See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280224862

External Stability of Reinforced Soil Walls

Conference Paper · October 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 216

4 authors, including:

P. J. Naughton
IT Sligo
54 PUBLICATIONS 217 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Generalised stress path testing of sand using a hollow cylinder apparatus View project

All content following this page was uploaded by P. J. Naughton on 27 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COVER SHEET

Title: External Stability of Reinforced Soil Walls for Proceedings of the

International Symposium on Design and Practice of Geosynthetic-Reinforced
Soil Structures

Authors: Patrick Naughton1,

Moreno Scotto2,

Pietro Rimoldi2,

Marco Vicari2
1

ABSTRACT

The external stability; forward sliding, overturning and rotation stability, of

reinforced soil walls was assessed using Eurocode 7 and BS 8006 (1995). Overall
Eurocode 7 gave higher utilisation factors than BS 8006 (1995). Eurocode 7 Design
Approaches 1 (Combination 2) and 3 were found to be critical, and for the
structures analysed, always gave the highest utilisation factors. In sliding, Design
Approach 3 required a foundation soil with an increased angle of friction or longer
reinforcement to maintain stability. The material factor of 1.25 applied to the
tangent of the angle of friction in Design Approaches 1 (Combination 2) and 3 had
a significant effect on stability, increasing the utilisation factor. The eccentricity of
the resultant vertical load varied significantly, with no agreement between values
determined using Eurocode 7 and BS 8006 (1995). The design of walls in German
(EBGEO, 2010) and France (NF P94-270, 2009) in accordance with Eurocode 7
was found to be more conservative (higher utilisation factors) than walls designed
using BS 8006 (1995).

INTRODUCTION

The Structural Eurocodes was a pan European project, which initially started in
the 1980’s, to harmonise the design of building and civil engineering works across
the European Union (EU). Since then a suite of ten standards have been developed
and from Spring 2010 their use in the design of building and civil engineering
works in government financed or owned schemes was compulsory, right across the
EU.
The introduction of the Structural Eurocodes was a significant challenge, both
in their development and subsequent implementation. The Eurocodes were
developed in consultation with National Standards Bodies, many of whom already
1
Institute of Technology Sligo, Ireland
2
Officine Maccaferri S.p.a., Via Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa, Italy
had well developed national standards for design. The implementation of the
Eurocodes required the updating of residual standards, existing national standards,
and de facto standards such as national body (government) published documents
and design methods in each member state of the EU. Each National Standards Body
was allowed to develop an National Annex, which covered such items as nationally
determined parameters, country specific data and design procedures to be used in
that particular country. In effect the National Annex allowed each country, to some
degree, to customise design to local practice while still holding to the overall
guiding principles set out in the Eurocodes.
The design of geotechnical structures is covered by EN 1997 (2004), commonly
referred to as Eurocode 7. Eurocode 7 provides three design approaches (sets of
partial factors) that can be used in design. Each country can specify within its
National Annex which design approach must be used in that particular region. Bond
& Harris (2008) summarised the design approach adopted by each member state
and reported that 55 % of countries adopted Design Approach 2, 30 % Design
Approach 1 and 10 % Design Approach 3. Only one country (Ireland) adopted all
three, allowing any of the three design approaches to be used.

Eurocode 7 and the design of geosynthetically reinforced structures

Eurocode 7 does not cover the design of structures incorporating geosynthetics.

Instead, each National Standards Body was allowed to specify the design of these
structures in its respective National Annex. Germany rewrote their EBGEO design
guidelines (EBGEO, 2011) to make them compliant with Eurocode 7, using Design
Approaches 2 and 3, while the French published NP P94-270 (2009) for the design
of reinforced soil walls, which is fully compliant with Eurocode 7, using Design
Approaches 2 and 3. The United Kingdom (UK) National Annex states that BS
8006-1 (2010) should be used for the design of reinforced soil structures (walls,
slopes and basal reinforced systems). The UK National Annex also states that the
partial factors given in BS 8006-1 (2010) should be used in the analysis and no
substitution of partial factors from EN 1997 (2004) should occur. However, BS
8006-1 (2010) states that EN 1997 (2004) (it principles and partial factors) should
be used for global slip circle analysis. Interestingly, BS 8006-1 (2010), while a limit
state design code, is not Eurocode 7 compliant as it uses significantly different
partial factors. The UK has selected Design Approach 1, which is further
subdivided into Combinations 1 & 2, for design.
Frank et al. (2010) distinguish between the different design approaches as
follows: Design Approach 1 involves two sets of partial factors (Combinations 1
and 2). Generally this design approach can be termed an action (Combination 1)
and material factor (Combination 2, albeit with some partial factor on actions)
approach with factors applied at the source, to actions rather than effect of actions
and to shear strength rather than applied to resistances. There are two exceptions;
pile foundations and the design of anchorages, where partial factors are applied to
resistances. Design Approach 2 requires a single calculation where partial factors
are applied to either actions or the effect of actions and to resistances. This design
approach may be termed an action and resistance factor approach. Design Approach
3, which again requires a single calculation where partial factors are applied to
actions or effects of actions from the structure and to the ground strength
parameters. Design Approach 3 may be termed an action and material factor
approach.

BS 8006 (1995) and BS 8006-1 (2010)

BS 8006 (1995) was the first design code in Europe which covered the design of
structures incorporating geosynthetics. The design of reinforced soil walls was also
covered. BS 8006 (1995) was revised, updated and republished as BS 8006-1
(2010) in late 2010. Both BS 8006 (1995) and BS 8006-1 (2010) adopted limit state
approaches to design. Three load combinations are specified: Combinations A, B
and C.
Combination A considers the maximum values of all loads and therefore
normally generates the maximum reinforcement tensions and foundation bearing
pressures. Combination B considers the maximum overturning loads together with
the minimum self weight of the structure and superimposed traffic loads. This
combination normally dictates the reinforcement requirements for pullout resistance
and is normally the worst case for sliding along the base. Combination C considers
dead loads only with partial load factors of unity and is used to determine
foundation settlements and serviceability limit state requirements.
This study examined the influence of the choice of Design Approach on the
ultimate limit external stability of reinforced soil walls. For comparative purposes
the Eurocode 7 designs were benchmarked against BS 8006 (1995). Settlement or
the serviceability limit state of the structures was not considered in this analysis.
The analysis only considered static conditions, with no consideration of seismic
conditions.

DESIGN OF REINFORCED SOIL WALLS

Reinforced soil walls are defined in EBGEO (2011) as an earth structure

reinforced by geosynthetics for temporary or permanent stabilisation of a terrace or
slope of hillsides. The reinforced earth structure is required as the ground alone
cannot guarantee the required stability. This study considered vertical structures
(the face was within 200 of the vertical) such as, segmental block walls and walls
with discrete or full panel facing units.

Ultimate limit states for external stability

BS 8006 (1995) & BS 8006-1 (2010) state that the ultimate limit state external
stability of reinforced soil walls is concerned with three limit states: bearing and tilt
failure, forwards sliding and overall rotational slip surface stability of the structure,
Figure 1. Bearing and tilt failure is concerned with determining the pressure exerted
on the foundation soil at the base of the wall. BS 8006 (1995) & BS 8006-1 (2010)
suggests that a Meyerhof pressure distribution at the base of the wall may be
assumed.
 (a) (b) (c)
Figure 1. Ultimate limit states to be considered for external stability in BS 8006 (1995), (a) bearing
and tilt failure, (b) forward sliding and (c) overall global slip surface stability.

Forward sliding in reinforced soil structures should be checked at both the

interface between the reinforced soil and the foundation soil and also the interface
between the reinforcement layers at the base of the wall and the surrounding soil
(BS 8006, 1995 & BS 8006-1, 2010). For rotational stability of the structure
potential slip surfaces passing partly through the structure and partly external to the
structure should be considered. BS 8006-1 (2010) also states that the appropriate
analysis method and the partial factors given in EN 1997 (2004) should be used in
the slip circle analysis of walls.

Partial factors for design

The partial factors used in design can be divided into three principle areas:
Material factors, action factors and resistance factors. Material factors, excluding
those applied to the strength of geosynthetic reinforcement, are applied to the
strength and weight of the construction materials. Action factors are applied to both
permanent and variable loads acting on the structure. In Eurocode 7 actions are
considered to be either favourable (increasing stability) or unfavourable (decreasing
stability). Resistance factors are applied to the overall resistance the soil mobilises
to resist the disturbing actions.
Tables I and II summarises the partial factors used in Eurocode 7 and BS 8006
(1995) & BS 8006-1 (2010), respectively, for ultimate limit state (ULS) design.

ANALYSIS

A reinforced soil wall, with discrete concrete facing panels was the basic
structure analysed in this study, Figure 2. The internal stability of the wall is not
discussed here. Three wall heights (H); 3 m, 6 m and 9 m were considered. In all
cases the length of the reinforcement (L) was taken as 0.7H, which is typically
considered the minimum reinforcement length required for these types of structures
(BS 8006-1, 2010). The structural backfill had a representative angle of friction
(sb,rep) of 350 and a representative weight density (sb,rep) of 19 kN/m3. The
geosynthetic reinforcement consisted of ParaGrid 80/15, spaced at 0.75 m vertically
and extended over the full width of the reinforced block at each layer. ParaGrid
80/15 has a short-term characteristic strength of 80 kN/m and a long-term (120
year) strength of 48 kN/m. A representative traffic loading (ws,rep) of 20 kPa acted
over the reinforcement block and the retained soil behind. The soil outside of the
reinforced block, both behind and underneath, had a representative angle of friction
(gb,rep) of 300 and a representative weight density (gb,rep) of 18 kN/m3. A schematic
of the loads considered in this study are presented in Figure 3.
All support from the embedded depth of soil at the toe of the structure was
ignored in the analysis. Sliding at the base of the wall was based on the strength
mobilised by the foundation soil as it had the lower strength. Cohesion in the
structural and general backfill was taken as zero. The lateral earth pressure acting
behind the wall was based on the strength of the structural backfill as a wedge of
this fill is typically placed immediately behind the reinforced block in practice. All
lateral earth pressures were assumed to act horizontally. Slip circle analysis was
conducted using the Maccaferri MacStars W stability software (Maccaferri, 2010),
which is Eurocode 7, BS 8006 (1995) and BS 8006-1 (2010) compliant. Janbu’s
method of analysis with circular slip surfaces was used.

TABLE I. SUMMARY OF PARTIAL FACTORS FOR THE ULS IN EUROCODE 7

Parameter Design Approach
1 2 3
Comb. 1 Comb. 2
Unfavourable 1.35 1.0 1.35 1.0 1.0
Permanent actions
Favourable 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Unfavourable 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3
Variable actions
Favourable 1.0 0 1.0 0 0
Shearing resistance (Tan) 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Effective cohesion 1.0 1.25 1.0 1.25
Weight density 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4
Bearing resistance 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0
Sliding resistance 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0
Earth resistance, retaining structures 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0

TABLE II. PARTIAL FACTORS FOR ULS IN BS 8006 (1995) & BS 8006-1 (2010)
Combinations
Parameter
A B C
Mass of reinforced soil body 1.5 1.0 1.0
Earth pressure behind the structure 1.5 1.5 1.0
On the reinforced block 1.5 0 0
Traffic loading
Behind the block 1.5 1.5 0
Shearing resistance (Tan) 1.0
Effective cohesion 1.6
Sliding resistance (soil to soil contact) 1.2
Foundation bearing capacity 1.35
 Discrete
Structural backfill
concrete
facing 450
H panels Geosynthetic
reinforcement

General backfill

Starter pad
L = 0.7H

Figure 2. Schematic of reinforced soil wall analysed in this study.

ws

Gw Pa,ws
H
Pa,

RV
e KaH
Ka w s
L = 0.7H

Figure 3. Schematic of actions on structure.

RESULTS

The results of the sliding, overturning and slip circle analysis were quantified in
terms of the utilisation factor, defined as the ratio of design value of the effects of
actions to the design value of the effects of resistances. The utilisation factor has a
meaningfully range of 0 (infinite resistance) to 1 (full resistance mobilised) and can
be interpreted as the inverse of the more traditional overall factor of safety
parameter. Bearing pressure was assessed by calculating the eccentricity of the
resultant vertical load on the base of the structures.
The utilisation factor for sliding was independent of wall height, Figure 4.
Design Approach 3 (DA3) had an utilisation factors greater than unity (failure) for
wall heights of 6m and 9m, while Design Approach 1, Combination 2 (DA1-2) had
an utilisation factor close to unity for a wall height of 3m. Design Approach 1,
Combination 2 (DA1-2) and Design Approach 3 (DA3) have a material factor of
1.25 applied to the tangent of the angle of friction, while Design Approach 3 also
has a partial resistance factor of 1.1 in sliding. Increasing the representative angle of
friction of the foundation soil from 300 to 350 reduced the utilisation factor to an
acceptable value (< unity). Where the strength of the foundation soil cannot be
improved then the overall length of the reinforced block would need to be
increased. Utilization factors for Design Approach 1, Combination 1 (DA1-1) and
Design Approach 2 (DA2) were in reasonable agreement for sliding, but higher than
the three load combinations given in BS 8006-1 (2010). There was little variation
between the utilisation factors for Combinations A, B and C (BS-A, BS-B and BS-
C, respectively) in BS 8006-1 (2010).
In overturning all structures were stable, with utilisation factors less than unity,
Figure 5. DA3 and DA2 were found to be critical. DA1-2 for the 3 m high wall,
only, was in broad agreement with DA2 and DA3. The utilisation factors for the
BS8006-1 (2010) load combinations (BS-A, BS-B and BS-C) were all significantly
lower than those calculated with the Eurocode 7 design approaches. The BS 8006-1
(2010) load combination BS-B, as expected, was critical for overturning. Utilisation
factors for overturning were independent of wall height, although utilisation factors
for BS 8006-1 (2010) did indicate that lower height structures, while still stable,
had utilisation factors inversely proportional to wall height.
For rotational stability the utilisation factors were dependent on height in all
cases, reducing proportionally to the height of the structure, Figure 6. All wall
heights examined were found to be stable. DA1-2 and DA3 had identical utilisation
factors, as partial factors on actions, materials and resistances are identical for
rotational stability in these two design approaches. DA1-2 and DA3 had the highest
utilisation factors, which was attributed to the partial material factor of 1.25 applied
to soil strength. Utilisation factors for DA2 and BS-A and BS-B were in good
agreement.
Significant scatter was found between the eccentricities of the resultant vertical
force determined using each set of partial factors, Figure 7. The eccentricities did
reduce with reduced wall height in all cases. DA1-2, DA3 and BS-B gave the
largest eccentricities overall and for the 3m and 6m wall the calculated
eccentricities were outside the middle third of the base width.

CONSEQUENCES FOR DESIGN

All three design approaches in Eurocode 7 gave utilisation factors that were
higher than those for the three load combinations given in BS 8006 (1995),
indicating that Eurocode 7 is more conservative than BS 8006 (1995). Overall there
was no correlation between utilisation factors from the load combinations in BS
8006 (1995) and the design approaches in Eurocode 7.
The analysis of utilisation factors for forward sliding, overturning and rotational
stability indicate that Design Approach 3 was critical, followed by Design
Approach 1, Combination 2. The utilisation factors calculated for these two design
approaches was influenced by the partial material factor on soil shear strength
(angle of friction). A partial factor of 1.25 on strength appears to disproportionally
reduce the available strength of the soil, leading to higher utilisation factors.
 1.2
9m
1
6m

0.8 3m
Utilisation factor

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
DA1-1 DA1-2 DA2 DA3 BS-A BS-B BS-C

Figure 4. Utilisation factor for sliding.

1
0.9 9m
0.8 6m
0.7 3m
Utilisation factor

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
DA1-1 DA1-2 DA2 DA3 BS-A BS-B BS-C
Figure 5. Utilisation factor for overturning.

The analysis indicates that Combination 2 is almost always more critical than
Combination 1 in Design Approach 1. The utilisation factor for overturning in the
6m and 9 m high walls were very similar with these two combinations.
In Germany (EBGEO, 2010) and France (NF P94-270, 2009) Design Approach
2 is used for checking sliding and overturning of reinforced soil walls. In this
design approach partial factors are applied to actions or the effects of actions and to
resistances. All material factors are unity. For the walls analysed in this study
Design Approach 2 was not the critical partial factor set in these two limit states,
with the utilisation factor never exceeding 0.7, corresponding to an overall factor of
safety of approximately 1.43. The calculated eccentricity of the resultant vertical
load also appeared to be midrange of the values calculated using the three design
approaches from Eurocode 7 and the three load combinations from BS 8006 (1995).
 1.00 9m
0.90 6m
0.80 3m
Utilisation factor 0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
DA1-1 DA1-2 DA2 DA3 BS-A BS-B BS-C

Figure 6. Utilisation factor for rotational stability.

1 9m, B/6 = 1.05m

0.9 6m, B/6 = 0.70m
0.8 3m, B/6 = 0.35m
0.7
eccentricity (m)

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
DA1-1 DA1-2 DA2 DA3 BS-A BS-B BS-C
Figure 7. Eccentricity of resultant vertical force.

In the UK BS8006-1 (2010) load Combinations A, B and C are used for

checking sliding, overturning and determination of the eccentricity of the resultant
vertical load and Eurocode 7 Design Approach 1 for rotational stability. This study
indicates that the load combinations in BS 8006-1 (2010) have lower utilisation
factors and are thus less conservative than the design approaches in Eurocode 7 for
both sliding and overturning. The eccentricity of the resultant vertical force at the
base of the wall was critical in Design Approach 1, Combination 2, with the values
comparing reasonably well with those given by Combination B in BS 8006 (1995).
Germany (EBGEO, 2010), France (NF P94-270, 2009) and the UK (BS 8006-1,
2010) are in effect using the same set of partial factors for rotation stability. The
UK use Design Approach 1, where Combination 2 always appears to be critical for
rotation stability, while Germany and France use Design Approach 3. When
considering rotation stability, Design Approach 1, Combination 2 and Design
 Approach 3 have identical partial factors on actions, materials and resistances,
resulting in the same utilisation factor for both design approaches.
Significantly, the analysis from this study indicates that Design Approach 1
results in high utilisation factors (a more conservative design) than the three load
combinations, traditionally used for rotational stability in BS 8006 (1995). This
may have implications for design, where rotation stability may be the critical limit
state governing the external stability of reinforced soil walls.

CONCLUSIONS

A direct comparison of reinforced soil structures indicates that, overall, the

introduction of Eurocode 7 has resulted in a reduction in the external stability of
structures relative to the approach given in BS 8006 (1995).
Design Approach 1, Combination 2 and Design Approach 3 gave the highest
utilisation factors and therefore the most conservative designs. In sliding Design
Approach 3 indicated that either the strength characteristics of the foundation soil
would have to be improved or the length of the reinforced block extended to give an
acceptable utilisation factor. Both these design approaches apply a material factor
of 1.25 to the strength of the soil, which may be disproportionally high resulting in
conservative designs.
German, French and UK national standards for reinforced soil all use design
approaches that result in the same utilisation factors for rotational stability. In the
UK the use of Design Approach 1 for rotational stability could result in higher
utilisation factors then previously determined using the load combinations in BS
8006 (1995).
In the German and French national codes sliding and overturning are checked
using Design Approach 2, while in the UK three, non Eurocode 7, load
combinations are used. Design Approach 2 gives higher utilisation factors than the
load factors in BS 8006 (1995).
The eccentricity of the resultant vertical load varied considerably and was
dependent of the set of partial factors used in the calculation.

REFERENCES

1. Bond, A & Harris, A. 2008. “Decoding Eurocode 7”. Taylor & Francis, London.
2. BS 8006. 1995. “Code of practise for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills”. British
Standards Institution, UK.
3. BS 8006-1. 2010. “Code of practise for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills”. British
Standards Institution, UK.
4. EBGEO. 2011. “Recommendations for design and analaysis of earth structures using
geosynthetics reinforcement – EBGEO”. The German Geotechnical Society.
5. NF P94-270. 2009. “Ouvrages de soutenement –Remblais renforcés et massifs en sols cloués”.
Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), Paris, France.
6. EN 1997. 2004. “Geotechnical design – Part 1 General rules” CEN, Brussels.
7. Frank, R., Bauduin, C., Driscoll, R., Kavvadas, M., Krebs Ovesen, N., Orr, T. and Schuppener,
B. 2010. “Designers’ guide to EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – general rules”.
Thomas Telford, London.
8. Maccaferri. 2010. Maccaferri Stability Analysis of Reinforced Soils and walls Software, MacStar
W. Officine Maccaferri, Bologna, Italy.

View publication stats