Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R.R. (2008).

Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines,

FHWA Publication No. FHWA HI-95-038 (revised), Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

7.0 REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT FOUNDATIONS

7.1 BACKGROUND

Embankments constructed on soft foundation soils have a tendency to spread laterally

because of horizontal earth pressures acting within the embankment. These earth pressures
cause horizontal shear stresses at the base of the embankment that must be resisted by the
foundation soil. If the foundation soil does not have adequate shear resistance, failure can
result. Properly designed horizontal layers of high-strength geotextiles or geogrids can
provide reinforcement, which increase stability and prevent such failures. Both materials can
be used equally well, provided they have the requisite design properties. There are some
differences in how they are installed, especially with respect to seaming and field
workability. Also, at some very soft sites, especially where there is no root mat or vegetative
layer, geogrids may require a lightweight geotextile separator to provide filtration and
prevent contamination of the first lift if it is an open-graded or similar type soil. A
lightweight geotextile is not required beneath the first lift if it is sand, which meets soil
filtration criteria.

The reinforcement may also reduce horizontal and vertical displacements of the underlying
soil and thus reduce differential settlement. It should be noted that the reinforcement will not
reduce the magnitude of long-term consolidation or secondary settlement of the embankment.

The use of reinforcement in embankment construction may allow for:

• an increase in the design factor of safety;
• an increase in the height of the embankment;
• a reduction or elimination of stabilizing side berms;
• a reduction in embankment displacements during construction, thus reducing fill
requirements; and/or
• an improvement in embankment performance due to increased uniformity of post-
construction settlement.

This chapter assumes that all the common foundation treatment alternatives for the
stabilization of embankments on soft or problem foundation soils have been carefully
considered during the preliminary design phase. Holtz (1989) discusses these treatment
alternatives and provides guidance about when embankment reinforcement is feasible. In
some situations, the most economical final design may be some combination of a
conventional foundation treatment alternative together with geosynthetic reinforcement.
Examples include preloading and stage construction with prefabricated (wick) vertical drains,

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 1 August 2008
the use of stabilizing berms, lightweight fill or column supported embankments - each used
with geosynthetic reinforcement at the base of the embankment. In addition to the
information in Chapter 2 on prefabricated drains and Section 7.12 of this chapter on column
supported embankments, FHWA NHI-06-020, Ground Improvement Methods Reference
Manual – Volume II (Elias et al., 2006) provides detailed information on prefabricated
vertical drains, column supported embankments, and lightweight fill technologies.

7.2 APPLICATIONS

Reinforced embankments over weak foundations typically fall into one of two situations -
construction over uniform deposits, and construction over local anomalies (Bonaparte, Holtz,
and Giroud, 1985). The more common application is embankments, dikes, or levees
constructed over very soft, saturated silt, clay, or peat layers (Figure 7-1). In this situation,
the reinforcement is usually placed with its strong direction perpendicular to the centerline of
the embankment, and plane strain conditions are assumed to prevail. Additional
reinforcement with its strong direction oriented parallel to the centerline may also be required
at the ends of the embankment.

The second reinforced embankment situation includes foundations below the embankment
that are locally weak or contain voids. These zones or voids may be caused by sinkholes,
thawing ice (thermokarsts), old streambeds, or pockets of silt, clay, or peat (Figure 7-1). In
this application, the role of the reinforcement is to bridge over the weak zones or voids, and
tensile reinforcement may be required in more than one direction. Thus, the strong direction
of the reinforcing must be placed in proper orientation with respect to the embankment
centerline (Bonaparte and Christopher, 1987).

Geotextiles may also be used as separators for displacement-type embankment construction

(Holtz, 1989) and as a stabilization layer to allow for embankment construction (see
Chapter 5). In this application, the geotextile does not provide any reinforcement but only
acts as a separator to maintain the integrity of the embankment as it displaces the subgrade
soils. In this case, geotextile design is based upon constructability and survivability, and a
high elongation material may be selected. Prefabricated geocomposite drains may also be
placed as a drainage layer at the base of the embankment to allow for pore pressure
dissipation and consolidation as an alternate to using clean, free draining granular fill for the
first lift.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 2 August 2008
Figure 7-1. Reinforced embankment applications (after Bonaparte and Christopher, 1987).

Biaxial geogrids may also be used as a stabilization layer for embankment construction. This
stabilization geogrid may provide reinforcement strength in the embankment’s longitudinal
direction (see Step 9 in Sections 7.3-2 and 7.3-3). A lightweight geotextile filter, if needed,
can be used in conjunction with the geogrid.

7.3 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT

SOILS

7.3-1 Design Considerations

As with ordinary embankments on soft soils, the basic design approach for reinforced
embankments is to design against failure. The ways in which embankments constructed on
soft foundations can fail have been described by Terzaghi and Peck (1967); Haliburton,
Anglin and Lawmaster (1978 a and b); Fowler (1981); Christopher and Holtz (1985); and
Koerner (1990), among others. Figure 7-2 shows unsatisfactory behavior that can occur in
reinforced embankments. The three possible modes of failure indicate the types of stability
analyses that are required. In addition, settlement of the embankment and potential creep of

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 3 August 2008
the reinforcement must be considered, although creep is only a factor if the creep rate in the
reinforcement is greater than the strength gain occurring in the foundation due to
consolidation. Because the most critical condition for embankment stability is at the end of
construction, the reinforcement only has to function until the foundation soils gain sufficient
strength to support the embankment.

Figure 7-2. Reinforced embankments failure modes (after Haliburton et al., 1978b).

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 4 August 2008
The calculations required for stability and settlement utilize conventional geotechnical design
procedures modified only for the presence of the reinforcement.

The stability of an embankment over soft soil is usually determined by the total stress
method of analysis, which is conservative since the analysis generally assumes that no
strength gain occurs in the compressible soil. The stability analyses presented in this text
uses the total stress approach, because it is simple and appropriate for reinforcement design
(Holtz, 1989).

It is always possible to calculate stability in terms of the effective stresses using the effective
stress shear strength parameters. However, this calculation requires an accurate estimate of
the field pore pressures to be made during the project design phase. Additionally, high-
quality, undisturbed samples of the foundation soils must be obtained and Ko consolidated-
undrained triaxial tests conducted in order to obtain the required design soil parameters.
Because the prediction of in-situ pore pressures in advance of construction is not easy, it is
essential that field pore pressure measurements using high quality piezometers be made
during construction to control the rate of embankment filling. Preloading and staged
embankment construction are discussed in detail by Ladd (1991). Note that by taking into
account the strength gain that occurs with controlled rate (e.g. staged) embankment
construction, lower strength and therefore lower cost reinforcement can be utilized.
However; the time required for construction may be significantly increased and the costs of
the site investigation, laboratory testing, design analyses, field instrumentation, and
inspection are also greater.

The total stress design steps and methodology are detailed in the following section.

[Note: The subjects of site investigation and laboratory testing, soil shear strength
determination, and field instrumentation are addressed in detail in the following FHWA
references: NHI-01-031 Subsurface Investigations - Geotechnical Site Characterization
(NHI course No. 132031 reference manual{Mayne et al., 2002}); IF-02-034 Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 5 Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties (Sabatini, et al., 2002);
NHI-06-088 Soils and Foundations Workshop (NHI course No. 132012 reference manual
{Samtani and Nowatzki, 2006}); and HI-98-034 Geotechnical Instrumentation (NHI course
No. 132041 reference manual {Dunnicliff, 1988}).]

7.3-2 Design Steps

The following is a step-by-step procedure for design of reinforced embankments. Additional

comments on each step can be found in Section 7.3-3.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 5 August 2008
STEP 1. Define embankment dimensions and loading conditions.

A. Embankment height, H

B. Embankment length

C. Width of crest

D. Side slopes, b/H

E. External loads
1. surcharges
2. temporary (traffic) loads
3. dynamic loads

F. Environmental considerations
1. frost action
2. shrinkage and swelling
3. drainage, erosion, and scour

G. Embankment construction rate

1. project constraints
2. anticipated or planned rate of construction

STEP 2. Establish the soil profile and determine the engineering properties of the
foundation soil.

A. From a subsurface soils investigation, determine

1. subsurface stratigraphy and soil profile
2. groundwater table (location, fluctuation)

B. Engineering properties of the subsoils

1. Undrained shear strength, cu, for end of construction
2. Drained shear strength parameters, c' and φ', for long-term conditions
3. Consolidation parameters (Cc, Cr, cv, σp')
4. Chemical and biological factors that may be detrimental to the
reinforcement

C. Variation of properties with depth and areal extent

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 6 August 2008
STEP 3. Obtain engineering properties of embankment fill materials.

A. Classification properties

B. Moisture-density relationships

C. Shear strength properties

D. Chemical and biological factors that may be detrimental to the reinforcement

STEP 4. Establish minimum appropriate factors of safety and operational settlement

criteria for the embankment. Suggested minimum factors of safety are as
follows.

A. Bearing capacity:
Overall bearing capacity: 2.0
Local bearing capacity (i.e., lateral squeeze type failure): 1.3 to 2.0

B. Global (rotational) shear stability at the end of construction: 1.3

C. Internal shear stability, long-term: 1.5

D. Lateral spreading (sliding): 1.5

E. Dynamic loading: 1.1

F. Settlement criteria: dependent upon project requirements

STEP 5. Check bearing capacity.

A. When the thickness of the soft soil is much greater than the width of the
embankment, use classical bearing capacity theory:

qult = γfill H = cu Nc [7-1]

where Nc, the bearing capacity factor, is usually taken as 5.14 -- the value for
a strip footing on a cohesive soil of constant undrained shear strength, cu, with
depth. This approach may underestimate the bearing capacity of reinforced
embankments, as discussed in Section 7.3-3.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 7 August 2008
 B. When the soft soil is of limited depth, perform a lateral squeeze analysis
(Section 7.3-3).

STEP 6. Check rotational shear stability.

Perform a rotational slip surface analysis on the unreinforced embankment and

foundation to determine the critical failure surface and the factor of safety against
local shear instability.

A. If the calculated factor of safety is greater than the minimum required, then
reinforcement is not needed. Check lateral embankment spreading (Step 7).

B. If the factor of safety is less than the required minimum, then calculate the
required reinforcement strength, Tg, to provide an adequate factor of safety
using Figure 7-3 or alternative solutions (Section 7.3-3), where:

FS (M D ) − M R
Tg =
R cos(θ − β )

STEP 7. Check lateral spreading (sliding) stability.

Perform a lateral spreading or sliding wedge stability analysis (Figure 7-4).

Fresisting 1 H b γ tan φ b tan φ f

= 2
f
FS = =
Fdriving 1 K γ H2 Ka H
2 a

A. If the calculated factor of safety is greater than the minimum required, then
reinforcement is not needed for this failure mode possibility.

B. If the factor of safety is inadequate, then determine the lateral spreading

strength of reinforcement, Tls, required -- see Figure 7-4b. Soil/geosynthetic
cohesion, Ca, should be based on undrained direct shear tests on the
soil/geosynthetic interface and assumed equal to 0 for extremely soft soils and
low embankments. A cohesion value should be included with placement of
the second and subsequent fills in staged embankment construction.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 8 August 2008
 2 (b c a + Tls )
FS =
Ka γ H 2
where:
b = length of embankment side slope
H = height of embankment
Ka = coefficient of lateral earth pressure for embankment fill soil
φ' = friction angle of embankment soil
γ = unit weight of embankment soil
φsg = embankment soil to geosynthetic interface friction angle
cu = cohesion (total stress) of foundation soil
ca = adhesion of foundation soil to geosynthetic reinforcement
(Assume ca = 0 for 1st stage loading on extremely soft soils.)

In absence of test data, the value of tan φsg may conservatively be taken as 2/3
tan φ’. In absence of test data, the value of ca should be assumed to be 0.

C. Check sliding above the reinforcement. See Figure 7-4a.

b tan φ sg
FS =
Ka H

STEP 8. Establish tolerable geosynthetic deformation requirements and calculate the

required reinforcement modulus, J, based on wide width (ASTM D 4595)
tensile testing.

Reinforcement Modulus: J = Tls /εgeosynthetic [7-2]

Recommendations for strain limits, based on type of fill soil materials and for
construction over peats, are:

Cohesionless soil fills: εgeosynthetic = 5 to 10% [7-3]

Cohesive soil fills: εgeosynthetic = 2% [7-4]
Peat foundations: εgeosynthetic = 2 to 10% [7-5]

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 9 August 2008
Figure 7-3. Reinforcement required to provide rotational stability (a) Christopher and
Holtz (1985) after Wager (1981); (b) Bonaparte and Christopher (1987) for
the case in which the reinforcement does not increase soil strength.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 10 August 2008
Figure 7-4. Reinforcement required to limit lateral embankment spreading
(a) embankment sliding on reinforcement; (b) rupture of reinforcement and
embankment sliding on foundation soil (Bonaparte and Christopher, 1987).

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 11 August 2008
STEP 9. Establish geosynthetic strength requirements in the embankment‘s
longitudinal direction (i.e., direction of the embankment alignment).

A. Check bearing capacity and rotational slope stability at the ends of the
embankment (Steps 5 and 6).

B. Use strength and elongation determined from Steps 7 and 8 to control

embankment spreading during construction and to control bending following
construction.

C. As the strength of the seams transverse to the embankment alignment control

strength requirements, geosynthetic seam strength requirements are the higher
of the strengths determined from Steps 9.A or 9.B.

STEP 10. Establish geosynthetic properties (Section 7.4).

A. Design strengths and modulus are based on the ASTM D 4595 wide width
tensile test. This test standard permits definition of tensile modulus in terms
of: (i) initial tensile modulus; (ii) offset tensile modulus; or (iii) secant tensile
modulus. Furthermore, the secant modulus may be defined between any two
strain points. Geosynthetic modulus for design of embankments should be
determined using a secant modulus, defined with the zero strain point and
design strain limit (i.e., 2 to 10%) point.

B. Geotextile seam strength is quantified with the ASTM D 4884 test method,
and is equal to the strength required in the embankment’s longitudinal
direction. Geogrid overlap strength, for longitudinal direction strength, is
quantified with pullout testing (ASTM D 6706).

C. Soil-geosynthetic friction, φsg, based on ASTM D 5321 with on-site soils. For
preliminary estimates, assume φsg = 2/3φ; for final design, testing is
recommended.

D. Geotextile stiffness based on site conditions and experience. See Sect. 7.4-5.

E. Select survivability and constructability requirements for the geosynthetic

based on site conditions, backfill materials, and equipment, using Tables 7-1,
7-2, and 7-3.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 12 August 2008
STEP 11. Estimate magnitude and rate of embankment settlement.

Use conventional geotechnical procedures and practices for this step.

STEP 12. Establish construction sequence and procedures.

See Section 7.8.

STEP 13. Establish construction observation requirements.

See Sections 7.8 and 7.9.

STEP 14. Hold preconstruction meetings.

Consider a partnering type contract with a disputes resolution board.

STEP 15. Observe construction and build with confidence (if the procedures outlined in
these guidelines are followed!)

7.3-3 Comments on the Design Procedure

STEPS 1 and 2 need no further elaboration.

STEP 3. Obtain embankment fill properties.

Follow traditional geotechnical practice, except that the first few lifts of fill material
just above the geosynthetic should be free-draining granular materials. This
requirement provides the best frictional interaction between the geosynthetic and fill,
as well as providing a drainage layer for excess pore water to dissipate from the
underlying soils. Other fill materials may be used above this layer as long as the
strain compatibility of the geosynthetic is evaluated with respect to the backfill
materials (Step 8).

When a fill is placed on soft ground, the main driving force is from the weight of the
embankment itself. It may be advantageous to use a lightweight fill material to
reduce the driving forces, thereby increasing the overall global stability of the fill.
The reduction in driving force will depend upon the type of lightweight fill material
used. The geotechnical properties of various types of lightweight fill materials are
discussed in detail in FWHA NHI-06-019 Ground Improvement Methods Reference

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 13 August 2008
 Manual – Volume I (Elias et al., 2006). A secondary benefit of the use of lightweight
fill material is the reduction in settlement under loading. The amount of settlement
will be reduced proportionately to the reduction in load.

STEP 4. Establish design factors of safety.

The minimum factors of safety previously stated are recommended for projects with
modern state-of-the-practice geotechnical site investigations and laboratory testing.
Those factors may be adjusted depending on the method of analysis, type and use of
facility being designed, the known conditions of the subsurface, the quality of the
samples and soils testing, the cost of failure, the probability of extreme events
occurring, and the engineer's previous experience on similar projects and sites. In
short, all of the uncertainties in loads, analyses, and soil properties influence the
choice of appropriate factors of safety. Typical factors of safety for unreinforced
embankments also seem to be appropriate for reinforced embankments.

When the calculated factor of safety is greater than 1 but less than the minimum
allowable factor of safety for design, say 1.3 or 1.5, then the geosynthetic provides an
additional factor of safety or a second line of defense against failure. On the other
hand, when the calculated factor of safety for the unreinforced embankment is
significantly less than 1, the geosynthetic reinforcement is the difference between
success and failure. In this latter case, construction considerations (Section 7.8)
become crucial to the project success.

Maximum tolerable post-construction settlement and embankment deformations,

which depend on project requirements, must also be established.

STEP 5. Check overall bearing capacity.

Overall Bearing
Reinforcement does not increase the overall bearing capacity of the foundation soil.
If the foundation soil cannot support the weight of the embankment, then the
embankment cannot be built. Thus, the overall bearing capacity of the entire
embankment must be satisfactory before considering any possible reinforcement. As
such, the vertical stress due to the embankment can be treated as an average stress
over the entire width of the embankment, similar to a semi-rigid mat foundation.

The bearing capacity can be calculated using classical soil mechanics methods
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967; Vesic, 1975; Perloff and Baron, 1976; and U.S. Navy,

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 14 August 2008
 1986), which use limiting equilibrium-type analyses for strip footings, assuming
logarithmic spiral failure surfaces on an infinitely deep foundation. These analyses
are not appropriate if the thickness of the underlying soft deposit is small compared to
the width of the embankment. In this case, high lateral stresses in the confined soft
stratum beneath the embankment could lead to a lateral squeeze-type failure. Use of
reinforced soils slopes (Chapter 8) or of mechanically stabilized earth walls (Chapter
9) can lead to high lateral stresses in underlying soft foundation soils. See following
discussion for guidance on assessing this failure mechanism.

In a review of 40 reinforced embankment case histories, Humphrey and Holtz (1986)

and Humphrey (1987) found that in many cases, the failure height predicted by
classical bearing capacity theory was significantly less than the actual constructed
height, especially if high strength geotextiles and geogrids were used as the
reinforcement. Figure 7-5 shows the embankment height versus average undrained
shear strength of the foundation. Significantly, four embankments failed at heights of
6.6 ft. (2 m) greater than predicted by Equation 7-1 (line B in Figure 7-5). The two
reinforced embankments that failed below line B were either on peat or under-
reinforced (Humphrey, 1987). It appears that in many cases, the reinforcement
enhances the beneficial effect the following factors have on stability:
• limited thickness or increasing strength with depth of the soft foundation soils
(Rowe and Soderman, 1987 a and b; Jewell, 1988);
• the dry crust (Humphrey and Holtz, 1989);
• flat embankment side slopes (e.g., Humphrey and Holtz, 1987); or
• dissipation of excess pore pressures during construction.

If the factor of safety for bearing capacity is sufficient, then continue with the next
step. If not, consider increasing the embankment's width, flattening the slopes,
adding toe berms, or improving the foundation soils by using stage construction and
drainage enhancement or other alternatives, such as relocating the alignment or
placing the roadway on an elevated structure.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 15 August 2008
Figure 7-5. Embankment height versus undrained shear strength of foundation; line A:
classical bearing capacity theory (Eq. 7-1); line B: line A + 6.6 ft. (2 m) (after Humphrey,
1987). 1 m = 3.3 ft.

Lateral Squeeze
High lateral stresses in a confined soft stratum beneath an embankment could lead to
a lateral squeeze-type failure. Lateral squeeze-type failure of the foundation should
be anticipated if γfill x Hfill > 3cu, (see FHWA Soils and Foundation Manual, FHWA
NHI-06-088 {Samtani and Nowatzki, 2006}) and a weak soil layer exists beneath the
embankment to a depth that is less that the width of the embankment. The shear
forces developed under the embankment should be compared to the corresponding
shear strength of the soil. Approaches discussed by Jürgenson (1934), Silvestri
(1983), and Bonaparte, Holtz and Giroud (1985), Rowe and Soderman (1987a), Hird
and Jewell (1990), and Humphrey and Rowe (1991) are appropriate. The designer
should be aware that the analysis for lateral squeeze is only approximate, and no
single method is completely accepted by geotechnical engineers at present. When the
depth of the soft layer, DS, is greater than the base width of the embankment, general
global bearing capacity and overall stability will govern the design.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 16 August 2008
 The approach by Silvestri (1983) is presented and demonstrated below for lateral
squeeze failure at the toe of an embankment side slope. If a weak soil layer exists
beneath the embankment to a limited depth DS which is less than the width of the
slope b' (see Figure 7-6), the factor of safety against failure by squeezing may be
calculated from:

2 cu 4.14 cu
FS squeezing = + ≥ 1.3 [7-6]
γ Ds (tan θ ) Hγ

where:
θ = angle of slope.
γ = unit weight of soil in slope.
Ds = depth of soft soil beneath slope base of the
embankment.
H = height of slope.
cu = undrained shear strength of soft soil beneath slope.

Caution is advised and rigorous analysis (e.g, numerical modeling and/or extensive
subsurface investigation with careful evaluation of cu) should be performed when FS
< 2. For factors of safety below 2, cu should be confirmed through rigorous
laboratory testing on undisturbed samples direct simple shear, evaluation of over
consolidation ratio (e.g. Ladd, 1991), or triaxial compression with pore pressure
measurements and/or field vane shear tests. Careful monitoring during construction
will be required with piezometers, surface survey monuments (both within and
outside the toe of the embankment), and inclinometers installed for construction
control.

2 cu 4.14 c u
FS = +
γ Ds (tanθ ) Hγ
Figure 7-6. Local bearing failure (lateral squeeze).

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 17 August 2008
 If the foundation soils are cohesive and limited to a depth of less than the base width
of the embankment, then local stability should be evaluated. As an example, assume
that the foundation soils had an undrained shear strength of 340 psf (16 kPa) and
extended to a depth of 10 ft (3 m) at which point the granular soils were encountered,
and the embankment fill unit weight is 120 lb/ft3 (18.8 kN/m3). Constructing even a
13 ft (4 m) high embankment with a 2H:1V side slope would create a problem in
accordance with equation 7-6 as follows.

2 cu 4.14 c u
FS squeezing = + ⇒
γ D s (tan θ ) Hγ

2 (170 psf ) 4.14 (170 psf )

FS squeezing = + = 1.02
(120 lb / ft )(10 ft )(tan 26.6° ) 13 ft (120 lb / ft 3 )
3

Since FSsqueezing is lower than the recommended 1.3, the stability conditions must be
improved. This could be accomplished by either reducing the slope angle, use of
lightweight embankment fill, or by placing a surcharge at the toe (which effectively
reduces the slope angle). In addition, if the resulting factor of safety is less than 2,
refinement of the analysis should be considered as previously discussed (i.e., careful
evaluation of cu, consider performing numerical modeling, and install instrumentation
for construction control).

STEP 6. Check rotational shear stability.

The next step is to calculate the factor of safety against a circular failure through the
embankment and foundation using classical limiting equilibrium-type stability
analyses. If the factor of safety does not meet the minimum design requirements
(Step 4), then the reinforcing tensile force required to increase the factor of safety to
an acceptable level must be estimated.

This is done by assuming that the reinforcement acts as a stabilizing tensile force at
its intersection with the slip surface being considered. The reinforcement thus
provides the additional resisting moment required to obtain the minimum required
factor of safety. The analysis is shown in Figure 7-3.

The analysis consists of determining the most critical failure surface(s) using
conventional limiting equilibrium analysis methods. For each critical sliding surface,
the driving moment (MD) and soil resisting moment (MR) are determined as shown in

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 18 August 2008
 Figure 7-3a. The additional resisting moment ∆MR to provide the required factor of
safety is calculated as shown in Figure 7-3b. Then one or more layers of geotextiles
or geogrids with sufficient tensile strength at tolerable strains (Step 7) are added at the
base of the embankment to provide the required additional resisting moment. If
multiple layers are used, they must be separated by a granular layer and they must
have compatible stress-strain properties (e.g., the same type of reinforcement must be
used for each layer).

A number of procedures have been proposed for determining the required additional
reinforcement, and these are summarized by Christopher and Holtz (1985), Bonaparte
and Christopher (1987), Holtz (1990), and Humphrey and Rowe (1991). The basic
difference in the approaches is in the assumption of the reinforcement force
orientation at the location of the critical slip surface (the angle ß in Figures 7-3a and
7-3b). It is conservative to assume that the reinforcing force acts horizontally at the
location of the reinforcement (ß = 0). In this case, the additional reinforcing moment
is equal to the required geosynthetic strength, Tg, times the vertical distance, y, from
the plane of the reinforcement to the center of rotation, or:

ªMR = Tg y [7-6a]

as determined for the most critical failure surface, shown in Figure 7-3a. This
approach is conservative because it neglects any possible reinforcement reorientation
along the alignment of the failure surface, as well as any confining effect of the
reinforcement.

A less-conservative approach assumes that the reinforcement bends due to local

displacements of the foundation soils at the onset of failure, with the maximum
possible reorientation located tangent to the slip surface (ß = 2 in Figure 7-3b). In
this case,
ªMR = Tg [R cos (2 - $)] [7-6b]
where,
2 = angle from horizontal to tangent line as shown in Figure 7-3.

Limited field evidence indicates that it is actually somewhere in between the

horizontal and tangential (Bonaparte and Christopher, 1987) depending on the
foundation soils, the depth of soft soil from the original ground line in relation to the
width of the embankment (D/B ratio), and the stiffness of the reinforcement. Based
on the minimal information available, the following suggestions are provided for
selecting the orientation:

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 19 August 2008
 ß=0 for brittle, strain-sensitive foundations soils (e.g., leached
marine clays) or where a crust layer is considered in the
analysis for increased support;
ß = 2/2 for D/B < 0.4 and moderate to highly compressible soils (e.g.,
soft clays, peats);
ß=2 for D/B  0.4 highly compressible soils (e.g., soft clays, peats);
and reinforcement with high elongation potential (,design $
10%), and large tolerable deformations; and
ß=0 when in any doubt!
Other approaches, as discussed by Bonaparte and Christopher (1987), require a more
rigorous analysis of the foundation soils deformation characteristics and the
reinforcement strength compatibility.

In each method, the depth of the critical failure surface must be relatively shallow,
i.e., y in Figure 7-3a must be large, otherwise the geosynthetic contribution toward
increasing the resisting moment will be small. On the other hand, Jewell (1988) notes
that shallow slip surfaces tend to underestimate the driving force in the embankment,
and both he and Leshchinsky (1987) have suggested methods to address this problem.

STEP 7. Check lateral spreading (sliding) stability.

A simplified analysis for calculating the reinforcement required to limit lateral

embankment spreading is illustrated in Figure 7-4. For unreinforced as well as
reinforced embankments, the driving forces result from the lateral earth pressures
developed within the embankment and which must, for equilibrium, be transferred to
the foundation by shearing stresses (Holtz, 1990). Instability occurs in the
embankment when either:
1. the embankment slides on the reinforcement (Figure 7-4a); or
2. the reinforcement fails in tension and the embankment slides on the
foundation soil (Figure 7-4b).

In the latter case, the shearing resistance of the foundation soils just below the
embankment is insufficient to maintain equilibrium. Thus, in both cases, the
reinforcement must have sufficient friction to resist sliding on the reinforcement
plane, and the geosynthetic tensile strength must be sufficient to resist rupture as the
potential sliding surface passes through the reinforcement.

The forces involved in the analysis of embankment spreading are shown in Figure 7-4
for the two cases above. The lateral earth pressures, usually assumed to be active, are

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 20 August 2008
 a maximum at the crest of the embankment. The factor of safety against embankment
spreading is found from the ratio of the resisting forces to the actuating (driving)
forces. The recommended factor of safety against sliding is 1.5 (Step 4). If the
required soil-geosynthetic friction angle is greater than that reasonably achieved with
the reinforcement, embankment soils and subgrade, then the embankment slopes must
be flattened or berms must be added. Sliding resistance can be increased by the soil
improvement techniques mentioned above. Generally, however, there is sufficient
frictional resistance between geotextiles and geogrids commonly used for
reinforcement and granular fill. If this is the case, then the resultant lateral earth
pressures must be resisted by the tension in the reinforcement.

In the case where an MSE or RSS structure is founded at the end of the embankment
(but not supporting a bridge structure) the length b may be taken as the reinforcement
length, L, of the MSE or RSS structure. An MSE or RSS structure should only be
included at the end of an embankment after the foundation soil has been adequately
improved (i.e., through surcharging) to support such structures or other ground
improvement techniques are employed, such as stabilization berms, lightweight fill,
etc.

STEP 8. Establish tolerable deformation requirements for the geosynthetic.

Excessive deformation of the embankment and its reinforcement may limit its
serviceability and impair its function, even if total collapse does not occur. Thus, an
analysis to establish deformation limits of the reinforcement must be performed. The
most common way to limit deformations is to limit the allowable strain in the
geosynthetic. This is done because the geosynthetic tensile forces required to prevent
failure by lateral spreading are not developed without some strain, and some lateral
movement must be expected. Thus, geosynthetic modulus is used to control lateral
spreading (Step 7). The distribution of strain in the geosynthetic is assumed to vary
linearly from zero at the toe to a maximum value beneath the crest of the
embankment. This is consistent with the development of lateral earth pressures
beneath the slopes of the embankment.

For the assumed linear strain distribution, the maximum strain in the geosynthetic
will be equal to twice the average strain in the embankment. Fowler and Haliburton
(1980) and Fowler (1981) found that an average lateral spreading of 5% was
reasonable, both from a construction and geosynthetic property standpoint. If 5% is
the average strain, then the maximum expected strain would be 10%, and the
geosynthetic modulus would be determined at 10% strain (Equation 7-3). However,

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 21 August 2008
 it has been suggested that a modulus at 10% strain would be too large, and that
smaller maximum values at, say 2 to 5%, are more appropriate. Additional discussion
of geosynthetic deformation is given in Christopher and Holtz (1985 and 1989),
Bonaparte, Holtz and Giroud (1985), Rowe and Mylleville (1989 and 1990), and
Humphrey and Rowe (1991).

If cohesive soils are used in the embankment, then the modulus should be determined
at 2% strain to reduce the possibility of embankment cracking (Equation 7-4). Of
course, if embankment cracking is not a concern, then these limiting reinforcement
strain values could be increased. Keep in mind, however, that if cracking occurs, no
resistance to sliding is provided. Further, the cracks could fill with water, which
would add to the driving forces.

STEP 9. Establish geosynthetic strength requirements in the longitudinal direction.

Most embankments are relatively long but narrow in shape. Thus, during
construction, stresses are imposed on the geosynthetic in the longitudinal direction,
i.e., along the direction of the centerline. Reinforcement may be also required for
loadings that occur at bridge abutments, and due to differential settlements and
embankment bending, especially over nonuniform foundation conditions and at the
edges of soft soil deposit.

Because both sliding and rotational failures are possible, analysis procedures
discussed in Steps 6 and 7 should be applied, but in the direction along the alignment
of the embankment. This determines the longitudinal strength requirements of the
geosynthetic. Because the usual placement of the geosynthetic is in strips
perpendicular to the centerline, the longitudinal stability will be controlled by the
strength of the transverse seams.

STEP 10. Establish geosynthetic properties.

See Section 7.4 for a determining the required properties of the geosynthetic.

STEP 11. Estimate magnitude and rate of embankment settlement.

Although not part of the stability analyses, both the magnitude and rate of settlement
of the embankment should be considered in any reinforcement design. There is some
evidence from finite element studies that differential settlements may be reduced

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 22 August 2008
 somewhat by the presence of geosynthetic reinforcement. Long-term or
consolidation settlements are not influenced by the geosynthetic, since
compressibility of the foundation soils is not altered by the reinforcement, although
the stress distribution may be somewhat different. Present recommendations provide
for reinforcement design as outlined in Steps 6 - 10 above. Then use conventional
geotechnical methods to estimate immediate, consolidation, and secondary
settlements, as if the embankment was unreinforced (Christopher and Holtz, 1985).

Possible creep of reinforced embankments on soft foundations should be considered

in terms of the geosynthetic creep rate versus the consolidation rate and strength gain
of the foundation. If the foundation soil consolidates and gains strength at a rate
faster than (or equal to) the rate the geosynthetic loses strength due to creep, there is
no problem. Many soft soils such as peats, silts and clays with sand lenses have high
permeability, therefore, they gain strength rapidly, but each case should be analyzed
individually.

Time required for settlement can be substantially decreased with foundation drains.
Consolidation of soft ground using vertical drains is a technique used since the 1920s.
Today, the most common method is the use of wick drains, which can best be
described as prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs), since drainage is via pressure, and
not by wicking. PVDs are used to accelerate consolidation of soft saturated
compressible soils under load. The most common use of PVDs is to accelerate
consolidation for approach embankments at bridges or other embankment
construction over soft soils, where the total post construction settlement is not
acceptable.

When PVDs are used to accelerate settlement, the subsoil must meet the following
criteria:
• Moderate to high compressibility.
• Low permeability.
• Full saturation.
• Final embankment loads must exceed maximum past pressure.
• Secondary consolidation must not be a major concern.
• Low-to-moderate shear strength.

The evaluation, design, cost, specification, and construction with PVDs are discussed
in detail in FWHA NHI-06-019 Ground Improvement Methods Reference Manual –
Volume I (Elias et al., 2006). Filtration of the PVD geotextile should be evaluated
following the guidelines in Chapter 2 of this manual.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 23 August 2008
STEP 12. Establish construction sequence and procedures.

The importance of proper construction procedures for geosynthetic reinforced

embankments on very soft foundations cannot be over emphasized. A specific
construction sequence is usually required to avoid failures during construction.

See Section 7.8 for details on site preparation, special construction equipment,
geosynthetic placement procedures, seaming techniques, and fill placement and
compaction procedures.

STEP 13. Establish construction observation requirements

See Sections 7.8 and 7.9.

A. Instrumentation. As a minimum, install piezometers, settlement points, and

surface survey monuments. Also consider inclinometers to observe lateral
movement with depth.

Note that the purpose of the instrumentation in soft ground reinforcement

projects is not for research but to verify design assumptions and to control
and, usually, expedite construction.
B. Geosynthetic inspection. Be sure field personnel understand:
geosynthetic submittal for acceptance prior to installation;
testing requirements;
fill placement procedures; and
seam integrity verification.

STEP 14. Hold preconstruction meetings

It has been our experience that the more potential contractors know about the overall
project, the site conditions, and the assumptions and expectations of the designers, the
more realistically they can bid; and, the project is more successful. Prebid and
preconstruction information meetings with contractors have been very successful in
establishing a good, professional working relationship between owner, design
engineer, and contractor. Partnering type contracts and a disputes resolution board
can also be used to reduce problems, claims, and litigation.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 24 August 2008
STEP 15. Observe construction

Inspection should be performed by a trained and knowledgeable inspector, and good

documentation of construction should be maintained.

7.4 SELECTION OF GEOSYNTHETIC AND FILL PROPERTIES

Once the design strength requirements have been established, the appropriate geosynthetic
must be selected. In addition to its tensile and frictional properties, drainage requirements,
construction conditions, and environmental factors must also be considered. Geosynthetic
properties required for reinforcement applications are given in Table 7-1. The selection of
appropriate fill materials is also an important aspect of the design. When possible, granular
fill is preferred, especially for the first few lifts above the geosynthetic.

Table 7-1. Geosynthetic Properties Required for Reinforcement Applications.

Criteria and Parameter Property1

Design Requirements:
a. Mechanical
Tensile strength Wide width strength
Tensile modulus Wide width strength
Seam strength Wide width strength
Tension creep Tension creep
Soil-geosynthetic friction Soil-geosynthetic friction angle

b. Hydraulic
Piping resistance Apparent opening size
Permeability Permeability
Constructability Requirements:
Tensile strength Grab strength
Puncture resistance Puncture resistance
Tear resistance Trapezoidal tear
Longevity:
UV stability (if exposed) UV resistance
Soil compatibility (where required) Chemical; Biological
NOTE: 1. See Table 1-3 for specific test procedures.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 25 August 2008
7.4-1 Geotextile and Geogrid Strength Requirements
The most important mechanical properties are the tensile strength and modulus of the
reinforcement, seam strength, soil-geosynthetic friction, and system creep resistance.

The tensile strength and modulus values should preferably be determined by an in-soil tensile
test. From research by McGown, Andrawes, and Kabir (1982) and others, we know that in-
soil properties of many geosynthetics are markedly different than those from tests conducted
in air. However, in-soil tests are not yet routine nor standardized, and the test proposed test
methods need additional work. The practical alternate is to conservatively use a
representative (i.e., wide strip) tensile test as a measure of the in-soil strength. This point is
discussed by Christopher and Holtz (1985) and Bonaparte, Holtz, and Giroud (1985).

Therefore, strength and modulus are based on testing of wide specimens. ASTM D 4595,
Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Geotextiles by the Wide-Width Strip Method,
is used for geotextiles, and ASTM D 6637 Standard Test Method for Determining Tensile
Properties of Geogrids by the Single or Multi-Rib Tensile Method with Method B or C (wide
specimen) is used for geogrids. These test standards permits definition of tensile modulus in
terms of: (i) initial tensile modulus; (ii) offset tensile modulus; or (iii) secant tensile
modulus. Furthermore, the secant modulus may be defined between any two strain points.
Geosynthetic modulus for design of embankments should be determined using a secant
modulus, defined with the zero strain point and design strain limit (i.e., 2 to 10%) point.

The following minimum criteria for tensile strength of geosynthetics are recommended.
1. For ordinary cases, determine the design tensile strength Td (the larger of Tg
and Tls) and the required secant modulus at 2 to 10% strain.
2. The ultimate tensile strength Tult obviously must be greater that the design
tensile strength, Td. Note that Tg includes an inherent safety factor against
overload and sudden failure that is equal to the rotational stability safety
factor. The tensile strength requirements should be increased to account for
installation damage, depending on the severity of the conditions.
3. The strain of the reinforcement at failure should be at least 1.5 times the
secant modulus strain to avoid brittle failure. For exceptionally soft
foundations where the reinforcement will be subjected to very large tensile
stresses during construction, the geosynthetic must have either sufficient
strength to support the embankment itself, or the reinforcement and the
embankment must be allowed to deform. In this case, an elongation at rupture
of up to 50% may be acceptable. In either case, high tensile strength
geosynthetics and special construction procedures (Section 7.8) are required.
4. If there is a possibility of tension cracks forming in the embankment or high

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 26 August 2008
 strain levels occurring during construction (such as might occur, for example,
with cohesive embankments), the lateral spreading strength, Tls, at 2% strain
should be required.
5. The required lateral spreading strength, Tls, should be increased to account for
creep and installation damage as the creep potential of the geosynthetic
depends on the creep potential of the foundation. If significant creep is
expected in the foundation, the creep potential of the geosynthetic at design
stresses should be evaluated, recognizing that strength gains in the foundation
will reduce the creep potential. Installation damage potential will depend on
the severity of the conditions.
6. Strength requirements must be evaluated and specified for both the machine
and cross machine directions of the geosynthetic. Usually, the seam strength
controls the cross machine geosynthetic strength requirements.

Depending on the strength requirements, geosynthetic availability, and seam efficiency, more
than one layer of reinforcement may be necessary to obtain the required tensile strength. If
multiple layers are used, a granular layer of 8 to 12 in. (200 to 300 mm) must be placed
between each successive geosynthetic layer or the layers must be mechanically connected
(e.g., sewn) together. Also, the geosynthetics must be strain compatible; that is, the same
type of geosynthetic should be used for each layer.

For soil-geosynthetic friction values, either direct shear or pullout tests should be utilized. If
test values are not available, Bell (1980) recommends that for sand embankments, the soil-
geosynthetic friction angle is from 2/3φ up to the full φ of the sand. Since these early
recommendations, a number of direct shear and pullout tests have been performed on both
geogrids and geotextiles and the recommendations still apply. It is recommended that in the
absence of tests, a soil-geosynthetic friction angle of 2/3 φ should be conservatively used for
granular fill placed directly on the geosynthetic. For clay soils, friction tests are definitely
warranted and should be performed under all circumstances.

The creep properties of geosynthetics in reinforced soil systems are not well established. In-
soil creep tests are possible but are far from routine today. For design, it is recommended
that the working stress be kept much lower than the creep limit of the geosynthetic. Values
of 40 to 60% of the ultimate stress are typically satisfactory for this purpose. Live loads
versus dead loads also must be taken into account. Short-term live loadings are much less
detrimental in terms of creep than sustained dead loads. And finally, as discussed in Section
7.3-3 Step 11, the relative rates of deformation of the geosynthetic versus the consolidation
and strength gain of the foundation soil must be considered. In most cases, creep is not an
issue in reinforced embankment stability.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 27 August 2008
7.4-2 Drainage Requirements
The geosynthetic must allow for free vertical drainage of the foundation soils to reduce pore
pressure buildup below the embankment. Pertinent geosynthetic hydraulic properties are
piping resistance and permeability (Table 7-1). It is recommended that the permeability of
the geosynthetic be at least 10 times that of the underlying soil. Permeability values could be
based on consolidation tests and taken at initial load levels to simulate initial placement of
fill. The opening size should be selected based on the requirements of Section 2.3. The
opening size should be a maximum to reduce the risk of clogging, while still providing
retention of the underlying soil.

7.4-3 Environmental Considerations

For most embankment reinforcement situations, geosynthetics have a high resistance to
chemical and biological attack; therefore, chemical and biological compatibility is usually
not a concern. However, in unusual situations such as very low (i.e., < 3) or very high (i.e., >
9) pH soils, or other unusual chemical environments -- such as in industrial areas or near
mine or other waste dumps -- the chemical compatibility of the polymer(s) in the
geosynthetic should be checked to assure it will retain the design strength at least until the
underlying subsoil is strong enough to support the structure without reinforcement.

7.4-4 Constructability (Survivability) Requirements

In addition to the design strength requirements, the geotextile or geogrid must also have
sufficient strength to survive construction. If the geotextile is ripped, punctured, or torn
during construction, support strength for the embankment structure will be reduced and
failure could result. Constructability property requirements are listed in Table 7-1. (These
are also called survivability requirements.) Tables 7-2 and 7-3 were developed by
Haliburton, Lawmaster, and McGuffey (1982) specifically for reinforced embankment
construction with varying subgrade conditions, construction equipment, and lift thicknesses
(see also Christopher and Holtz, 1985). The specific property values are provided in Table 7-
4 and Table 7-5. The high and moderate class conditions are taken directly from
survivability tables in Chapter 5 for road construction (e.g., Table 5-3 and 5-4 from
AASHTO M-288 Specification (2006) for geotextiles and Table 5-5 for geogrids) and are
equivalent to Class 1 and Class 2 geosynthetics, respectively. The very high class requires
greater strength than the requirements in Chapter 5 due to the possibility of constructing
embankments on uncleared subgrade, which is a much harsher condition than anticipated for
roads. For all critical applications, high to very high survivability geotextiles and geogrids
are recommended. As the construction of the first lift of the embankment is analogous to
construction of a temporary haul road, survivability requirements discussed in Section 5.9 are
also appropriate here.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 28 August 2008
 Table 7-2. Required Degree of Geosynthetic Survivability as a Function
of Subgrade Conditions And Construction Equipment.
Construction Equipment and
6 to 12 in. (150 to 300 mm) Cover Material
Initial Lift Thickness
Low Ground Medium Ground High Ground
SUBGRADE CONDITIONS
Pressure Pressure Pressure
Equipment Equipment Equipment
(< 4 psi) (> 4 psi, < 8 psi) (> 8 psi)
{< 30 kPa} {>30 kPa, < 60 kPa} {>60 kPa}
Subgrade has been cleared of all obstacles except
grass, weeds, leaves, and fine wood debris. Surface is
smooth and level, and shallow depressions and humps Moderate/ Moderate High
do not exceed 6 in. (150 mm) in depth and height. All Low
larger depressions are filled. Alternatively, a smooth
working table may be placed.

Subgrade has been cleared of obstacles larger than

small- to moderate-sized tree limbs and rocks. Tree
trunks and stumps should be removed or covered with Moderate High Very High
a partial working table. Depressions and humps should
not exceed 18 in. (450 mm) in depth and height.
Larger depressions should be filled.

Minimal site preparation is required. Trees may be

felled, delimbed, and left in place. Stumps should be
cut to project not more than ~6 in. (150 mm) above Not
subgrade. Geosynthetic may be draped directly over High Very High Recommended
the tree trunks, stumps, large depressions and humps,
holes, stream channels, and large boulders. Items
should be removed only if, where placed, the
Geosynthetic and cover material over them will distort
the finished road surface.
NOTES:
1. Recommendations are for 6 to 12 in. (150 to 300 mm) initial thickness. For other initial lift thickness:
12 to 18 in. (300 to 450 mm): Reduce survivability requirement one level
18 to 24 in. (450 to 600 mm): Reduce survivability requirement two levels
> 24 in. (> 600 mm): Reduce survivability requirement three levels
2. For special construction techniques such as prerutting, increase survivability requirement one level.
3. Placement of excessive initial cover material thickness may cause bearing failure of soft subgrades.
4. Note that equipment used for embankment construction (even High Ground Pressure equipment) have
significantly lower ground contact pressures than equipment used for roadway construction (Table 5-2).

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 29 August 2008
 Table 7-3. Required Degree of Geosynthetic Survivability as a
Function of Cover Material and Construction Equipment.

COVER MATERIAL
Some to most aggregate
CONSTRUCTION Fine sand to + 2 in. Coarse aggregate with
with diameter greater than
(50 mm) diameter diameter up to one-half
one-half proposed lift
gravel, rounded to proposed lift thickness,
thickness, angular and
subangular may be angular
sharp-edged, few fines

Low ground
pressure equipment
(4 psi)
Moderate/Low Moderate High
6 to 12 in.
(150 to 300 mm) {30 kPa}
Initial Lift
Thickness Medium ground
pressure equipment
(> 4 psi, < 8 psi)
Moderate High Very High
{>30 kPa,<60 kPa}

Medium ground
pressure equipment
(> 4 psi, < 8 psi)
Moderate/Low Moderate High
12 to 18 in.
(300 to 450 mm) {>30 kPa,<60 kPa}
Initial Lift
Thickness High ground
pressure equipment
(> 8 psi)
Moderate High Very High
{>60 kPa}

18 to 24 in. High ground

(450 to 600 mm) pressure equipment
Initial Lift (> 8 psi)
Moderate/Low Moderate High
Thickness {>60 kPa}

> 24 in. High ground

(> 600 mm) pressure equipment
Initial Lift (> 8 psi)
Moderate/Low Moderate/Low Moderate
Thickness {>60 kPa}

NOTES:
1. For special construction techniques such as prerutting, increase geosynthetic survivability requirement one
level.
2. Placement of excessive initial cover material thickness may cause bearing failure of soft subgrades.
3. Note that equipment used for embankment construction (even High Ground Pressure equipment) have
significantly lower ground contact pressures than equipment used for roadway construction (Table 5-2).

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 30 August 2008
 Table 7-4. Minimum Geotextile Property Requirements1,2,3
for Geotextile Survivability (after AASHTO, 2006)

ASTM Required Degree of Geotextile Survivability

Property Test Units
Method Very High High Moderate

Grab Strength D 4632 N (see Note 4) 1400 1100

Tear Strength D 4533 N (see Note 4) 500 400

Puncture Strength D 6241 N (see Note 4) 2750 2200

NOTES:
1. Acceptance of geotextile material shall be based on ASTM D 4759.
2. Acceptance shall be based upon testing of either conformance samples obtained using Procedure A of ASTM
D 4354, or based on manufacturer’s certifications and testing of quality assurance samples obtained using
Procedure B of ASTM D 4354.
3. Minimum; use value in weaker principal direction. All numerical values represent minimum average roll
value (i.e., test results from any sampled roll in a lot shall meet or exceed the minimum values in the table).
Lot samples according to ASTM D 4354.
4. Recommend survivability of candidate “Very High” survivability geotextile(s) be demonstrated on a
field/project basis or the use of a “High” survivability geotextile as a sacrificial layer.

CONVERSION: 1 N = 0.225 lbf

7.4-5 Stiffness and Workability

For extremely soft soil conditions, geosynthetic stiffness or workability may be an important
consideration. The workability of a geosynthetic is its ability to support workers during
initial placement and sewing operations and to support construction equipment during the
first lift placement. Workability is generally related to geosynthetic stiffness; however,
stiffness evaluation techniques and correlations with field workability are very poor (Tan,
1990). The workability guidelines based on subgrade CBR (Christopher and Holtz, 1985)
are satisfactory for CBR > 1.0. For very soft subgrades, much stiffer geosynthetics are
required. Other aspects of field workability such as water absorption, bulk density, and
fastening method (i.e., geotextile sewn seam or geogrid overlap) should also be considered,
especially on very soft sites.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 31 August 2008
 Table 7-5. Geogrid Survivability Property Requirements1,2,3

Property Test Method Units Requirement

Geogrid Class4
SURVIVABILITY
CLASS 15 CLASS 2
Ultimate Multi-Rib
Tensile Strength
ASTM D 6637 kN/m 18 12

Junction Strength6 GSI GRI GG2 N 110 110

Ultraviolet Stability
ASTM D 4355 % 50% after 500 hours of exposure
(Retained Strength)

OPENING CHARACTERISTICS
Opening Size Direct measure mm Opening Size > D50 of aggregate above geogrid

D85 of aggregate above geogrid < 5 D85 subgrade

Separation ASTM D 422 mm
Other wise use separation geotextile with geogrid
NOTES:
1. Acceptance of geogrid material shall be based on ASTM D 4759.
2. Acceptance shall be based upon testing of either conformance samples obtained using Procedure A of
ASTM D 4354, or based on manufacturer’s certifications and testing of quality assurance samples obtained
using Procedure B of ASTM D 4354.
3. Minimum; use value in stronger principal direction for ultimate multi-rib tensile and retained strengths, and
use value in weaker principal direction for junction strength. All numerical values represent minimum
average roll value (i.e., test results from any sampled roll in a lot shall meet or exceed the minimum values
in the table). Lot samples according to ASTM D 4354.
4. Class 1 is considered a “High” survivability geogrid and Class 2 as a “Moderate” survivability geogrid.
Recommend survivability of candidate “Very High” survivability geogrid(s) be demonstrated on a
field/project basis or the use of a “High” survivability geogrid as a sacrificial layer in conditions requiring
“Very High” survivability.
5. Default geogrid selection. The engineer may specify a Class 2 geogrid for moderate survivability
conditions, see Table 5-2.
6. Junction strength requirements have not been fully supported by data, and until such data is established,
manufacturers shall submit data from full scale installation damage tests in accordance with ASTM D 5818
documenting integrity of junctions. For soft soil applications, a minimum of 6 in. (150 mm) of cover
aggregate shall be placed over the geogrid and a loaded dump truck used to traverse the section a minimum
number of passes to achieve 4 in. (100 mm) of rutting. A photographic record of the geogrid after
exhumation shall be provided, which clearly shows that junctions have not been displaced or otherwise
damaged during the installation process.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 32 August 2008
7.4-6 Fill Considerations
The first lift of fill material just above the geosynthetic should be free-draining granular
materials. This requirement provides the best frictional interaction between the geosynthetic
and fill, as well as a drainage layer for excess pore water dissipation of the underlying soils.
Other lower permeability, (preferably granular) fill materials may be used above this layer as
long as the strain compatibility of the geosynthetic is evaluated with respect to the backfill
material, as discussed in Section 7.3-3, Step 8.

Most reinforcement analyses assume that the fill material is granular. In fact, in the past the
use of cohesive soils together with geosynthetic reinforcement has been discouraged. This
may be an unrealistic restriction, although there are problems with placing and compacting
cohesive earth fills on especially soft subsoils. Furthermore, the frictional resistance between
geosynthetics and cohesive soils is problematic. It may be possible to use composite
embankments. Cohesionless fill could be used for the first 18 to 36 in. (0.5 to 1 m); then the
rest of the embankment could be constructed to grade with locally available materials.

7.5 DESIGN EXAMPLE

DEFINITION OF DESIGN EXAMPLE

• Project Description: A 4-lane highway is to be constructed over a peat bog. Alignment and
anticipated settlement require construction of an embankment with an
average height of 6.5 ft. See project cross section figure.

• Type of Structure: embankment supporting a permanent paved road

• Type of Application: geosynthetic reinforcement

• Alternatives: i) excavate and replace - wetlands do not allow;

ii) lightweight fill - high cost;
iii) stone columns - soils too soft;
iv) drainage and surcharge - yes; or
v) very flat (8H:1V) slope - right-of-way restriction

GIVEN DATA

• Geometry - as shown in project cross section figure

• Geosynthetic - geotextile (a geogrid also may be used for this example problem; however,
this example represents an actual case history where a geotextile was used)

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 33 August 2008
• Soils - subsurface exploration indicates cu = 100 psf in weakest areas
- soft soils are underlain by firmer soils of cu = 500 psf
- embankment fill soil will be sands and gravel
- lightweight fill costs $250,000 more than sand/gravel

• Stability Stability analyses of the unreinforced embankment were conducted with the STABL
computer program. The most critical condition for embankments on soft soils is end-
of-construction case; therefore, UU (unconsolidated, undrained) soil shear strength
values are used in analyses.

- Results of the analyses:

a. With 4:1 side slopes and sand/gravel fill (γ = 138 lb/ft3), FS ≈ 0.72.
b. Since FS was substantially less than 1 for 4H:1V slopes, flatter slopes were
evaluated, even though additional right-of-way would be required. With 8:1 side
slopes and sand/gravel fill (γ = 138 lb/ft3), a FS ≈ 0.87 was computed.
c. Light-weight fill (γ = 100 lb/ft3) was also considered, with it, the FS varied
between ≈ 0.90 to 1.15

- Transportation Department required safety factors are:

Fsmin > 1.5 for long-term conditions
FSallow ≈ 1.3 for short-term conditions

Project Cross Section

REQUIRED
Design geotextile reinforcement to provide a stable embankment.

DEFINE
A. Geotextile function(s):

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 34 August 2008
 B. Geotextile properties required:
C. Geotextile specification:

SOLUTION

A. Geotextile function(s):
Primary - reinforcement (for short-term conditions)
Secondary - separation and filtration

B. Geotextile properties required:

tensile characteristics
interface shear strength
survivability
apparent opening size (AOS)

DESIGN

Design embankment with geotextile reinforcement to meet short-term stability requirements.

STEP 1.DEFINE DIMENSIONS AND LOADING CONDITIONS

See project cross section figure.

STEP 2.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND PROPERTIES

Undrained shear strength provided in given data. Design for end-of-construction. Long-term
design with drained shear strength parameters not covered within this example.

STEP 3.EMBANKMENT FILL PROPERTIES

sand and gravel, with

(m = 138 lb/ft3 N' = 35E

STEP 4.ESTABLISH DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

-Transportation Department required safety factors are:
FSmin > 1.5 for long-term conditions
FSmin ≈ 1.3 for short-term conditions

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 35 August 2008
 - settlement
Primary consolidation must be completed prior to paving roadway.
A total fill height of 6.5 ft is anticipated to reach design elevation. This height
includes the additional fill material thickness to compensate for anticipated
settlements.

STEP 5.CHECK OVERALL BEARING CAPACITY

Recommended minimum safety factor (section 7.3-2) is 2.

A. Overall bearing capacity of soil, ignoring footing size is

qult = c Nc
qult = 100 psf x 5.14 = 514 psf

Considering depth of embedment (i.e., shearing will have to occur through the embankment
for a bearing capacity failure) the bearing capacity is more accurately computed (see
Meyerhof) as follows.
Nc = 4.14 + 0.5 B/D where, B = the base width of the embankment (~ 100 ft),
and
D = the average depth of the soft soil (~ 15 ft)
Nc = 4.14 + 0.5 (100 ft / 15 ft) = 7.5
qult = 100 psf x 7.5 = 750 psf

maximum load, Pmax = γm H

w/o a geotextile -
Pmax = 138 lb/ft3 x 6.5 ft = 900 psf
implies FS = 750 / 900 = 0.83 NO GOOD

with a geotextile, and assuming that the geotextile will result in an even distribution of the
embankment load over the width of the geotextile (i.e., account for the slopes at the
embankment edges),

Pavg = AE γm / B where, A = cross section area of embankment, and

B = base width of the embankment

Pavg = {[½ (100 ft + 50 ft) 6.5 ft] 138 lb/ft3 } / 100 ft

Pavg = 672 psf < qult worst case Safety Factor Marginal

Add berms to increase bearing capacity. Berms, 10 ft wide, can be added within the existing
right-of-way, increasing the base width to 120 ft. With this increase in width,
Nc = 4.14 + 0.5 (120 ft / 15 ft) = 8.14
qult = 100 psf x 8.1 = 814 psf
and,

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 36 August 2008
 Pavg = 672 psf (100 / 120) = 560 psf
FS = 814 psf / 560 psf = 1.45 Safety Factor O.K.

B. Lateral squeeze
From FHWA Foundation Manual (Cheney and Chassie, 1993) -
If γfill x Hfill > 3c, then lateral squeeze of the foundation soil can occur. Since Pmax =
900 psf is much greater than 3c, even considering the crust layer (c = 200 psf), a rigorous
lateral squeeze analysis was performed using the method by Jürgeson (1934). In this method,
the lateral stress beneath the toe of the embankment is determined through charts or finite
element analysis and compared to the shear strength of the soil. This method indicated a
safety factor of approximately 1 for the 100 ft base width. Adding the berm and extending
the reinforcement to the toe of the berm decreases the potential for lateral squeeze as the
lateral stress is reduced at the toe of the berm. The berms increased FSSQUEEZZE to greater
than 1.5.
Also, comparing the reinforced design with Figure 7-5 indicates that the reinforced
structure should be stable.

STEP 6.PERFORM ROTATIONAL SHEAR STABILITY ANALYSIS

Recommended minimum safety factor at end of construction (section 7.3-2) is 1.3.

The critical unreinforced failure surface is found through rotational stability methods. For
this project, STABL4M was used and the critical, unreinforced surface FS = 0.72. As the
soil supporting the embankment was highly compressible peat, the reinforcement was
assumed to rotate such that β = θ (Figure 7-3 and Eq. 7-4b). Thus,

M R + Tg R
FS req = ≥ 1.3
MD

1 .3 M D − M R
Tg =
R

therefore, Tg  ≈ 18,000 lb/ft

Feasible - yes. Geosynthetics are available which exceed this strength requirement,
especially if multiple layers are used. For this project, an installation damage factor of
approximately equal to 1.0, and 2 layers were used:
Bottom: 6,000 lb/ft
Top: 12,000 lb/ft
The use of 2 layers allowed the lower cost bottom material to be used over the full
embankment plus berm width, while the higher strength and more expensive geotextile was
only placed under the embankment section where it was required.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 37 August 2008
STEP 7.CHECK LATERAL SPREADING (SLIDING) STABILITY

Recommended minimum safety factor (section 7.3-2) is 1.5.

A. from Figure 7-4b:

T = FS x PA = FS x 0.5 Ka (m H2
T = 1.5 (0.5) [tan2 (45 - 35/2)] (138 lb/ft3) (6.5 ft)2
T = 1185 lb/ft

Use Reduction Factors (RF) = 3 for creep and 1 installation damage

therefore, Tls = 3560 lb/ft

Tls < Tg, therefore Tdesign = Tg = 18,000 kN/m

B. check sliding:

b tan φ sg
FS =
Ka H

26 ft × tan 23
FS =
0.27 × 6.5 ft

FS > 6, OK

STEP 8.ESTABLISH TOLERABLE DEFORMATION (LIMIT STRAIN) REQUIREMENTS

For cohesionless sand and gravel over deformable peat use Є = 10%

STEP 9.EVALUATE GEOSYNTHETIC STRENGTH REQUIRED IN LONGITUDINAL

DIRECTION

From Step 7,
use TL = Tls = 53 kN/m for reinforcement and seams in the cross machine (X-MD) direction

STEP 10.ESTABLISH GEOSYNTHETIC PROPERTIES

A. Design strength and elongation based upon ASTM D 4595
Ultimate tensile strength
Td1 = Tult $ 6,000 lb/ft in MD - Layer 1
Td2 = Tult $ 12,000 lb/ft in MD - Layer 2
Tult $ 3,560 lb/ft in X-MD - both layers

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 38 August 2008
 Reinforcement Modulus, J
J = Tls / 0.10 = 3,560 lb/ft for limit strain of 10%
J $ 35,600 lb/ft - MD and X-MD, both directions

B. seam strength
Tseam $ 3,560 lb/ft with controlled fill placement

C. soil-geosynthetic adhesion
from testing, per ASTM D 5321, Nsg $ 23○

D. geotextile stiffness based upon site conditions and experience

E. survivability and constructability requirements
Assume:1. medium ground pressure equipment
2. 12 in. first lift
3. uncleared subgrade

Use a Very High Survivability geotextile (from Tables 7-2 and 7-3). Therefore, from Table 7-4, the
survivability of candidate geotextile reinforcements shall be demonstrated on a field/project basis or a
“High” survivability geotextile, meeting the minimum average roll values listed below, may be used
as a sacrificial layer.

ASTM Minimum
Property Test Method Strength
Grab Strength D 4632 1400 N (315 lbs)
Tear Resistance D 4533 500 N (110 lbs)
Puncture Strength D 6241 2750 N (620 lbs)

Drainage and filtration requirements -

Need grain size distribution of subgrade soils
Determine:maximum AOS for retention
minimum kg> ks
minimum AOS for clogging resistance

Complete Steps 11 through 15 to finish design.

STEP 11.PERFORM SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

STEP 12.ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE REQUIREMENTS
STEP 13.ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION REQUIREMENTS
STEP 14.HOLD PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING
STEP 15.OBSERVE CONSTRUCTION

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 39 August 2008
7.6 SPECIFICATIONS

Because the reinforcement requirements for soft-ground embankment construction will be

project and site specific, standard specifications, which include suggested geosynthetic
properties, are not appropriate, and special provisions or a separate project specification must
be used. The following examples, one for a geotextile reinforcement and another for geogrid
reinforcement include most of the items that should be considered in a reinforced
embankment project.

HIGH STRENGTH GEOTEXTILE FOR EMBANKMENT REINFORCEMENT

(from Washington Department of Transportation, October 27, 1997)

Description
This work shall consist of furnishing and placing construction geotextile in accordance with the
details shown in the plans, these specifications, or as directed by the Engineer.

Materials
Geotextile and Thread for Sewing
The material shall be a woven geotextile consisting only of long chain polymeric filaments or
yarns formed into a stable network such that the filaments or yarns retain their position relative to
each other during handling, placement, and design service life. At least 95 percent by mass of the
of the material shall be polyolefins or polyesters. The material shall be free from defects or tears.
The geotextile shall be free of any treatment or coating which might adversely alter its hydraulic
or physical properties after installation. The geotextile shall conform to the properties as
indicated in Table 1.

Thread used shall be high strength polypropylene, polyester, or Kevlar thread. Nylon threads will
not be allowed.

Geotextile Approval
Source Approval
The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer the following information regarding each
geotextile proposed for use:

Manufacturer's name and current address,

Full Product name,
Geotextile structure, including fiber/yarn type, and
Geotextile polymer type(s).

If the geotextile source has not been previously evaluated, a sample of each proposed geotextile
shall be submitted to the Olympia Service Center Materials Laboratory in Tumwater for
evaluation. After the sample and required information for each geotextile type have arrived at the
Olympia Service Center Materials Laboratory in Tumwater, a maximum of 14 calendar days will
be required for this testing. Source approval will be based on conformance to the applicable
values from Table 1. Source approval shall not be the basis of acceptance of specific lots of
material unless the lot sampled can be clearly identified, and the number of samples tested and
approved meet the requirements of WSDOT Test Method 914.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 40 August 2008
 Geotextile Properties

Table 1. Properties for high strength geotextile for embankment reinforcement.

Property Test Method1 Geotextile Property Requirements2

AOS ASTM D4751 0.84 mm max. (#20 sieve)

Water Permittivity ASTM D4491 0.02/sec. min.
Tensile Strength, min.
ASTM D4595 (to be based on project specific design)
in machine direction
Tensile Strength, min.
ASTM D4595 (to be based on project specific design)
in x-machine direction
Secant Modulus at 5% strain ASTM D4595 (to be based on project specific design)
Seam Breaking Strength ASTM D4884 (to be based on project specific design)
Puncture Resistance ASTM D4833 330 N min.
Tear Strength, min.
in machine and ASTM D4533 330 N min.
x-machine direction
Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation 50% Strength Retained min., after 500
ASTM D4355
Stability Hrs in weatherometer
1
The test procedures are essentially in conformance with the most recently approved ASTM
geotextile test procedures, except geotextile sampling and specimen conditioning, which are in
accordance with WSDOT Test Methods 914 an 915, respectively. Copies of these test methods
are available at the Olympia Service Center Materials Laboratory in Tumwater, Washington.
2
All geotextile properties listed above are minimum average roll values (i.e., the test result for
any sampled roll in a lot shall meet or exceed the values listed).

Geotextile Samples for Source Approval

Each sample shall have minimum dimensions of 1.5 meters by the full roll width of the
geotextile. A minimum of 6 square meters of geotextile shall be submitted to the Engineer
for testing. The geotextile machine direction shall be marked clearly on each sample
submitted for testing. The machine direction is defined as the direction perpendicular to the
axis of the geotextile roll.

The geotextile samples shall be cut from the geotextile roll with scissors, sharp knife, or other
suitable method which produces a smooth geotextile edge and does not cause geotextile
ripping or tearing. The samples shall not be taken from the outer wrap of the geotextile nor
the inner wrap of the core.

Acceptance Samples
Samples will be randomly taken by the Engineer at the job site to confirm that the geotextile
meets the property values specified.

Approval will be based on testing of samples from each lot. A "lot" shall be defined for the
purposes of this specification as all geotextile rolls within the consignment (i.e., all rolls sent
to the project site) which were produced by the same manufacturer during a continuous
period of production at the same manufacturing plant and have the same product name. After
the samples and manufacturer's certificate of compliance have arrived at the Olympia Service

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 41 August 2008
 Center Materials Laboratory in Tumwater, a maximum of 14 calendar days will be required
for this testing. If the results of the testing show that a geotextile lot, as defined, does not
meet the properties required in Table 1, the roll or rolls which were sampled will be rejected.
Two additional rolls for each roll tested which failed from the lot previously tested will then
be selected at random by the Engineer for sampling and retesting. If the retesting shows that
any of the additional rolls tested do not meet the required properties, the entire lot will be
rejected. If the test results from all the rolls retested meet the required properties, the entire
lot minus the roll(s) which failed will be accepted. All geotextile which has defects,
deterioration, or damage, as determined by the Engineer, will also be rejected. All rejected
geotextile shall be replaced at no expense to the Contracting Agency.

Certificate of Compliance
The Contractor shall provide a manufacturer's certificate of compliance to the Engineer which
includes the following information about each geotextile roll to be used:

Manufacturer's name and current address,

Full product name,
Geotextile structure, including fiber/yarn type,
Geotextile polymer type(s),
Geotextile roll number, and
Certified test results.

Approval Of Seams
If the geotextile seams are to be sewn in the field, the Contractor shall provide a section of
sewn seam which can be sampled by the Engineer before the geotextile is installed.

The seam sewn for sampling shall be sewn using the same equipment and procedures as will
be used to sew the production seams. The seam sewn for sampling must be at least 2 meters
in length. If the seams are sewn in the factory, the Engineer will obtain samples of the
factory seam at random from any of the rolls to be used. The seam assembly description shall
be submitted by the Contractor to the Engineer and will be included with the seam sample
obtained for testing. This description shall include the seam type, stitch type, sewing thread
type(s), and stitch density.

Construction Requirements
Geotextile Roll Identification, Storage, and Handling
Geotextile roll identification, storage, and handling shall be in conformance to ASTM D 4873.
During periods of shipment and storage, the geotextile shall be stored off the ground. The
geotextile shall be covered at all times during shipment and storage such that it is fully protected
from ultraviolet radiation including sunlight, site construction damage, precipitation, chemicals
that are strong and acids or strong bases, flames including welding sparks, temperatures in excess
of 70o C, and any other environmental condition that may damage the physical property values of
the geotextile.

Preparation and Placement of the Geotextile Reinforcement

The area to be covered by the geotextile shall be graded to a smooth, uniform condition free from
ruts, potholes, and protruding objects such as rocks or sticks. The Contractor may construct a
working platform, up to 0.6 meters in thickness, in lieu of grading the existing ground surface. A
working platform is required where stumps or other protruding objects which cannot be removed
without excessively disturbing the subgrade are present. All stumps shall be cut flush with the
ground surface and covered with at least 150 mm of fill before placement of the first geotextile

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 42 August 2008
 layer. The geotextile shall be spread immediately ahead of the covering operation. The
geotextile shall be laid with the machine direction perpendicular or parallel to centerline as shown
in Plans. Perpendicular and parallel directions shall alternate. All seams shall be sewn. Seams to
connect the geotextile strips end to end will not be allowed, as shown in the Plans. The geotextile
shall not be left exposed to sunlight during installation for a total of more than 14 calendar days.
The geotextile shall be laid smooth without excessive wrinkles. Under no circumstances shall the
geotextile be dragged through mud or over sharp objects which could damage the geotextile. The
cover material shall be placed on the geotextile in such a manner that a minimum of 200 mm of
material will be between the equipment tires or tracks and the geotextile at all times.
Construction vehicles shall be limited in size and weight such that rutting in the initial lift above
the geotextile is not greater than 75 mm deep, to prevent overstressing the geotextile. Turning of
vehicles on the first lift above the geotextile will not be permitted. Compaction of the first lift
above the geotextile shall be limited to routing of placement and spreading equipment only. No
vibratory compaction will be allowed on the first lift.

Small soil piles or the manufacturer’s recommended method shall be used as needed to hold the
geotextile in place until the specified cover material is placed.

Should the geotextile be torn or punctured or the sewn joints disturbed, as evidenced by visible
geotextile damage, subgrade pumping, intrusion, or roadbed distortion, the backfill around the
damaged or displaced area shall be removed and the damaged area repaired or replaced by the
Contractor at no expense to the Contracting Agency. The repair shall consist of a patch of the
same type of geotextile placed over the damaged area. The patch shall be sewn at all edges.

If geotextile seams are to be sewn in the field or at the factory, the seams shall consist of two
parallel rows of stitching, or shall consist of a J-seam, Type Ssn-1, using a single row of stitching.
The two rows of stitching shall be 25 mm apart with a tolerance of plus or minus 13 mm and
shall not cross, except for restitching. The stitching shall be a lock-type stitch. The minimum
seam allowance, i.e., the minimum distance from the geotextile edge to the stitch line nearest to
that edge, shall be 40 mm if a flat or prayer seam, Type SSa-2, is used. The minimum seam
allowance for all other seam types shall be 25 mm. The seam, stitch type, and the equipment
used to perform the stitching shall be as recommended by the manufacturer of the geotextile and
as approved by the Engineer.

The seams shall be sewn in such a manner that the seam can be inspected readily by the Engineer
or his representative. The seam strength will be tested and shall meet the requirements stated in
this Specification.

Embankment construction shall be kept symmetrical at all times to prevent localized bearing
capacity failures beneath the embankment or lateral tipping or sliding of the embankment. Any
fill placed directly on the geotextile shall be spread immediately. Stockpiling of fill on the
geotextile will not be allowed.

The embankment shall be compacted using Method B of Section 2-03.3(14)C. Vibratory or

sheepsfoot rollers shall not be used to compact the fill until at least 0.5 meters of fill is covering
the bottom geotextile layer and until at least 0.3 meters of fill is covering each subsequent
geotextile layer above the bottom layer.

The geotextile shall be pretensioned during installation using either Method 1 or Method 2 as
described herein. The method selected will depend on whether or not a mudwave forms during
placement of the first one or two lifts. If a mudwave forms as fill is pushed onto the first layer of

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 43 August 2008
 geotextile, Method 1 shall be used. Method 1 shall continue to be used until the mudwave ceases
to form as fill is placed and spread. Once mudwave formation ceases, Method 2 shall be used
until the uppermost geotextile layer is covered with a minimum of 0.3 meters of fill. These
special construction methods are not needed for fill construction above this level. If a mudwave
does not form as fill is pushed onto the first layer of geotextile, then Method 2 shall be used
initially and until the uppermost geotextile layer is covered with at least 0.3 meters of fill.

Method 1
After the working platform, if needed, has been constructed, the first layer of geotextile shall
be laid in continuous transverse strips and the joints sewn together. The geotextile shall be
stretched manually to ensure that no wrinkles are present in the geotextile. The fill shall be
end-dumped and spread from the edge of the geotextile. The fill shall first be placed along
the outside edges of the geotextile to form access roads. These access roads will serve three
purposes: to lock the edges of the geotextile in place, to contain the mudwave, and to provide
access as needed to place fill in the center of the embankment. These access roads shall be
approximately 5 meters wide. The access roads at the edges of the geotextile shall have a
minimum height of 0.6 meters when completed. Once the access roads are approximately 15
meters in length, fill shall be kept ahead of the filling operation, and the access roads shall be
kept approximately 15 meters ahead of this filling operation as shown in the Plans. Keeping
the mudwave ahead of this filling operation and keeping the edges of the geotextile from
moving by use of the access roads will effectively pre-tension the geotextile. The geotextile
shall be laid out no more than 6 meters ahead of the end of the access roads at any time to
prevent overstressing of the geotextile seams.

Method 2
After the working platform, if needed, has been constructed, the first layer of geotextile shall
be laid and sewn as in Method 1. The first lift of material shall be spread from the edge of
the geotextile, keeping the center of the advancing fill lift ahead of the outside edges of the
lift as shown in the Plans. The geotextile shall be manually pulled taut prior to fill placement.
Embankment construction shall continue in this manner for subsequent lifts until the
uppermost geotextile layer is completely covered with 0.3 meters of compacted fill.

Measurement
High strength geotextile for embankment reinforcement will be measured by the square meter for
the ground surface area actually covered.

Payment
The unit contract price per square meter for “High Strength Geotextile For Embankment
Reinforcement”, shall be full pay to complete the work as specified.

7.7 COST CONSIDERATIONS

The cost analysis for a geosynthetic reinforced embankment includes:

1. Geosynthetic cost: including purchase price, factory prefabrication, and shipping.
2. Site preparation: including clearing and grubbing, and working table preparation.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 44 August 2008
 3. Geosynthetic placement: related to field workability (see Christopher and Holtz,
1989),
a) with no working table, or
b) with a working table.
4. Fill material: including purchasing, hauling, dumping, compaction, allowance for
additional fill due to embankment subsidence. (NOTE: Use free-draining granular
fill for the lifts adjacent to geosynthetic to provide good adherence and drainage.)

7.8 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

The construction procedures for reinforced embankments on soft foundations are extremely
important. Improper fill placement procedures can lead to geosynthetic damage, nonuniform
settlements, and even embankment failure. By the use of low ground pressure equipment, a
properly selected geosynthetic, and proper procedures for placement of the fill, these
problems can essentially be eliminated. Essential construction details are outlined below.
The Washington State DOT Special Provision (see Section 7.6) provides additional details.

A. Prepare subgrade:
1. Cut trees and stumps flush with ground surface.
2. Do not remove or disturb root or meadow mat.
3. Leave small vegetative cover, such as grass and reeds, in place.
4. For undulating sites or areas where there are many stumps and fallen trees,
consider a working table for placement of the reinforcement. In this case, a
lower strength sacrificial geosynthetic designed only for constructability can be
used to construct and support the working table.

B. Geosynthetic placement procedures:

1. Orient the geosynthetic with the machine direction perpendicular to the
embankment alignment. No seams should be allowed parallel to the alignment.
Therefore,
• The geosynthetic rolls should be shipped in unseamed machine direction
lengths equal to one or more multiples of the embankment design base
width.
• The geosynthetic should be manufactured with the largest machine
width possible.
• These widths should be factory-sewn to provide the largest width
compatible with shipping and field handling.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 45 August 2008
 2. Unroll the geosynthetic as smoothly as possible transverse to the alignment.
(Do not drag it.)

3. Geotextiles should be sewn as required with all seams up and every stitch
inspected. Geogrids may be joined to hold adjacent rolls together or maintain
overlaps by ties, clamps, cables, etc.

4. The geosynthetic should be manually pulled taut to remove wrinkles. Weights

(sand bags, tires, etc.) or pins may be required to prevent lifting by wind.
5. Before covering, the Engineer should examine the geosynthetic for holes, rips,
tears, etc. Defects, if any, should be repaired by.
• Large defects, should be replaced by cutting along the panel seam and
sewing in a new panel.
• Smaller defects, can be cut out and a new panel resewn into that section,
if possible.
• Defects less than 6 in. (150 mm), can be overlapped a minimum of 3
feet (1 m) or more in all directions from the defective area. (Additional
overlap may be required, depending on the geosynthetic-to-geosynthetic
friction angle).

NOTE: If a weak link exists in the geosynthetic, either through a defective

seam or tear, the system will tell the engineer about it in a dramatic way --
spectacular failure! (Holtz, 1990)

C. Fill placement, spreading, and compaction procedures:

1. Construction sequence for extremely soft foundations (when a mudwave forms)

is shown in Figure 7-7.
a. End-dump fill along edges of geosynthetic to form toe berms or access
roads.
• Use trucks and equipment compatible with constructability
design assumptions (Table 7-1).
• End-dump on the previously placed fill; do not dump directly
on the geosynthetic.
• Limit height of dumped piles, e.g., to less than 3 feet (1 m)
above the geosynthetic layer, to avoid a local bearing failure.
Spread piles immediately to avoid local depressions.
• Use lightweight dozers and/or front-end loaders to spread the
fill.
FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments
Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 46 August 2008
 • Toe berms should extend one to two panel widths ahead of the
remainder of the embankment fill placement.
b. After constructing the toe berms, spread fill in the area between the toe
berms.
• Placement should be parallel to the alignment and symmetrical
from the toe berm inward toward the center to maintain a U-
shaped leading edge (concave outward) to contain the
mudwave (Figure 7-8).
c. Traffic on the first lift should be parallel to the embankment
alignment; no turning of construction equipment should be allowed.
• Construction vehicles should be limited in size and weight to
limit initial lift rutting to 3 in. (75 mm). If rut depths exceed 3
in. (75 mm), decrease the construction vehicle size and/or
weight.
d. The first lift should be compacted only by tracking in place with
dozers or end-loaders.
e. Once the embankment is at least 24 in. (600 mm) above the original
ground, subsequent lifts can be compacted with a smooth drum
vibratory roller or other suitable compactor. If localized liquefied
conditions occur, the vibrator should be turned off and the weight of
the drum alone should be used for compaction. Other types of
compaction equipment also can be used for nongranular fill.

2. After placement, the geosynthetic should be covered within 48 hours.

For less severe foundation conditions (i.e., when no mudwave forms):

a. Place the geosynthetic with no wrinkles or folds; if necessary,
manually pull it taut prior to fill placement.
b. Place fill symmetrically from the center outward in an inverted U
(convex outward) construction process, as shown in Figure 7-9. Use
fill placement to maintain tension in the geosynthetic.
c. Minimize pile heights to avoid localized depressions.
d. Limit construction vehicle size and weight so initial lift rutting is no
greater than 3 in. (75 mm).
e. Smooth-drum or rubber-tired rollers may be considered for
compaction of first lift; however, do not overcompact. If weaving or
localized quick conditions are observed, the first lift should be
compacted by tracking with construction equipment.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 47 August 2008
 D. Construction monitoring:
1. Monitoring should include piezometers to indicate the magnitude of excess
pore pressure developed during construction. If excessive pore pressures are
observed, construction should be halted until the pressures drop to a
predetermined safe value.

2. Settlement plates should be installed at the geosynthetic level to monitor

settlement during construction and to adjust fill requirements appropriately.

3. Inclinometers should be considered at the embankment toes to monitor lateral

displacement.

Photographs of reinforced embankment construction are shown in Figure 7-10.

SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION
1. LAY GEOSYNTHETIC IN CONTINUOUS TRAVERSE STRIPS, SEW STRIPS TOGETHER.
2. END DUMP ACCESS ROADS.
3. CONSTRUCT OUTSIDE SECTIONS TO ANCHOR GEOSYNTHETIC.
4. CONSTRUCT OUTSIDE SECTION TO “SET” GEOSYNTHETIC.
5. CONSTRUCT INTERIOR SECTIONS TO TENSION GEOSYNTHETIC.
6. CONSTRUCT FINAL CENTER SECTION

Figure 7-7. Construction sequence for geosynthetic reinforced embankments for extremely
weak foundations (from Haliburton, Douglas and Fowler, 1977).

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 48 August 2008
Figure 7-8. Placement of fill between toe berms on extremely soft foundations (CBR < 1)
with a mud wave anticipated.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 49 August 2008
Figure 7-9. Fill placement to tension geotextile on moderate ground conditions; moderate
subgrade (CBR > 1); no mud wave.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 50 August 2008
(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 7-10. Reinforced embankment construction; a) geosynthetic placement;

b) fill dumping; and c) fill spreading.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 51 August 2008
7.9 INSPECTION

Since implemented construction procedures are crucial to the success of reinforced

embankments on very soft foundations, competent and professional construction inspection
is absolutely essential. Field personnel must be properly trained to observe every phase of
the construction and to ensure that (1) the specified material is delivered to the project, (2)
the geosynthetic is not damaged during construction, and (3) the specified sequence of
construction operations are explicitly followed. Field personnel should review the checklist
in Section 1.7.

7.10 REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS FOR ROADWAY WIDENING

Special considerations are required for widening of existing roadway embankments founded
on soft foundations. Construction sequencing of fill placement, connection of the
geosynthetic to the existing embankment, and settlements of both the existing and new fills
must be addressed by the design engineer. Analytical techniques for geosynthetic
reinforcement requirements are the same as those discussed in Section 7.3.

Two example roadway widening cross sections are illustrated in Figure 7-11. The addition
of a vehicle lane on either side of an existing roadway (Figure 7-11a) is feasible if the traffic
can be detoured during construction. In this case, the reinforcement may be placed
continuously across the existing embankment and beneath the two new outer fill sections.
Placing both new lanes to one side of the embankment (Figure 7-11b) may allow for
maintaining one lane of traffic flow during construction. With the new fill placed to one side
of the existing embankment, the anchorage of the geosynthetic into the existing embankment
becomes an important design step.

Both the new fill sections and the existing fill sections will most likely settle during and after
fill placement, although the amount of settlement will be greater for the new fill sections.
The existing fills settle because of the influence of the new, adjacent fill loads on their
foundation soils. The amount of settlements is a function of the foundation soils and amount
of load (fill height). When fill is placed to one side of an embankment (Figure 7-11b) the
pavement may need substantial maintenance during construction and until settlements are
nearly complete. Alternatively, light-weight fill could be used to reduce the settlement of the
new fill and existing sections.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 52 August 2008
Note that the sections in Figure 7-11 do not indicate a geosynthetic reinforcement layer
beneath the existing embankment section. Typically, the reinforcement for the embankment
widening section would be designed assuming no contribution of existing section
geosynthetic in reinforcing the new and combined sections. Therefore, connection of the
new reinforcement to any existing reinforcement is normally not required.

For soft subgrades, where a mud wave is anticipated, construction should be parallel to the
alignment with the outside fill placed in advance of the fill adjacent to the existing
embankment. For firm subgrades, with no mudwave, fill may be placed outward,
perpendicular to the alignment.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7-11. Reinforced embankment construction for roadway widening; a) fill placement
on both sides of existing embankment; b) fill placement on one side of the
existing fill.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 53 August 2008
7.11 REINFORCEMENT OF EMBANKMENTS COVERING LARGE AREAS

Special considerations are required for constructing large reinforced areas, such as parking
lots, toll plazas, storage yards for maintenance materials and equipment, and construction
pads. Loads are more biaxial than conventional highway embankments, and design strengths
and strain considerations must be the same in all directions. Analytical techniques for
geosynthetic reinforcement requirements are the same as those discussed in Section 7.3.
Because geosynthetic strength requirements will be the same in both directions, including
across the seams, special seaming techniques must often be considered to meet required
strength requirements. Ends of rolls may also require butt seaming. In this case, rolls of
different lengths should be used to stagger the butt seams. Two layers of fabric should be
considered, with the bottom layer seams laid in one direction, and the top layer seams laid
perpendicular to the bottom layer. The layers should be separated by a minimum lift
thickness, usually 12 in. (300 mm), soil layer.

For extremely soft subgrades, the construction sequence must be well planned to
accommodate the formation and movement of mudwaves. Uncontained mudwaves moving
outside of the construction can create stability problems at the edges of the embankment. It
may be desirable to construct the fill in parallel embankment sections, then connect the
embankments to cover the entire area. Another method staggers the embankment load by
constructing a wide, low embankment with a higher embankment in the center. The outside
low embankments are constructed first and act as berms for the center construction. Next, an
adjacent low embankment is constructed from the outside into the existing embankment; then
the central high embankment is spread over the internal adjacent low embankment. Other
construction schemes can be considered depending on the specific design requirements. In
all cases, a perimeter berm system is necessary to contain the mudwave.

7.12 COLUMN SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS

An alternate approach of embankment construction on soft soils may be used when time
constraints are critical to the success of the project. Column supported embankments (CSE)
with a geosynthetic reinforced load transfer platform are designed to transfer the load of the
embankment through the soft compressible soil layer to a firm foundation, thus eliminating
the construction wait time for dissipation of pore water pressures and minimizing settlement
of the foundation soils. This technology was first used in Sweden in 1971, and has been used
successfully on projects in the U.S. since 1994.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 54 August 2008
The load from the embankment must be effectively transferred to the columns to prevent
punching of the columns through the embankment fill causing differential settlement at the
surface of the embankment. If the columns are placed close enough together, soil arching
will occur and the load will be transferred to the columns. A “conventional” CSE is where
the columns are spaced relatively close together, and some battered columns are used at the
sides of the embankment to prevent lateral spreading. In order to minimize the number of
columns required to support the embankment and increase the efficiency of the design, a
geosynthetic reinforced load transfer platform (LTP) may be used. The load transfer platform
consists of one or more layers of geosynthetic reinforcement placed between the top of the
columns and the bottom of the embankment. A CSE with geosynthetic reinforcement is
schematically shown in Figure 7-12.

The key advantage to CSE is that construction may proceed rapidly in one stage. One major
benefit of CSE technology is that it is not limited to any one-column type. Where the
infrastructure precludes high-vibration techniques, the type of column used for the CSE
system may be selected to minimize or eliminate the potential for vibrations. If contaminated
soils are anticipated at a site, the column type may be selected so that there are no spoils from
the installation process. The designer has the flexibility of selection of the most appropriate
column for the project. Total and differential settlement of the embankment may be
drastically reduced when using CSE over conventional approaches. A potential disadvantage
of CSE is often initial construction cost when compared to other solutions. However, if the
time savings when using CSE technology is included in the economic analysis, the cost may
be far less than other solutions.

Design procedures and recommendations are presented in FHWA NHI-06-020, Ground

Improvement Methods – Volume II (Elias et al., 2006) – the reference manual used with the
3-day NHI Ground Improvement Course #132034. There are two basic design approaches.
One approach models the geosynthetic as a catenary and assumes: one layer of geosynthetic
reinforcement is used; soil arch forms in the embankment; and the reinforcement is deformed
during loading. The other approach uses a beam theory model and assumes: a minimum of
three layers of geosynthetic reinforcement; vertical spacing between reinforcements of 8 to
18 in. (20 0 – 450 mm); granular fill platform thickness > one-half the clear span between
columns; and soil arch fully develops within the height of platform.

Applications where CSE technology is appropriate for transportation include

• embankment stabilization
• roadway widening
• bridge approach fill stabilization
• bridge abutment and other foundation support

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 55 August 2008
A considerable amount of highway widening and reconstruction work will be required in
future years. Some of this work will involve building additional lanes immediately adjacent
to existing highways constructed on moderate to high fills over soft cohesive soils, such as
those found in wetland areas. For this application, differential settlement between the
existing and new construction is an important consideration, in addition to embankment
stability. Support of the new fill on CSE offers a viable design alternative to conventional
construction.

CSE may be used whenever an embankment must be constructed on soft compressible soil.
To date, the technology has been limited to embankment heights in the range of 33 feet (10
m). CSE technology reduces post construction settlements of the embankment surface to
typically less than 2 to 4 in. (50 to 100 mm). A generalized summary of the factors that
should be considered when assessing the feasibility of utilizing CSE technology on a project
is presented in FHWA NHI-06-020, Ground Improvement Methods Reference Manual –
Volume II.

Figure 7-12. Column supported embankment with geosynthetic reinforcement.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 56 August 2008
7.13 REFERENCES

AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Geotextiles - M 288 (2006). Standard Specifications

for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 26th Edition,
American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials, Washington,
D.C.,

ASTM, Annual Books of ASTM Standards, (2006). Volume 4.13 Geosynthetics, American
International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

Bell, J.R. (1980). Design Criteria for Selected Geotextile Installations, Proceedings of the
1st Canadian Symposium on Geotextiles, pp. 35-37.

Bonaparte, R. and Christopher, B.R. (1987). Design and Construction of Reinforced

Embankments Over Weak Foundations, Proceedings of the Symposium on Reinforced
Layered Systems, Transportation Research Record 1153, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., pp. 26-39.

Bonaparte, R., Holtz, R.R. and Giroud, J.P. (1985). Soil Reinforcement Design Using
Geotextiles and Geogrids, Geotextile Testing and The Design Engineer, J.E. Fluet, Jr.,
Editor, ASTM STP 952, 1987, Proceedings of a Symposium held in Los Angeles, CA,
July 1985, pp. 69-118.

Cheney, R.S. and Chassie, R.G. (1993). Soils and Foundations Workshop Manual, HI-88-
099, 395 p.

Christopher, B.R. and Holtz, R.D. (1985). Geotextile Engineering Manual, FHWA-TS-
86/203, 1044 p.

Christopher, B.R. and Holtz, R.D. (1989). Geotextile Design and Construction Guidelines,
FHWA-HI-90-001, 297 p.

Dunnicliff, J. (1998). Geotechnical Instrumentation; FHWA HI-98-034; NHI course No.

132041 reference manual; 238 pp.

Elias, V., Welsh, J., Warren, J., Lukas, R., Collin, J.G. and Berg, R.R. (2006). Ground
Improvement Methods; FHWA NHI-06-019 Volume I and NHI-06-020 Volume II; NHI
course No. 132034 reference manual; 536 p and 520 p.

Fowler, J. (1981). Design, Construction and Analysis of Fabric-Reinforced Embankment

Test Section at Pinto Pass, Mobile, Alabama, Technical Report EL-81-7, USAE
Waterways Experiment Station, 238 p.

Fowler, J. and Haliburton, T.A. (1980). Design and Construction of Fabric Reinforced
Embankments, The Use of Geotextiles for Soil Improvement, Preprint 80-177, ASCE
Convention, pp. 89-118.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 57 August 2008
Haliburton T.A., Lawmaster, J.D. and McGuffey, V.E. (1982). Use of Engineering Fabrics
in Transportation Related Applications, Final Report Under Contract No. DTFH61-80-
C-0094.

Haliburton, T.A., Anglin, C.C. and Lawmaster, J.D. (1978a). Testing of Geotechnical Fabric
for Use as Reinforcement, Geotechnical Testing Journal, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 203-212.

Haliburton, T.A., Anglin, C.C. and Lawmaster, J.D. (1978b). Selection of Geotechnical
Fabrics for Embankment Reinforcement, Report to U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, 138p.

Haliburton, T.A., Douglas, P.A. and Fowler, J. (1977). Feasibility of Pinto Island as a Long-
Term Dredged Material Disposal Site, Miscellaneous Paper, D-77-3, U.S. Army
Waterways Experiment Station.

Hird, C.C. and Jewell, R.A. (1990). Theory of Reinforced Embankments, Reinforced
Embankments - Theory and Practice, Shercliff, D.A., Ed., Thomas Telford Ltd., London,
UK, pp. 117-142.

Holtz, R.D. (1990). Design and Construction of Geosynthetically Reinforced Embankments

on Very Soft Soils, State-of-the-Art Paper, Session 5, Performance of Reinforced Soil
Structure, Proceedings of the International Reinforced Soil Conference, Glasgow,
British Geotechnical Society, pp. 391-402.

Holtz, R.D. (1989). Treatment of Problem Foundations for Highway Embankments,

Synthesis of Highway Practice 147, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 72p.

Humphrey, D.N. and Rowe, R.K. (1991). Design of Reinforced Embankments - Recent
Developments in the State of the Art, Geotechnical Engineering Congress 1991, McLean,
F., Campbell, D.A. and Harris, D.W., Eds., ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No.
27, Vol. 2, June, pp. 1006-1020.

Humphrey, D.N. and Holtz, R.D. (1989). Effects of a Surface Crust on Reinforced
Embankment Design, Proceedings of Geosynthetics '89, Industrial Fabrics Association
International, St. Paul, MN, Vol. 1, pp. 136-147.

Humphrey, D.N. (1987). Discussion of Current Design Methods by R.M. Koerner, B-L Hwu
and M.H. Wayne, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 89-92.

Humphrey, D.N. and Holtz, R.D. (1987). Use of Reinforcement for Embankment Widening,
Proceedings of Geosynthetics '87, Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul,
MN, Vol. 1, pp. 278-288.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 58 August 2008
Humphrey, D.N. and Holtz, R.D. (1986). Reinforced Embankments - A Review of Case
Histories, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.129-144.

Jewell, R.A. (1988). The Mechanics of Reinforced Embankments on Soft Soils, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.237-273.

Jürgenson, L. (1934). The Shearing Resistance of Soils, Journal of the Boston Society of
Civil Engineers. Also in Contribution to Soil Mechanics, 1925-1940, BSCE, pp. 134-
217.

Koerner, R.M., Editor (1990). The Seaming of Geosynthetics, Special Issue, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 9, Nos. 4-6, pp. 281-564.

Ladd, C.C. (1991). Stability Evaluation During Staged Construction, 22nd Terzaghi Lecture,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 117,
No. 4, pp. 537-615.

Leshchinsky, D. (1987). Short-Term Stability of Reinforced Embankment over Clayey

Foundation, Soils and Foundations, The Japanese Society of Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 43-57.

Mayne, P.W., Christopher, B.R. and DeJong, J. (2002). Subsurface Investigations –

Geotechnical Site Characterization, FHWA NHI-01-031, NHI course No. 132031
reference manual, 300 pp.

McGown, A., Andrawes, K.Z., and Kabir, M.H. (1982). Load-Extension Testing of
Geotextiles Confined in Soil, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Geotextiles, Las Vegas, Vol. 3, pp. 793-798.

Perloff, W.H. and Baron, W. (1976). Soil Mechanics: Principles and Applications, Ronald,
745 p.

Rowe, R.K. and Mylleville, B.L.J. (1990). Implications of Adopting an Allowable

Geosynthetic Strain in Estimating Stability, Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes, and Related Products, The Hague, Vol. 1,
pp. 131-136.

Rowe, R.K. and Mylleville, B.L.J. (1989). Consideration of Strain in the Design of
Reinforced Embankments, Proceedings of Geosynthetics '89, Industrial Fabrics
Association International, St. Paul, MN, Vol. 1, pp. 124-135.

Rowe, R.K. and Soderman, K.L. (1987a). Reinforcement of Embankments on Soils Whose
Strength Increases With Depth, Proceedings of Geosynthetics '87, Industrial Fabrics
Association International, St. Paul, MN, Vol. 1, pp. 266-277.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 59 August 2008
Rowe, R.K. and Soderman, K.L. (1987b). Stabilization of Very Soft Soils Using High
Strength Geosynthetics: The Role of Finite Element Analyses, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 53-80.

Sabatini, P.J., Bachus, R.C., Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A. and Zettler, T.E. (2002). GEC
No. 5 – Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No.
5, FHWA IF-02-034, 385 pp.

Samtani, N.C. and Nowatzki, E.A. (2006). Soils and Foundations Workshop Reference
Manual, FHWA NHI-06-088, NHI course No. 132012 reference manual.

Silvestri, V. (1983). The Bearing Capacity of Dykes and Fills Founded on Soft Soils of
Limited Thickness, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 428-436.

Tan, S.L. (1990). Stress-Deflection Characteristics of Soft Soils Overlain with

Geosynthetics, MSCE Thesis, University of Washington, 146 p.

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 729 p.

U.S. Department of the Navy (1986). Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.2,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, VA, (can be downloaded from
http://www.geotechlinks.com)

Vesic, A.A. (1975). Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, Chapter 3 in Foundation

Engineering Handbook, Winterkorn and Fang, Editors, Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp. 121-
147.

Washington State Department of Transportation (1997). High Strength Geotextile for

Embankment Reinforcement.

Wager, O. (1981). Building of a Site Road over a Bog at Kilanda, Alvsborg County, Sweden
in Preparation for Erection of Three 400kV Power Lines, Report to the Swedish State
Power Board, AB Fodervävnader, Borå, Sweden, 16p.

FHWA NHI-07-092 7 – Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic Engineering 7– 60 August 2008