DRAFT

(Subject to Revisions)

New Orleans District

Standard Operating Procedures
For
Design of Geosynthetic
Reinforced Embankments

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Summary of NOD Design Procedures for:

Bearing Capacity, Slope Stability, Embedment/Anchorage Length, Lateral Sliding,
Creep, Seam strength, and settlement.
2. Purpose
3. Introduction
4. Design Concepts for Reinforced Embankment
4.1 Overall Bearing Capacity
4.1.1 Classical geotechnical bearing capacity analysis
4.1.2 Bearing capacity analysis for increasing undrained shear strength with
depth.
4.2 Slope Stability - Rotational Slope/Foundation Failure.
4.3 Embedment/Anchorage Length
4.4 Lateral Embankment Sliding/Spreading
4.5 Creep and long term embankment stability
4.6 Geotextile Seam Strength or Field Overlap Requirement.
4.7 Settlements
4.8 Construction Considerations.

Appendix A - Figures and Bearing Capacity Figures and Charts

Appendix B - Example Problem

Appendix C - Pullout Curve

2
 Summary of NOD Design Procedures

Design Concepts for Reinforced Embankment.

1. Overall Bearing Capacity.

1.1 Classical geotechnical bearing capacity analysis (Fowler method)

q = cNc
and qavg = γHavg

F.S. = cNc / γHavg (Recommended F.S. = 1.0)

where
q = ultimate bearing capacity;
c = undrained shear strength of the foundation;
Nc = bearing capacity factor varies from 3.5 to 5.14 for very soft to soft
foundations;
γ = unit weight of fill material;
qavg = average applied pressure due to the embankment; and
Havg = average height of embankment. (Area of embankment/ “b” width
of embankement

1.2 Bearing capacity analysis for increasing undrained shear strength with
depth for semi-rigid system. (Davis and Booker (1973) and Matar and
Salencon (1977) Procedures)
qu = cuo Nc + qs
where
qu = ultimate bearing capacity
cuo = undrained shear strength at top of foundation;
Nc = bearing capacity factor for nonhomogeneous soil (see Figure 3); and
qs = uniform surcharge pressure applied to the soil surface outside the
embankment effective width (see Figures .
qa= (load of embankment above b) /"b"
FS = qu/qa (Recommended F.S. = 1.2 to 1.3 )

2. Slope Stability - Rotational Slope/Foundation Failure.

Slope stability analysis should be performed to determine the required geotextile tensile
load requirement, if applicable. The reinforcement tensile force required to increase the
factor of safety against slip surface failure through the embankment and foundation can
be estimated using MVN Method of Planes (normally the controlling method of analysis)
or conventional limit equilibrium slope stability analysis. For design analysis
simplification, the following assumptions are made by NOD:
1. Soil shear strength and reinforcement tensile strength are mobilized
simultaneously.

3
 2. The critical slip surfaces or circles will be the same for both the geotextile-
reinforced and non-reinforced embankments.
3. For the same slip surface (wedge slip surface modeled into the moment
equilibrium analysis), the stability factor-of-safety for MVN methods of Plans and
a moment equilibrium analysis (by the Janbu method) should be the same. If not,
the moment equilibrium analysis foundation shear strengths should be adjusted to
obtain the same factor-of-safety as the MVN method of planes analysis before the
reinforcement is added to moment equilibrium analysis.

For design, NOD initial uses the MVN Method of Planes to perform stability
analysis for the nongeotextile or unreinforced condition, and a critical slip surface
and minimum factor of safety is obtained. If the factor of safety for the unreinforced
condition is inadequate, then an additional reinforcement resistance (T) can be added to
the analysis to obtain an adequate Factor-of-Safety. The required reinforcement
resistance or tensile strength (T) for the required stability safety factor should be based on
the larger value of "T" from the following two analyses: MVN Method of Planes or
Moment Equilibrium analysis (Spencer Method), which considered the location of the
reinforcement into the analysis. The reinforcement resistance (T) or reinforcement
resistance moment can be added to MVN Method of Planes analysis or to the
resistance moment, respectively, as follows:

Wedge-Method F.S. = (ΣR forces +T)/ ΣDriving forces

Where
Σ R forces = Resistance forces Ra+Rb+Rp
ΣD forces = Driving Forces (Da) - Dp
T = tensile of the reinforcement (units lb/ft for Method of Planes)

For limit/moment equilibrium stability

F.S. = (MR + ε Ti Yi ) /MD
Where
T = allowable geotextile tensile strength; and
y = moment arm for geotextile (note for large-deformation situation, this moment
arm could become equal to R which is generally a larger value).

Moment Equilibrium analysis utilizing the Spencer Method should be performed. The
COE New Orleans District defined the required geotextile tensile strength (T) at 5%
strain to control field displacement. During the initial levee lift where
consolidation/settlement will occur rapidly, the geotextile strength at 6% strain may be
used for design (due to lost in embankment grade that occurs very shortly after
construction which in turn reduces the required T force for stability - only for initial levee
construction). Note, the designer will only specifies the 5% tensile of the geotextile in
the Plans and Specifications but use the 6% strain shear in the design, if applicable. This
design procedure has been used successfully on the St Charles Parish Hurricane
Protection Project, North of Airline Highway.

4
Multi-layer (Two layers). It is recommended for a two layers system that: 3 feet of fill
separate the two layers and the bottom geotextile layer will be designed to carry 2/3 and
the upper layer will be designed to carry 1/3 of the required “T” force for stability.

Stability Factor of Safety. Generally the recommended factor of safety for slope
stability for the reinforced levee is 1.3 for MVN Method of Planes. This factor of safety
is based on many factors such as existing field conditions, type of field investigation and
lab tests, and previous experience in the area. Presently NOD does not require a
minimum stability Factor-of-safety for the un-reinforced levee design analysis of a
reinforced levee design. However for pipeline levee sections, it has been suggested to
used a minimum stability factor of safety of 1.0 for the un-reinforced levee section and
allow the reinforcement to obtain the required 1.5 stability Factor of Safety.

Levee Stability Factor-of-Safeties used for the Reinforced Levee Design for St Charles
Levee Project:

Unreinforced Reinforced

Pipeline crossing min F.S. = 1.0 min F.S. =1.5

Levee berms no minimum F.S. = 1.2 or less (gain in shear

strength)

Levee to Borrow Pit

a. Hurricane Condition
(HW & normal lower
in borrow pit) F.S. = 1.3 F.S. = 1.5

b. Normal water conditions

on floodside and
extreme low water
in borrow pit F.S. = 1.3 F.S. = 1.5

Gain in Shear Strength during Construction for initial Levees construction over
marsh/soft foundation conditions. It is highly recommended that the Design Engineer
incorporate the gain in foundation shear strength during construction for new levees
constructed over soft foundations, if applicable. Incorporating the gain in shear strength
during construction can greatly reduce the levee stability berms, the required tensile
strength of the geotextile for stability, and/or right of way requirements. Incorporating
gain in foundation shear strength during construction has been utilized in the design
analyses of the hurricane protection levees in St Charles Parish, North of Airline with
great success. The designer will need to analyze the foundation conditions and the
method of construction to ensure that the foundation gain in shear strength will occur.
There are two methodologies or procedures to incorporate the increase in foundation
shear strength during construction of new levees constructed over soft foundations. Both

5
of these methods have been used in St Charles Parish, North of Airline Hurricane
Protection Levee Project. In addition, the Designer shall consult will with the Branch
Chief if the gain in foundation shear strength during construction will be incorporated in
the design of a new levee constructed over soft foundation.

Method 1. This method uses the initial in-situ shear strength based on the Q-test results
and designing for a minimum overall stability factor-of-safety of 1.2 for either the
reinforced or un-reinforced levee design sections. The reduction of the typical NOD
stability factor-of-safety from 1.3 to 1.2 is used to incorporate the gain in foundation
shear strength during construction. For the St Charles Project foundation conditions, this
method utilizing one strength line and a Factor-of-Safety of 1.2 was conservative. In
addition, the designer should perform a sensitivity analysis, utilizing R-test results to
determine the increase in foundation strength shear that would be required to obtain a
minimum stability factor-of-safety of 1.3 (using a C/L and toe shear strengths).
Method 2. Stability analysis of the initial levee constructed over a very soft/marsh
foundation (very soft organic clays and peats) could be based on "R-TESTs" in the upper
foundation layers because of the rapid consolidation of these layers during construction.
The R-Test is more indicative of the foundation loading conditions during construction in
the upper very soft foundation soils. Levee design and laboratory testing should be
conducted in a manner that will analysis and test the foundation soil to whatever
sequence of loading and drainage is expected during the anticipated field conditions. For
very soft highy compressible foundation soils, R-test shear strength is a more appropriate
method of levee designs especially for the upper soil strata during the levee initial
construction.
Method 2a. Q- shear strength for Centerline and toe. The stability analysis based on
this method utilizing R-tests will have two strength lines. A centerline design strength
line inputted in the analysis as Q-shear strengths based on R-tests to predict gain in shear
strength during construction from consolidation in the upper stratums, and a toe strength
line based on the boring Q- test results. Again, the designer should perform a sensitivity
analysis to determine what effect on the stability factor-of-safety if he over predicts a
gain in shear strength during construction. For this analysis the embankment will be
designed for a minimum factor-of -safety of 1.3.
Method 2b. Utilizing R strengths for the upper stratum. For this method, the
designer would utilize R-strengths for the upper stratum and insert the appropriate
piezometric headlines during construction for each soil strata. The designer will need to
validate that the proper shear strength is being used per strata. Peizometers could be
installed during construction to monitor the pore water pressures to determine if the
embankment designs need to be modified during construction. For this analysis the
embankment will be designed for a minimum factor-of -safety of 1.3.

If the foundation gain in shear strength is included in the design, it is recommended that
new undisturbed soil borings be taken before the levee is raised to verify the foundation
did experience a gain in shear strength and to validate the levee design.

(For information only: Results from the St Charles Parish Project were that
approximately 75% consolidation occurred in the upper 10 to 20'of the organic

6
clays/peats layers occurred during construction and that approximate 100% consolidation
occurred within 1 year. Between the depths of 20' to 32' (el -20 to -32.0), consolidation
appears to vary from 75% at top of stratum to approximately 25% consolidation at the
bottom of the stratum (elev. -32) that occurred during construction.

3. Embedment/Anchorage Length.
T = T
L =
2τ E τT E + τB E
where
T = required tensile strength from slope stability analysis;
τT = shear strength of soil above geotextile;
τB = shear strength of soil below geotextile;
τ = soil shear strength (c + σ’ tan φ); (effective unit weight) and
E = efficiency factor.

NOD uses the following shear strength values (τ), E=1.0, and a minimum of 3 feet of
fill above the geotextile:

Sand: φ = 30 degrees for most geotextile fabrics (with sufficient roughness).

Clays: if T is based on F.S. = 1.3: τ = 265 + γh tan 19 degrees.
T is based on F.S. less than 1.3: τ = 150 + γh tan 20 degrees.

Rock: φ = 40 degrees. However, the designer should use this value with
caution. If the geotextile is used for reinforcement, the designer should ensure
that complete contact between geotextile and rock occurs. It may be advisable
to place a bedding material on top of the reinforcement to ensure 100% contact
between bedding material and geotextile for embedment calculations.

The Designer should not only check the critical active slope stability wedge for that
elevation but adjacent active wedges utilizing the appropriate “T” value to determine the
critical embedment lengths. In addition, the designer should check the next failure
elevation down to ensure adequate anchorage for the failure wedges of that elevation.
Some designers check the critical active wedge for the anchorage analysis and then add 5
additional feet to this value for the required embedment. The designer should determine if
this is appropriate for their project. For the St Charles Parish project, settlement during
construction was incorporated in the embedment calculation. Again, the designer needs
to verify that this is appropriate for the project. The pullout of the geotextile may be the
critical mode of failure. The pullout analysis has minimal redundancies, whereas the
geotextile tensile requirement at 5% strain is typical equal to 50% or less of the ultimate
strength of the geotextile. NOD's field pull-out tests were performed on geotextile made
of polyester which has a certain roughness. NOD experience to date is that for most
woven geotextiles the above pull-out values are appropriate. The designer needs to

7
ensure that the recommended pull-out values are appropriate for their project. (In
addition, the reinforcement must have adequate embedment in the active zone.)
(Open for discussion -- My opinion is we should be applying a small factor-of-safety to
the pullout resistance values - no redundancies here beside the F.S in the T force. No tests
were performed on propropylene geotextiles).

4. Lateral Embankment Sliding/Spreading.

This analysis is normally performed for steep levee slopes with no stability berms. The
analysis is performed to ensure that a slide at the soil/geotextile interface does not occur.
This analysis is performed to determine the required soil-geotextile interface friction or
adhesion to provide adequate resistance to sliding between the embankment and
geotextile. Also, the analysis is used to determine the minimum reinforcement tensile
strength and tensile modulus of the geotextile (normally stability analysis governs the
geotextile tensile strength requirement). The lateral embankment sliding analysis is
based on equating the active earth force to the soil/geotextile frictional resistance.

Resisting Force = RR
F.S. =
Driving Force PA

A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 is recommended against sliding failure. If the factor-
of-safety failure is less than 2.0, the embankment side slopes may be flattened or berms
could be constructed. Also, the geotextile tensile strength should be greater then the net
lateral active earth force to prevent geotextile tearing. For a factor of safety of 1.0, the
geotextile tensile strength would be equal to the lateral active earth force. Therefore, the
minimum required geotextile tensile strength (TF) with a recommended factor of safety
of 1.5 equal:
TF = 1.5 PA

5. Creep and long term embankment stability.

The designer needs to determine the required service life of the geotextile. If the
geotextile is required longer than six months, the designer must consider creep in his
design. NOD has used the following ultimate tensile strength or the allowable tensile
strength @ 5% strain of the ultimate tensile strength to control creep:

(Example 300 lb/in @ 5%)

For polyester: allowable tensile @ 5% is 50 % ultimate (600 lb/in)
For polypropylene: allowable tensile @ 5% is 40 % ultimate (750 lb/in)
For polyethylene: allowable tensile @ 5% is 30 % ultimate (1000 lb/in)

Presently, NOD uses the geotextile for reinforcement for the life of the project, which
spans 30 to 50 years.

8
6. Geotextile Seam Strength or Field Overlap Requirement.

If the geotextile is sewn, seam strengths are typical 50% of cross machine direction
ultimate strength of the geotextile. Typical seams values used by NOD have been from
150 lb/in for good foundation or geotextile placed on a sand base to 300 lb/in seams
strength for geotextile placed on soft foundations. For overlaps, overlap requirements
varies from 1-foot to 5-feet, which depend on the foundation conditions and difficulty
placing geotextile i.e. 1’ for good foundation, 3’ for poor foundation with controlled fill
placement and 5’ for poor foundation without control placement or underwater
placement. However seams strength design analysis should be performed, if the project
design or construction procedures require it.

9
 New Orleans District Standard Operating Procedures For Design of Geosynthetic
Reinforced Embankments

1. Purpose

This paper describes the major design considerations for a geotextile reinforced
embankment constructed over soft foundation. Six major potential failure mechanisms of
a reinforced embankment are discussed in this paper:
1. Overall bearing capacity failure
2. Rotational slope/foundation failure
3. Horizontal sliding/lateral spreading.
4. Embedment/Anchorage length Design
5. Creep
6. Seam Strength
2. Introduction

Geotextiles have joined the list of possible solutions to a number of important problems
in geotechnical engineering, such as drainage, filtration, separation, reinforcement, and
moisture barrier (when impregnated). In many cases, the use of a geotextile can
significantly increase the safety factor, improve performance, and reduce costs in
comparison to conventional alternative solutions. For embankments on very soft
foundations, where conventional construction would be either impossible or prohibitively
expensive, geotextiles can actually enable the construction to be successively carried out.
There are few developments in the area of soil improvement that have had such a rapid
growth as well as a strong influence on geotechnical practice as geotextiles. The term
geotextiles in this paper will refer to geotextiles, geogrids and other geosynthetics used
for reinforcements. Generally, the design differences between geotextile and geogrids
are the embedment calculations, horizontal sliding/lateral spreading calculations, and
creep values. For geotextile normally embedment and horizontal sliding/lateral spreading
calculations are based on cohesion/adhesion and friction between the geotextile fabric
and for the geogrid, passive resistance also is included in the embedment calculations.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) began experimenting with geotextiles
to support containment dikes in the late 1970s. The Corps’ first major project using
geotextiles under containment dikes was at Pinto Pass in Mobile, Alabama. A number of
test sections and projects have been completed since that time. In late 1986, the COE,
New Orleans District, began experimenting with geotextiles by building a reinforced
hurricane protection levee test section in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, called “Reach A
Test Section". This test section had no instrumentation to gather data during
construction. Since that time, New Orleans District has performed "Instrumented"
reinforced Test Sections in Bonnet Carrie Spillway, St Charles Parish Hurricane
Protection Levee (North of Airline Highway) and West Bank Hurricane Protection
Levee. The Bonnet Carrie test sections included reinforced and non-reinforced levee
sections. The Bonnet Carrie test sections were tested to failure to gather additional
design information on geotextile-reinforced embankments such as required embedment

10
length, geotextile strength, and strain of the geotextile during embankment failure.
However, all strain gages failed during construction because the wire connected at the
strain gage did not allow for settlement of the foundation was during Levee construction.
Without allowances for this settlement, the wire broke at the strain gage connections. In
addition, pull-out tests for single layer of geotextile were also performed at the Bonnet
Carrie test section. Pull-out tests were performed to determine the frictional resistance
between the embankment clay fill and geotextile based on adherence/cohesion of the fill
and the related overburden pressures. Synopsis of the pullout test results is included in
this paper under the embedment/ anchorage length calculations.
The results from each test section were favorable for geotextile to be used as a
reinforcement in NOD’s Hurricane Protection Levees and other type of structures.

3. Design Concepts for Reinforced Embankment

The geotextile in reinforced embankments is used as a tensile reinforcing element, which
increases the stability of embankments constructed on soft foundations. Deformation of
the embankment must occur before the geotextile will act as a tensile element. In this
type of application, layer(s) of reinforcement are placed on the natural soil and/or within
the base of the embankment with the remainder of the embankment constructed in the
conventional manner. The reinforcement is typically placed with its strong direction
(warp-machine direction) perpendicular to the centerline of the embankment and plane-
strain conditions are assumed to prevail.

The mechanism of reinforcement for an embankment constructed over a weak foundation

is to stiffen the base of the embankment and reduce shear stress magnitudes and plastic
shear deformation in the foundation. An investigation by Low and Duncan (1985)
showed that tensile reinforcement placed at or near the base of an embankment increases
the strength and stiffness of the embankment fill due to increased soil confinement. The
combined effects of increased fill strength and stiffness in the reinforced zone and
reduced shear stresses and strains in the foundation soil result in reduced undrained
(constant-volume) foundation distortion beneath the embankment, hence reduced
embankment spreading and settlements during construction. The geotextile does not
significantly reduce overall embankment settlement due to consolidation of the
foundation soil (total long-term settlement is not affected). The geotextile does not
increase the strength of the foundation soil; therefore, the foundation soil must have
adequate strength to support the entire embankment. If the embankment is made very
stiff through sufficient reinforcement, it may behave as a semi-rigid mat and the critical
failure mechanism becomes one of bearing capacity of the entire embankment.
Additional reinforcement, at that point, will not further increase embankment stability.

For design of reinforced embankments, four potential failure mechanisms must be

investigated as shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A:
1. Overall bearing capacity failure (1a)
2. Rotational slope/foundation failure (1b-1d)
3. Embedment or Anchorage Length (Pullout)
4. Horizontal sliding/lateral spreading (1e)

11
The geotextile must resist the unbalanced forces necessary for embankment stability and
must develop moderate to high tensile forces at low to moderate strains (deformation).
The geotextile tensile forces resist the unbalanced forces and the geotextile tensile
modulus controls the vertical and horizontal displacement of the embankment. Adequate
geotextile embedment length pass the failure zone is required (soil-geotextile friction) to
transfer embankment loads to the geotextile as tensile stresses.

DESIGN PROCEDURES

The order of analysis is the designer preference. It is common practice in the New
Orleans District to first perform the rotational slope/foundation failure design and then
check to see if the reinforced design section has an adequate Factor-of-Safety against an
overall bearing capacity failure. However, overall bearing capacity will be covered in
this paper first.

3.1 Overall Bearing Capacity

Overall bearing capacity of the embankment must be satisfied. If the
embankment bearing capacity factor of safety (FS) is less than 1.0, the embankment
cannot be constructed without large foundation displacements. To improve overall
bearing, berms could be added or the base of the embankment could be extended to
provide a wider mat.
3.1.1. Classical geotechnical bearing capacity analysis with no consideration for
gain in shear strength with depth. As proposed by Fowler (1982), bearing analysis
follows classical geotechnical engineering methods for infinitely long strip foundations
and undrained conditions are as follows:
q = cNc
and
qavg = γHavg

F.S. = cNc / γHavg (Recommended F.S. = 1.0)

where
q = ultimate bearing capacity;
c = undrained shear strength of the foundation;
Nc = bearing capacity factor varies from 3.5 to 5.14 for very soft to soft
foundations;
γ = unit weight of fill material;
qavg = average applied pressure due to the embankment; and
Havg = average height of embankment. (Area of embankment/ “b” width of
embankement

Fowler assumed the average height of the embankment is equal to the area of the
embankment per unit width divided by width of embankment.

12
Fowler equated (FS = 1.0) the ultimate bearing capacity of the embankment to the
average applied pressure of the embankment to determine the ultimate height of the
embankment where
Havg = cNc/γ
This analysis may be conservative if no consideration is given to increasing soil shear
strength with depth (if applicable) or any limiting factors on the allowable depth of
failure.

Mandel and Salencon (1977) proposed adjusting the Nc factor of the general bearing
capacity equation for the limited depth of failure (as stated by Bonaparte and Christopher,
1987). Appendix A-Figure 2 shows the proposed adjusted Nc values. Again, this
analysis assumed uniform soil shear strength with depth.

3.1.2. Overall bearing capacity analysis for increasing undrained shear

strength with depth.
A few investigators (Davis and Booker, 1973; Matar and Salencon, 1977) have developed
bearing capacity factors for rigid footings which consider the effect of increasing
undrained shear strength with depth as well as the effect of the relative thickness of the
soil deposit. The bearing capacity factors determined by Davis and Booker (1973) and
Matar and Salencon (1977) have been synthesized and plotted as shown in Appendix A-
Figure 3 which was presented in a paper by Rowe and Soderman (1987). A synopsis of
the figures and equations presented by Rowe and Soderman are included in Appendix A
of this paper for the analysis of overall bearing capacity considering the effect of
increasing undrained shear strength with depth. Appendix A-Figure 3 includes the
bearing capacity factor Nc plotted in terms of the dimensionless quantity ρcb/cuo. These
terms are defined in Appendix A in Figures A-3, 4, and 5.

The analysis for overall bearing capacity follows a general geotechnical engineering
equation for infinitely long strip foundations and undrained conditions, and is based on
determining an equivalent width of reinforced embankment "b". The ultimate bearing
capacity (qu) for the reinforced embankment is as follows:
qu = cuo Nc + qs
where
cuo = undrained shear strength at top of foundation;
Nc = bearing capacity factor for nonhomogeneous soil (see Figure B-1); and
qs = uniform surcharge pressure applied to the soil surface outside the
embankment effective width.

The plasticity solution for bearing capacity is based on a rigid footing of width "b";
therefore, an approximation must be made to determine the equivalent width of the
embankment. It is assumed that the effective width of the embankment "b", as shown on
Figure 4, will extend between the points on either side of the embankment when the
applied pressure γh is equal to (2 + π) cuo. Thus,
h = (2 + π) cuo/γ

13
and effective width of embankment,
b= B + 2n (H - h)
where
γ = unit weight of fill material;
b = crest width;
H = embankment height; and
n = cotangent of the slope angle.

The bearing capacity factor Nc for nonhomogeneous soil can be determined using
Appendix A-Figure 3. As shown, Nc is a function of the undrained shear strength
directly beneath the embankment, increase in shear strength with depth, and the
embankment effective width.

As shown in Appendix A-Figure 4, the berm outside the effective width provides a
surcharge that would increase bearing stability. This surcharge is applied as a pressure
(qs) over the expected failure zone ( x ). Based on studies by Matar and Salencon (as
presented in Rowe and Soderman, 1987), an expected depth of the failure mechanism can
be estimated as shown in Appendix A-Figures 4 and 5. It has been found that the lateral
extent of the plastic region involved in the collapse of the embankment extends a distance
(x) from the footing, where (x) is approximately equal to the minimum of (d) as
determined from Appendix A-Figure 4 or the actual thickness of the deposit (D), i.e., x =
min (d, D). Therefore, the uniform surcharge pressure qs is equal to the surcharge load
distributed over the distance x, where
qs = surcharge/x.

The ultimate bearing capacity may then be compared with the average applied pressure of
the embankment over the effective width b to determine a factor of safety against bearing
failure. The average applied pressure (qa) is equal to the embankment surcharge above
the effective width "b" distributed over the effective width b where:

qa= (load of embankment above b) /"b"

A factor of safety against bearing failure can be determined as follows:

FS = qu/qa

The New Orleans District recommends a factor of safety for overall bearing utilizing this
method as 1.2 to 1.3. See Appendix B for an example problem.

3.2 Slope Stability- Rotational slope/foundation failure

Slope stability analysis should be performed to determine the required geotextile tensile
load requirement, if applicable. The reinforcement tensile force required to increase the
factor of safety against slip surface failure through the embankment and foundation can

14
be estimated using MVN Method of Planes (normally the controlling method of analysis)
or conventional limit equilibrium slope stability analysis.

A number of assumptions must be made to incorporate the influence of tensile

reinforcement into limit equilibrium stability analysis, such as (1) the effect of the
reinforcement force, and (2) the orientation of the reinforcement force at the location of
the considered slip surface. The reinforcement force can also be assumed to have two
different effects on stability: (1) it can act as an independent free tensile force which
does not affect soil strength but which contributes to force and/or moment equilibrium; or
(2) it can modify the strength of the embankment fill. The second effect can only exist if
the reinforcement force is properly transmitted to the embankment fill.

The application of the reinforcement force as an independent tensile force that does
not affect soil strength has been the most commonly used in practice and is used at
the Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. The tensile resistance force is simply
added to the resistance forces opposing rotational sliding or slides translation into MVN
method of planes (wedge-method), because the geotextile must be physically torn for the
embankment to slide (with proper embedment length). For a circular arc analysis or
other moment equilibrium analyses, the orientation and location of the reinforcement
force at its intersection with the slip surface has an effect on the results of force and
moment equilibrium calculations. However, the vertical or orientation of the
reinforcement is not considered by MVN method of planes. Therefore, the effect of the
vertical location of the reinforcement on slope stability Factor of Safety should be
checked by appropriate methods utilizing programs such as PC-Slope or Utexas4. This
topic will be covered below.

Almost all reinforcement is initially placed or installed in a horizontal orientation.

However, it may be assumed that the initial horizontal layer or layers of flexible
reinforcement bends due to large local displacement of the foundation soils at the onset of
failure. The maximum possible amount of reinforcement reorientation would result in a
reinforcement direction parallel (tangential) to the slip surface. Fowler, for instance,
assumed parallel (tangential) reinforcement orientation as shown in Appendix A-Figure
6.

Reinforcement orientations between the two extreme values would and do occur. A
larger factor of safety utilizing a moment equilibrium analysis would be computed based
on tangential reinforcement orientation versus that based on horizontal reinforcement
orientation. This is due to the larger stabilizing moment (larger moment arm) calculated
using tangential orientation.

For design analysis simplification, the following assumptions are made by NOD:
1. Soil shear strength and reinforcement tensile strength are mobilized
simultaneously.
2. The critical slip surfaces or circles will be the same for both the geotextile-
reinforced and non-reinforced embankments.

15
 3. For the same slip surface (wedge slip surface modeled into the moment
equilibrium analysis), the stability factor-of-safety for MVN methods of Plans and
a moment equilibrium analysis (by the Janbu method) should be the same. If not,
the moment equilibrium analysis foundation shear strengths should be adjusted to
obtain the same factor-of-safety as the MVN method of planes analysis before the
reinforcement is added to moment equilibrium analysis.

For design, NOD initial uses the MVN Method of Planes to perform stability
analysis for the nongeotextile/unreinforced condition and a critical slip surface and
minimum factor of safety is obtained. If the factor of safety for the unreinforced
condition is inadequate, then an additional reinforcement resistance (T) can be added to
the analysis to obtain an adequate Factor-of-Safety. The required reinforcement
resistance or tensile strength (T) for the required stability safety factor should be based on
the larger value of "T" from the following two analyses: MVN Method of Planes or
Moment Equilibrium analysis (Spencer Method), which considered the location of the
reinforcement into the analysis. The reinforcement resistance (T) or reinforcement
resistance moment can be added to MVN Method of Planes analysis or to the
resistance moment, respectively as follows:

1. Unreinforced embankment
Wedge-Method: F.S. = Σ R forces/ ΣDriving forces

Where:
Σ R forces = Resistance forces Ra+Rb+Rp
ΣD forces = Driving Forces (Da) - Dp

For limit/moment equilibrium stability

F.S. = MR/MD = (τL) R/ W Xs
Where:
MR = soil resistance moment;
MD = driving moment;
τ = shear strength of embankment and foundation soil;
L = arc length of failure plane;
W = weight of soil mass;
Xs = moment arm of soil mass; and
R = radius of failure arc.

2. Reinforced embankment. Using the MVN Method of Planes the tensile strength
of the geotextile (@5% strain) is added to the summation of resisting forces to
obtain a Factor-of-Safety. This method does not consider the location of the
geotextile in the design. The location of the geotextile could have an effect on the
required tensile strength. Therefore, a limit/moment equilibrium stability
analysis should be performed to determine if the location of the geotextile has an
effect on the embankment stability Factor-of-Safety. As stated above, the
required reinforcement resistance or tensile strength (T) for the required

16
 stability safety factor should be based on the larger value of "T" from the
following two analyses: MVN Method of Planes or Moment Equilibrium
analysis, which considered the location of the reinforcement into the analysis.
(Note that through experience on a particular project, it may be determined that
the Method of Planes is the controlling case. Therefore the moment equilibrium
may not need to be performed for every stability analysis.)

Wedge-Method F.S. = (ΣR forces +T)/ ΣDriving forces

Where
Σ R forces = Resistance forces Ra+Rb+Rp
ΣD forces = Driving Forces (Da) - Dp
T = tensile of the reinforcement (units lb/ft for Method of Planes)

For limit/moment equilibrium stability

F.S. = (MR + ε Ti Yi ) /MD
Where
T = allowable geotextile tensile strength; and
y = moment arm for geotextile (note for large-deformation situation, this moment
arm could become equal to R which is generally a larger value).

Spencer Method should be performed for the equilibrium analyses. For a given factor of
safety, one can determine the required tensile strength of the geotextile from the above
analyses. The COE New Orleans District defined the required geotextile tensile strength
(T) at 5% strain to control field displacement. During initial levee lift constructed over
marsh conditions where consolidation/settlement will occur rapidly, the designer may use
6% (only for initial lift) of the geotextile tensile strength for design (due to lost in
embankment grade that occurs very shortly after construction which in turn reduces the
required T force for stability). In addition, the designer only specifies the 5% tensile of
the geotextile in the Plans and Specifications. Again, this desgin procedure has been used
successfully on the St Charles Parish Hurricane Protection Project, North of Airline
Highway.

Multi-layer geotextile (Two layers). It is recommended for a two layers system that: 3
feet of fill separate the two layers and the bottom geotextile layer be designed to carry 2/3
and the upper layer will be designed to carry 1/3 of the required “T” force for stability.

Stability Factor of Safety. Generally the recommended factor of safety for slope
stability for the reinforced levee is 1.3 for MVN Method of Planes. This factor of safety
is based on many factors such as existing field conditions, type of field investigation and
type of lab tests, and previous experience in the area.
Presently NOD does not require a minimum stability Factor-of-safety for the un-
reinforced levee design analysis of a reinforced levee design. However for pipeline levee
sections, it has been suggested to used a minimum stability factor of safety of 1.0 for the
un-reinforced levee section and allow the reinforcement to obtain the required 1.5
stability Factor of Safety.

17
Levee Stability Factor-of-Safeties used for the Reinforced Levee Design for St Charles
Levee Project:

Unreinforced Reinforced

Pipeline crossing min F.S. = 1.0 min F.S. =1.5

Levee berms no minimum F.S. = 1.2 or less (gain in shear

strength)

Levee to Borrow Pit

a. Hurricane Condition
(HW & normal lower
in borrow pit) F.S. = 1.3 F.S. = 1.5

b. Normal water conditions

on floodside and
extreme low water
in borrow pit F.S. = 1.3 F.S. = 1.5

Gain in Shear Strength during Construction for initial Levee construction over
marsh/very soft foundation conditions. It is highly recommended that the Design
Engineer incorporate the gain in foundation shear strength during construction for new
levee constructed over very soft foundations, if applicable. Incorporating the gain in
shear strength during construction can greatly reduce the levee stability berms, the
required tensile strength of the geotextile for stability, and/or right of way requirements.
Incorporating gain in foundation shear strength during construction has been utilized in
the design analyses of the hurricane protection levees in St Charles Parish, North of
Airline with great success. The designer will need to analyze the foundation conditions
and the method of construction to ensure that the foundation gain in shear strength will
occur. There are two methodologies or procedures to incorporate the increase in
foundation shear strength during construction of new levees constructed over soft
foundations. Both of these methods have been used in St Charles Parish, North of Airline
Hurricane Protection Levee Project. In addition, the Designer shall consult and obtain
Branch Chief approval if the gain in foundation shear strength during construction will be
incorporated in the design of a new levee constructed over soft foundation.

Condition 1 - Degrading Existing Levee. If the project/design entails degrading an

existing levee to install the reinforcement and rebuild the levee to a slightly higher grade,
then incorporating the gain in shear strength during construction is not applicable. The
designer should use a minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for the reinforced stability
analysis.

18
Condition 2- Initial construction of a Levee over very soft marsh conditions. For this
case, the Design Engineer should incorporate the gain in foundation shear strength during
construction. The designer will need to analyze the foundation conditions and the
method of construction to ensure himself that the foundation gain in shear strength will
occur. There are two methodologies or procedures to incorporate the increase in
foundation shear strength during construction. Both of these methods have been used in
St Charles Parish, North of Airline Hurricane Protection Levee Project.
Method 1: Reducing the Stability Factor-of-Safety to incorporate foundation shear
strength during construction. This method uses the initial in-situ shear strength based on
the Q-test results and designing for a minimum overall stability factor-of-safety of 1.2 for
either the reinforced or un-reinforced levee design sections. The reduction of the typical
NOD stability factor-of-safety from 1.3 to 1.2 is used to incorporate gain in shear strength
during construction. For the St Charles Project, this method was conservative. The
Designer could reduce overall stability factor-of-safety to less than 1.2 for design based
on the test section in St Charles Parish. However, the designer should perform a
sensitivity analysis, utilizing R-tests to determine the increase in foundation strength
shear that would be required to obtain a minimum stability factor-of-safety of 1.3.

Method 2: Increasing in foundation shear strength beneath the levee C/L during
construction based on R-test results.
Stability analysis of the initial levee constructed over a marsh foundation (very soft
organic clays and peats) should be based on "R-TEST" values in the upper foundation
layers because of the rapid consolidation of these layers during construction. The R-Test
is more indicative of the foundation loading conditions during construction in the upper
very soft foundation soils. Levee design and laboratory testing should be conducted in a
manner that will analysis and test the foundation soil to whatever sequence of loading and
drainage is expected during the anticipated field conditions.

Method 2a. Q- shear strength for Centerline and toe. The stability analysis based on this
method utilizing R-tests will have two strength lines. A centerline design strength line
inputted in the analysis as Q-shear strengths based on R-tests to predict gain in shear
strength during construction from consolidation in the upper stratums, and a toe strength
line based on the boring Q- test results. Again, the designer should perform a sensitivity
analysis to determine what effect on the stability factor-of-safety if he over predicts a
gain in shear strength during construction. For this analysis the embankment will be
designed for a minimum factor-of -safety of 1.3.
Method 2b. Utilizing R strengths for the upper stratum. For this method, the
designer would utilize R-strengths for the upper stratum and insert the appropriate
piezometric headlines during construction for each soil strata. The designer will need to
validate that the proper shear strength is being used per strata. Peizometers could be
installed during construction to monitor the pore water pressures to determine if the
embankment designs need to be modified during construction. For this analysis the
embankment will be designed for a minimum factor-of -safety of 1.3.

19
If the foundation gain in shear strength is included in the design, it is recommended that
new undisturbed soil borings be taken before the levee is raised to verify the foundation
did experience a gain in shear strength and to validate the levee design.

(For information only: Results from the St Charles Parish Project were that
approximately 75% consolidation occurred in the upper 10 to 20'of the organic
clays/peats layers occurred during construction and that approximate 100% consolidation
occurred within 1 year. Between the depths of 20' to 32' (el -20 to -32.0), consolidation
appears to vary from 75% at top of stratum to approximately 25% consolidation at the
bottom of the stratum (elev. -32) that occurred during construction.

3.3 Embedment/Anchorage Length

Once the embankment height and strength of geotextile have been selected, the geotextile
length (perpendicular to levee C/L) must be determined. The required tensile force for
stability could only be generated if the reinforcement has adequate embedment beyond
the failure surface as shown in Appendix A-Figure 7 and as shown below. Also, the
reinforcement must have adequate embedment in the active zone. The embedment length
required to mobilized a given reinforcement tensile force is dependent on shear strength
at the soil-geotextile interface, as well as the overburden pressures on the embedded
geotextile.

Figure for Embedment Length

An embedded geotextile resists pullout through friction and adhesion on its upper and
lower surfaces and by mechanical anchorage (e.g., anchor plates), if applicable. The soil-
geotextile average interface friction and adhesion coefficients can be defined from results
of direct shear and pull-out tests. Ideally, tests should be performed with embedment fill
on one side of the reinforcement and foundation soil on the other. Significant differences
between the results from shear box tests and pullout tests have been reported and
discussed by Ingold (1982). It was concluded by Ingold that the pullout test is more
appropriate than the direct shear test to determine interface friction parameters of the soil-
geotextile interface required for the design of reinforced earth structures. Where the
geosynthetic is not required to provide soil reinforcement, e.g., in lined side slopes of
dams and canals, the amount of differential moment between the soil and geotextile
determines the mobilized resistance. For this condition, the direct shear test is perceived
to simulate this type of field behavior. Generally, the interface friction between the

20
geotextile and soil is less than the internal friction or adhesion of the fill itself. The
following equation can be used to calculate the required embedment length, L:

T = T
L=
2τ E τT E + τB E

where
T = required tensile strength from slope stability analysis;
τT = shear strength of soil above geotextile;
τB = shear strength of soil below geotextile;
τ = soil shear strength (c + σ’ tan φ); and
E = efficiency factor.

The efficiency factor (E) varies from 0.6 to 1.0 based upon the frictional and adherence
behavior between the soils and geotextiles and amount of overburden. The efficiency
factor is equal to the ratio of the fill/foundation-reinforcement interface friction and the
internal friction of the fill foundation itself. Frictional behavior between soils and
geotextiles is dependent upon the type of fill adjacent to the geotextile and type of
geotextile.

NOD assumes E=1.0 and uses the following shear strength values (τ) with a
minimum of 3 feet of fill above the geotextile:

Sand: φ = 30 degrees and E = 1.0 for most geotextile fabrics.

For clays, the allow pullout values is based on the Factor-of-safety used to determine the
required reinforcement tensile strength: The allowable values are as follows:

Clays:
If: T is based on F.S. = 1.3: τ = 265 + γh tan 19 degrees.
T is based on F.S. = 1.2: τ = 150 + γh tan 20 degrees.

Rock: φ = 40 degrees. However, the designer should use this value with
caution. If the geotextile is used for reinforcement, the designer should ensure
that complete contact between geotextile and rock occurs. It may be advisable
to place a bedding material on top of the reinforcement to ensure 100% contact
between bedding material and geotextile for embedment calculations.

The Designer should not only check the critical active slope stability wedge for that
elevation but adjacent active wedges utilizing the appropriate “T” value to determine the
critical embedment lengths. In addition, the designer should check the next failure
elevation down to ensure adequate anchorage for the failure wedges of that elevation.

21
Some designers check the critical active wedge for the anchorage analysis and then add 5
additional feet to this value for the required embedment. The designer should determine if
this is appropriate for their project. For the St Charles Parish project, settlement during
construction was incorporated in the embedment calculation. Again, the designer needs
to verify that this is appropriate for the project. The pullout of the geotextile may be the
critical mode of failure. The pullout analysis has minimal redundancies, whereas the
geotextile tensile requirement at 5% strain is typical equal to 50% or less of the ultimate
strength of the geotextile. NOD's field pull-out tests were performed on geotextile made
of polyester which has a certain roughness. NOD experience to date is that for most
woven geotextiles the above pull-out values are appropriate. The designer needs to
ensure that the recommended pull-out values are appropriate for their project. (In
addition, the reinforcement must have adequate embedment in the active zone.)
(Open for discussion -- My opinion is we should be applying a small factor-of-safety to
the pullout resistance values - no redundancies here beside the F.S in the T force. No tests
were performed on propropylene geotextiles).

3.4 Lateral Embankment Sliding/Spreading

This analysis is normally performed for steep levee slopes with no stability berms. The
analysis is performed to ensure that a slide at the geotextile interface does not occur.
This analysis is performed to determine the required soil-geotextile interface friction or
adhesion to provide adequate resistance to sliding between the embankment and
geotextile as shown in Appendix-Figure 8. Also, the analysis is used to determine the
minimum reinforcement tensile strength and tensile modulus of the geotextile (normally
stability analysis governs the geotextile tensile strength requirement). The lateral
embankment sliding analysis is based on equating the active earth force to the
soil/geotextile frictional resistance. Therefore, utilizing the lateral earth pressure theory,
the required frictional characteristics of the geotextile can be obtained by the following
equations:

1. Active earth force

PA = ½ γ H2 Ka
Where
PA = active resultant force;
γ = embankment fill unit weight;
H = embankment height; and
Ka = active pressure coefficient; tan2 (45 - φ/2).

2. Soil/geotextile resistance
RR = ½ γHL tan φSF + cLE + ½ γH2 Kp

Or

22
 RR = (c + σ’ tan φ)L + ½ γH2 Kp
for soil above geotextile + passive resistance above geotextile.

Where:
L = length of geotextile/berm;
φSF = soil/geotextile interface friction angle;
c = undrained shear strength;
E = efficiency factor; and
Kp = passive pressure coefficient (tan2 (45 + φ/2)).
(Note cLE should be based on the Corps pull-out test results, see paragraph
above.)

3. Factor of Safety
Resisting Force R
F.S. = = R
Driving Force PA

A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 is recommended against sliding failure. If the factor-
of-safety failure is less than 2.0, the embankment side slopes may be flattened or
additional berms may be considered. Also, the geotextile tensile strength should be
greater then the net lateral active earth force to prevent geotextile tearing. For a factor of
safety of 1.0, the geotextile tensile strength would be equal to the lateral active earth
force. Therefore, the minimum required geotextile tensile strength (TF) with a
recommended factor of safety of 1.5 equal:

TF = 1.5 PA

To develop the required resistance force of lateral sliding, some geotextile strain
(elongation) in the lateral direction of the embankment must occur. To limit lateral
embankment movement from the sliding forces (active earth pressure), a reinforcement
geotextile with a large tensile modulus can be selected. The geotextile tensile modulus
should limit the geotextile strain to be less than the strain that would induce tension
cracks in the embankment. The minimum required geotextile tensile modulus (E) maybe
calculated as follows:

E = (F.S.) PA
ε max

where F.S. is the factor of safety with a recommended value of 1.5, and εmax is the
maximum strain, which the geotextile is permitted to undergo at the embankment
centerline (reasonable maximum value for εmax is 5%). Normally for reinforced levees,
this value is not determined or used in the contract specifications. But, the designer
should be aware of this analysis.

23
5. Creep and long term embankment stability.

Some consideration should be given to creep rates of the geotextile and long-term
stability. The creep resistance of the geotextile is highly dependent on the type of
polymer and process used to manufacture the geotextile. The designer should be aware
that geotextile polymers may lose strength with time. Their design analysis should
incorporate this occurrence into the design. Thus, creep rate of the geotextile versus the
rate of increase in soil shear strength during consolidation should be considered during
design. Geotextile can be designed to resist creep if the working loads are kept well
below the ultimate strength of the geotextile. The recommended working load should not
exceed 25 to 50% of the ultimate strength of the geotextile, dependent on the type of
polymer and process used to manufacture the geotextile. The designer needs to
determine the required service life of the geotextile. If the geotextile is required longer
than six months, the designer must consider creep in his design. NOD has used the
following ultimate tensile strength or the allowable tensile strength @ 5% strain of the
ultimate tensile strength to control creep: (Example 300 lb/in @ 5%)

For polyester: allowable tensile @ 5% is 50 % ultimate (600 lb/in)

For polypropylene: allowable tensile @ 5% is 40 % ultimate (750 lb/in)
For polyethylene: allowable tensile @ 5% is 30 % ultimate (1000 lb/in)

Presently, NOD uses the geotextile for reinforcement for the life of the project, which
spans 30 to 50 years.

6. Geotextile Seam Strength or Field Overlap Requirement.

In most reinforced levee application, the geotextile seams or overlaps are required during
levee construction only. The required geotextile longitudinal strength is based on forces
and strains that can be developed parallel to the embankment centerline. These forces
can also determine the required geotextile seam strength. Seam strength rarely exceeds
two-thirds of the geotextile strength, even with high strength thread and double sewn
overlap seams. More commonly used value is 50% of ultimate strength of the geotextile.
Seam strength represents the minimum strength or weak link of the reinforcement
system. The potential longitudinal reinforcement forces may occur (1) during
construction over very weak sites prone to mudwaves, (2) due to construction sequence,
(3) at the ends of an embankment, and (4) due to differential settlements of the
embankments. The designer should determine the seam strength requirements or overlap
requirements. The seam strength requirement or overlap requirements are based on the
foundation soils, construction means, and fill control line allowed during construction.
On foundation were mud waves will form beneath the geotextile during fill placement,
the seam strength requirement will be higher or overlaps will be larger. If the geotextile
is sewn, seam strengths are typical 50% of cross machine direction ultimate strength of
the geotextile. Typical seam values used by NOD have been from 150 lb/in for good
foundation or geotextile placed on a sand base to 300 lb/in seams strength for geotextile
placed on soft foundations. For overlaps, overlap requirements varies from 1-foot to 5-
feet, which depend on the foundation and difficulty placing geotextile (i.e. 1’ for good
foundation, 3’ for poor foundation with controlled fill placement and 5’ for poor

24
foundation without control placement or underwater placement). However seams
strength analysis should be performed, if the project design or construction procedures
require it. Example: Constructing a levee or stability berm over a sludge pit.

SETTLEMENTS
It is important to note that the reinforcement does not increase the strength or
reduce the compressibility characteristics of the foundation soils. Therefore, the
reinforcement does not significantly reduce overall embankment settlement due to
consolidation of the foundation. Foundation displacement during construction may be
reduced due to the tensile modulus (controls elongation) of the geotextile, which
decreases lateral spreading.

CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS. Design of the geotextile must include

construction procedures.

General Background information on St Charles Parish HPL, North of Airline

Highway Reinforced Levee Contruction Technique.
This levee was built in undeveloped marsh areas, and over/across landfills, canals and
waste pits. In the marsh areas, the groundwater level was at or above the existing ground
surface elevation and subject to variation with tidal changes in Lake Pontchartrain. The
subsurface conditions include about 15 feet of very soft, organic clay/peat with roots and
wood (highly compressible). Approximately 40 to 50 feet of very soft to soft clay with
silt layers and pockets underlay this material. Beneath this layer is a stiff clay Pleistocene
formation.

Unique to this project was the area beneath the main levee section was not grubbed. The
trees were cut-off 6 inches above the water surface but no higher than elevation 2.0
NGVD (tree stumps were left in section). A sand base was placed to elevation 3.0
NGVD to obtain a minimum 1-foot thick sand cover between tree stumps and the
geotextile). The sand base was used as a haul road, as a solid working base for geotextile
installation, and as a separator to separate the geotextile from the tree stumps. The
geotextile is then placed and the clay embankment is constructed.

25