =0 kN/m
2

coordinates of phreatic surface (PS):
Xw1 =0 m Yw1 =0 m
Xw2 =5 m Yw2 =0 m
Xw3 =8 m Yw3 =0 m
Xw4 =10 m Yw4 =0 m
- 27 -

Figure 10: Geometry and surcharge loading
Q1
Q2
Q3
A B
foundati on soi I
rei nforced soi I
=
H
>
backfi I I soi I
(naturaI or embankment) i
(xw1 , yw1 ) (xw2 , yw2) (xw3 , yw3) (xw4 , yw4)
PS


soil data
reinforced soil: internal angle of friction =33
cohesion c =0 kN/m
2

unit weight =21 kN/m
3
backfill soil: internal angle of friction =33
cohesion c =0 kN/m
2

unit weight =21 kN/m
3
foundation soil: internal angle of friction =33
cohesion c =0 kN/m
2

unit weight =21 kN/m
3
design parameters
inclination of interwedge force resultant =20
pullout interaction coefficient (reinforced soil) Ci =0.9
pullout interaction coefficient (foundation soil) Ci =0.9
direct sliding coefficient (reinforced soil) Cds =0.8
direct sliding coefficient (foundation soil) Cds =0.8
reinforcement: uniform length of all layers

seismic parameters
horizontal seismic coefficient kh =0
vertical seismic coefficient kv =0
foundation effects
slip surface in tieback and compound analyses may penetrate the foundation soil
maximum allowable penetration depth into the foundation (Bishops stability analysis):
12 m
- 28 -

geosynthetic design parameters
reduction factor for installation damage RFid =1.2
reduction factor for durability RFd =1.1
reduction factor for creep RFc =2.5
coverage ratio Rc =1.0
inclination
prescribed relative orientation of reinforcement ROR =0
general factors of safety
factor of safety on soil shear strength FS =1.3
factor of safety on geosynthetic strength FS =1.3
factor of safety for geosynthetic pullout FS =1.5
factor of safety to resist direct sliding FS =1.1
geosynthetic design data
ultimate strength of geosynthetic =50 kN/m
maximum allowable geosynthetic spacing =0.6 m
minimum allowable geosynthetic spacing =0.3 m
height of bottom geosynthetic layer =0 m

Figure 11: Results of tieback, compound, direct sliding and deepseated analyses for optimized
reinforcement elevation


- 29 -

Table 1: Summary of tieback and compound results. Reinforcement layers numbered from the
bottom, elevation above foundation, length of reinforcement layers, failure mode: compound or
tieback, required strength Tr, minimum required ultimate strength T-ult-min, specified ultimate
strength T-ult, available long-term strength T-ltds, actual factor of safety Fs on geosynthetic
strength.


Table 2: Results of tieback and compound analyses. Reinforcement layers numbered from the
bottom, elevation above foundation, total length L of reinforcement layers, embedded length to
resist pullout, length to slip surface La, compound stability T-compound, tieback T-tieback,
controlling mode of failure.

- 30 -

deepseated ground failure (Bishop): 1.11
The actual safety for deepseated ground failure ac-
cording to Bishop is larger than target Fs
Fs =1.11 >1.1
To meet or exceed the target factor of safety for the
deepseated and direct sliding analysis, length of re-
inforcement was increased (compare length in Ta-
ble 1 and total length L in Table 2, L is based on re-
sults of tieback and compound analyses).

At lower elevation (layers 1-3), the steep slope requires an ultimate strength of 50 kN/m
(Fs=1.3). At higher elevations (layers 4 and 5, Table 2), the ultimate strength is not needed
(Fs>1.3). To simplify construction and as protection to prevent local surficial failures, the
same spacing of reinforcement layers is recommended for the higher and lower reinforce-
ment layers. Spacing between layers is given by the maximal prescribed spacing (0.6 m).
Because of the large spacing between reinforcement layers, local surficial failures are possi-
ble. To prevent damage a secondary reinforcement or an S&P supporting cage could be re-
quired.

reinforcement selection: ultimate strength: S&P high performance mesh 50 kN/m
vertical spacing of reinforcement layers: 0.6 m
length of reinforcement layers: 2.40 m
- 31 -
9.4.2 Required parameters for the static dimensioning
height oI slope
slope angle
horizontal
length A
horizontal
length B
backslope angle

i ||
> ||
A |m| B |m|
H |m|
soil parameters
2
reinIorced soil:
B ||
C |kN/m
3
|
c |kN/m
2
|
soil parameters
2
backIill soil:
B ||
C |kN/m
3
|
c |kN/m
2
|
soil parameters
2
Ioundation soil:
B ||
C |kN/m
3
|
c |kN/m
2
|
= ||
surcharge
1
over A
Q1 |kN/m
2
|
surcharge
1
over B
Q2 |kN/m
2
|
surcharge
1
away Irom backslope
Q3 |kN/m
2
|
design parameters 1: geometry, soil data and surcharge loading
loads: service values
soil parameters: characteristic values
slope at bottom
oI wall
soil parameters in words (z. B. silt, sand, gravel, etc. )
reinIorced soil:
backIill soil:
Ioundation soil:


horizontal seismic coefficient:
horizontal seismic ground acceleration as Iraction oI gravitational acceleration
according to seismic risk zones oI SIA 261 :
Z1 : kh 0. 06
Z2: kh 0. 1
Z3a: kh 0. 1 3
Z3b: kh 0. 1 6
vertical seismic coefficient:
increase/decrease oI all vertical loads
kv ||
design parameters 2: phreatic surface and seismic parameters
PS1 (Iix)
X1 |m| 0
Y2 |m| 0
PS2
X2 |m|
Y2 |m|
PS3
X3 |m|
Y3 |m|
PS4
X4 |m|
Y4 |m|
seismic parameters
kh |-|
x
y
max. Iree phreatic surIace

- 32 -
9.5 References
Berg, R. R. 1992. Guidelines for design, specification, & contracting of geosyn-
thetic mechanically stabilized earth slopes on firm foundations. U.S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA-SA-93-
025, 88 pages.
Elias, V. and Christopher, B. R. 1997. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Steep Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines. FHWA Demon-
stration Project 82. Report No. FHWA-SA-96-071.
Koerner, R. M. 1998. Designing with Geosynthetics. Prentice Hall (4
th
edition).
761 pages.
Leshchinsky, D. 1992. Keynote paper: Issues in geosynthetic-reinforced soil. Pro-
ceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, held in
November 1992 in Kyushu, J apan. Editors: Ochial, Hayashi und Otani. Published
by Balkema, 871-897.
Leshchinsky, D. 1997. Software to Facilitate Design of Geosynthetic-Reinforced
Steep Slopes. Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 15, No. 1, 40-46.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H. I., and Hanks, G. 1995. Unified Design Approach to
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Slopes and Segmental Walls. Geosynthetics Interna-
tional, Vol. 2, No. 5, 845-881.
Leshchinsky, D. and Boedeker, R. H. 1989. Geosynthetic reinforced earth struc-
tures. J ournal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 115(10), 1459-1478.
Tatsuoka, F. and Leshchinsky, D. 1994. Editors: Recent Case Histories of Per-
manent Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls, Proceedings of SEIKEN
Symposium, held in November, 1992, in Tokyo, J apan, published by Balkema,
349 pages.
Wright, S. G. and Duncan, J . M. 1991. Limit equilibrium stability analysis for rein-
forced slopes. Transportation Research Record, 1330, 40-46.
- 36 -
10.2 S&P Slope geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes
R900 S&P Slope geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes

.100 Regulations

.110 SIA-Normen

The SIA-codes apply for construction work;
in particular, the code SIA 118 General
conditions for construction work.


.120 Proof of quality

The execution of construction work may only
be assigned to specialized companies which
dispose of the necessary know-how.


.130 Quality assurance

.131 The system supplier ensures that the
geosynthetic reinforced steep slope satisfies all
necessary proof of safety (structural safety,
dimensioning of traction force in the

geosynthetic reinforcement, slope stability, slid-
ing).
R901 Construction site installations

.100 Delivery and return transport as well as rent
of the necessary machines and equipment for
execution of the construction work.

.101 Execution in 1 stage gl 0.00

.200 Additional fee per stage
Compensation for interruptions due to
construction.
Extent: number of additional installations

.201 Additional installations pcs. 0.00

.300 Standby time
Standby time due to construction

.301 Technician for mesh installation h 0.00
.302 Hydraulic soil construction equipment h 0.00
.303 Compaction equipment h 0.00

R902 Preliminary work

.101 Removal of large rocks and rootstocks, as well-
as clearing and cleaning of the construction
area. m
2
0.00


- 37 -
.102 Protection of neighbor sites, enclosures, trees,
conductors depending on instructions of
construction management.
Extent: on time and material basis

R903 Delivery of the S&P Slope sheeting material
Overlapping of geosynthetics has to be
comprised in the prices per unit.
Extent: laid mesh area

Supplier:
S&P Clever Reinforcement Company AG
Dammstrasse 2, CH-6440 Brunnen
Tel. 041 825 00 70 / Fax. 041 825 00 75

.100 S&P sheeting package crude steel

.101 S&P sheeting package inclination 60
width of slope L =5.00 m
height of slope H =1.00 m
including 15 clamps pcs. 0.00

.102 S&P sheeting package inclination 70
width of slope L =5.00 m
height of slope H =1.00 m
including 15 clamps pcs. 0.00

.200 S&P geosynthetics

.201 S&P high performance mesh 50 kN (PES),
black
aperture width 35 mm
rolls 1.80 m / 3.60 m x 50.00 m m
2
0.00

.202 S&P erosion mesh 120 kN, black
aperture width 20 mm
rolls 1.95 m x 50.00 m m
2
0.00

R904 Installation and cogging work
Cogging of S&P geosynthetics and installation
of the S&P sheeting package during placement
and compaction of embankment material and
including all extra work, necessary machines
equipment depending on regulations of the
system supplier. Overlapping of geosynthetics
has to be comprised in the prices per unit.
Extent: laid mesh area

.100 S&P sheeting package crude steel

.101 S&P sheeting package inclination 60
width of slope L =5.00 m
height of slope H =1.00 m
including 15 clamps pcs. 0.00
- 38 -

.102 S&P sheeting package inclination 70
width of slope L =5.00 m
height of slope H =1.00 m
including 15 clamps pcs. 0.00

.200 S&P sheeting package galvanized steel

.201 S&P sheeting package inclination 60
width of slope L =5.00 m
height of slope H =1.00 m
including 15 clamps pcs. 0.00

.202 S&P sheeting package inclination 70
width of slope L =5.00 m
height of slope H =1.00 m
including 15 clamps pcs. 0.00

.200 S&P geosynthetics

.201 S&P high performance mesh 50 kN (PES),
black
aperture width 35 mm m
2
0.00
rolls 1.80 m / 3.60 m x 50.00 m

.202 S&P erosion mesh 120 kN, black
aperture width 20 mm m
2
0.00
rolls 1.95 m x 50.00 m

Total S&P Slope geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes (excl. 7.6 % VAT) 0.00


Note:

Excavation, delivery, pouring and compaction of the backfill material are not
comprised in the positions above.