R. A. Jewell, Ma, PHD, Ceng, Mice, University of Oxford

1.
Revised design charts for steep reinforced slopes
R. A. JEWELL, MA, PhD, CEng, MICE, University of Oxford
SYNOPSIS
The mechanics of steep reinforced soil slopes in the range 90 > p > 30
are considered to seek improvements in the simplified design charts
published by Jewell et al (1984). A description of the equilibrium in a
steep reinforced slope is given which clearly identifies the mechanics
governing the maximum required reinforcement forces for equilibrium,
and the required reinforcement length. Two independent limit equili
brium analyses are used to derive revised design charts, which are
presented in the paper, and to identify some conservatisms in the
existing charts. The influence of reinforcement bond is clearly identified
and a bond allowance is introduced for chart design. Savings in reinforce
ment quantity of the order 20% to 30% can be achieved for slopes
designed using the revised charts.
INTRODUCTION
An analysis for steep reinforced slopes was developed in the early
1980s and used to derive design charts, Jewell et al. (1984a). The
confidence in using geotextiles and polymer grids to reinforce steep
slopes has increased markedly since that time. As indicated by several
papers to this symposium, the behaviour and testing of polymer rein
forcement materials is now more clearly established, and the practical
details of steep reinforced slope construction have been developed
through experience. Indeed, steep reinforced slope construction has
now achieved such maturity that work on drafting national and inter
national standards and codes of practice is well advanced, for example
BSI (1988) and ICE (1989).
Another important development is that steep reinforced slopes de
signed using the existing charts have performed satisfactorily, although
the reinforcement forces (and measured deformations) have been smal
ler than those anticipated in the design calculation, see for example
Jarrett and McGown (1988) or Fannin and Hermann (1989).
In the light of the above, it is timely to reassess the design charts for
steep slopes, and their theoretical basis, to determine what improve:
Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [16/03/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
PAPER 1: JEWELL
ments and refinements might be made. A major objective is to see

whether reinforced slopes might be designed with less reinforcement
material, but to the same level of safety.
This paper summarises some of the main findings from the study. It
concentrates on the revised design method and simplified charts for
steep reinforced slopes which supersede those published in 1984. The
theoretical detail of the calculations, further design charts covering a
wider range of slope cases than published hitherto, and the detail
concerning the equilibrium in very steep slopes (p > 80) will be de
scribed in future publications.
The revised charts offer greater flexibility in the design of steep
slopes, and are expressed in terms which, it is believed, will be common
to the description of all reinforced soil applications. It has been possible
to identify and eliminate some conservatisms from the earlier charts,
which have otherwise stood up well to the detailed examination.
STEEP REINFORCED SLOPES: DEFINITIONS AND PARAMETERS

Definitions for the steep reinforced slopes considered in this paper
are summarised in Figure 1. Uniform soil sloping at an angle (3
measured from the horizontal in the range 90 > p > 30 is considered.
This extends the previous charts from 80 to the vertical.
The slopes are assumed to rest on a competent, level foundation. The
crest of the slope is level. In a future publication allowance will be made
for inclined soil above the main slope. Uniform vertical surcharge
loading is allowed, but, as before, point loads and earthquakes are not
included in the charts.
The critical equilibrium considered for a steep reinforced fill is
usually governed by long-term stability. The soil strength is thus de-
REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS
scribed in terms of a frictional shearing resistance, (<(>', cM)), the magni

tude of which depends on the mean effective stress. The curvature of
the Mohr-Coulomb envelope of peak shearing resistance (for a soil tested
at one density and a range of effective stresses) is taken into account by
the choice of an appropriate secant angle of shearing resistance ^'p,
rather than by the choice of (c',tf)parameters, (Fig. 2). The latter choice
of parameters leads to unrealistically high strengths at low effective
stresses, as discussed by Bolton (1986).
In line with the earlier work, the large strain or critical state shearing
resistance ty s is recommended for the design of reinforced soil Unlike
C
the peak shearing resistance, the critical state shearing resistance does not
vary with mean effective stress over the practical range, (Fig. 2).
Pore water pressures are an important feature of soil mechanics
design problems, and these are included using the non-dimensional pore
water pressure coefficient r = u/yz introduced by Bishop and Morgen-
u
stern (I960). This approach identifies the magnitude of the pore water
pressure u, at depth z, simply as a function of the overburden pressure
yz, (Fig.1). The coefficient r is not an ideal description of the pattern
u
of pore water pressures which might develop with water infiltration or

flow through a slope, but it is the only non-dimensional description of
pore water pressure available.
The interaction between the soil and the horizontal reinforcement
layers is described in terms of a bond coefficient f\> which governs the
f
rate of load transfer between the reinforcement and the soil (i.e. the
pullout resistance or required bond length for a reinforcement layer). A
separate direct sliding coefficient fd governs the shearing resistance to
s
Peak strength envelope
Critical state
shearing resistance
Design effective stress o '

d
c'
Fig.2 Curved envelope of shearing resistance showing a peak secant angle offriction
<|> p at &d, and a conventional (c'^O fit to the data
PAPER 1: JEWELL
Fig.3 Illustration of bond and direct sliding in a steep reinforced slope
failure either immediately above or below a layer of reinforcement in

the slope, (Fig. 3). A full description of these two interaction coeffi
cients, and methods of measurement, is given by Jewell et al (1984b).
Specific values/b = 0.5 and/d = 0.8 were assumed in the earlier design
S
charts.
The present work allows greater flexibility in design, and the bond
coefficient may take any value in the legitimate range 1 > j\> > 0. The
revised design charts are therefore not restricted to geotextile and
polymer grid reinforcements, and may be used for strip or other narrow
reinforcements, as well as for anchored earth and loop anchors.
To keep the number of charts to a minimum it is necessary to select
only one value for the direct sliding coefficient, and /a = 0.8 has again
s
been chosen to safely encompass most practical cases.
F D B
+ LR Jt
Fig.4: Three zones in a steep reinforced slope; zone 1 with uniform high reinforcement
forces, zone 2 with decreasing reinforcement force, and unreinforced backfill in zone
Fig.5 Maximum required stresses in a steep reinforced slope, exceeded everywhere by

the maximum available stresses from the reinforcement
INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM
It is helpful to identify three distinct zones in a steep reinforced fill,
(Fig. 4). Large reinforcement forces are required in zone 1 to maintain
stability across a series of critically inclined surfaces such as CD. Each
reinforcement layer must have an allowable force and spacing sufficient
to maintain equilibrium in this zone. The reinforcement layers extend
beyond zone 1 to a depth into the slope, zone 2. This is required both
to maintain equilibrium on potential failure surfaces passing through
zone 2 and the unreinforced soil behind, zone 3, and to allow for bond
1
between the reinforcement and the soil The idealised equilibrium is
with a constant force in the reinforcement through zone 1 (i.e. main
tained through to the connection with the facing) and a reducing force
through zone 2 which falls to zero at the boundary with zone 3.
Internal equilibrium in zone 1 is the starting point for steep slope
design. The magnitude of the required reinforcement stresses and the size
and shape of zone 1 depends on the slope angle, p, the soil shearing
resistance, the pore water pressure, r and any uniform vertical
w
surcharge, q , (Fig. 5).

sv
Because of similarity between critical potential failure surfaces such

as AB, C D and E F in the slope, the magnitude of the maximum required
reinforcement force for equilibrium in zone 1, P R M , increases with the
square of the slope height. The requirement for reinforcement may
1 The concept of these zones in reinforced soil is discussed for reinforced soil
walls by Jewell and Milligan (1989).
PAPER 1: JEWELL
0' = 30
(1 = 70
dw = 20
Fig.6 Stress characteristics illustrating balanced equilibrium in zone 1 (Houlsby 1989)
therefore be represented as a linearly increasing maximum required stress

2
for equilibrium, (Fig. 5).
The concept of required stress is useful as it ensures that both local
and overall equilibrium is satisfied in the most efficient way. Reinforce
ment with a sufficient allowable force P ii and spacing s Sh is selected
a V/
so as to provide an available stress at each depth in the slope a = Paii/svSh av
which exceeds the maximum required stress for equilibrium at that depth.
A typical pattern oimaximum required andavailablestress for a steep slope
design is shown in Figure 5, where the reinforcement is divided into
two zones of constant spacing.
The available stress must equal or exceed the maximum required
stress at every depth. A shortfall in the provision of reinforcement at
any depth could result in local stressing of a reinforcement layer above
the allowable force.
REQUIRED STRESSES: EARTH PRESSURE THEORY

The magnitude and distribution of maximum required stress in zone 1
in a reinforced slope is similar to that in conventional retaining wall
design. Rather than being provided externally by a retaining wall, the
stresses are t r a n s m i t t e d back i n t o the s o i l in zone 2 by the r e i n f o r c e m e n t
layers. Balanced equilibrium in zone 1 for a steep reinforced slope is
illustrated in F i g u r e 6, which shows a stress field calculated by the
2 The use of similarity to deduce stress distributions in earth pressure analysis is

well described by Terzaghi (1943).
method of characteristics. This is analogous to a Rankine active stress

field for a vertical wall. Wroth (1972) gives a description of the method
of characteristics. Figure 6 was derived using a stress characteristics
program, Houlsby (1989).
It is possible to use established earth pressure coefficients, such as
those of Caquot et al. (1973), to determine the maximum required stresses
in zone 1 for steep reinforced slopes. For horizontal reinforcement, the
appropriate earth pressure coefficient corresponds to a wall roughness
8 which is a function of the slope angle, 5w = (90- p), (Fig. 6).
W
Earth pressure coefficients only apply to a limited range of steep

slopes, however, where p > (90 - <>| ) (i.e. 8w/<|> ^1) and where there is
zero pore water pressure, r = 0. New analysis is required for slopes
u
outside this range.,
REQUIRED STRESSES: LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

Two limit equilibrium solutions have been used to investigate the
stability of steep reinforced slopes; a two-part wedge analysis, (Fig.
7(a)), and a logarithmic spiral analysis, (Fig. 8(a)). Both mechanisms
have desirable features. The first adapts well to the problem of a
potential failure cutting out sharply between reinforcement layers, and
to the analysis of direct sliding. The second does not require assump
tions to be made about interslice forces, being a rigid body mechanism.
Confidence in the findings is increased when agreement is found
between the results from two different analyses.
Two-part wedge mechanism The forces in the two-part wedge mech

anism for the analysis of equilibrium in zone 1 are shown in Figure 7(b).
There are three pore water thrusts U and three effective soil forces JR'.
The full shearing resistance of the soil is mobilised on the three plane
(a) (b)
Fig.7 (a) Two-part wedge mechanism and (b) forces on the wedge boundaries
PAPER 1: JEWELL
(a) (b)
Fig.8 (a) Logarthmic spiral mechanism and (b) forces on the boundaries
failure surfaces. The maximum required force for equilibrium, P R M , is

applied at the face of the slope as a linearly increasing horizontal stress.
A search is required to find the mechanism with the largest required
force for equilibrium, the most critical mechanism through the toe. This
search reveals that the apparently simple two-part wedge mechanism
actually depends on four variables, the coordinates of the central node,
(*tu Zn)/ and the angle of the two upper failure surfaces, 62 and 63, for
example.
Logarithmic spiral mechanism In contrast to the above, the apparent

ly more complex logarithmic spiral mechanism through the toe of the
slope depends only on two variables, the coordinates of the origin of
the spiral (x z ), for example. The logarithmic spiral mechanism
0 c
adopted for the analysis of reinforced slopes is the one most widely used
in plasticity analysis, that is it has a radius which increases according to
the equation dr/rd8=tan<t>, as illustrated in Figure 8(a), see Terzaghi
3
(1943).
The attraction of the logarithmic spiral mechanism is that the soil
reaction R' acts through the centre of the spiral and does not need to be
known for the determination of the required force for equilibrium, PR,
which can be found from moment equilibrium. Pore water pressures
3 In a later publication the two-part wedge and logarithmic spiral mechanisms

used in this study will be shown to correspond with an upper bound limit
analysis in the theory of plasticity, and to approach within a few per cent the
best lower bound solutions for the earth pressure coefficient, Chen (1975).
acting on the failure surface at a radius re disturb the equilibrium with

a moment arm re sin<|>, (Fig. 8(b)).
RESULTS: r = 0 u
A comparison between the earth pressure coefficients determined

from the above analysis and the well established values published by
Caquot et al. (1973) are given for a range of slope and friction angles in
Tables 1 and 2.
An earth pressure coefficient defines the horizontal stress or force
resultants for stability, equivalent to a retaining wall with roughness 8w
= (90 - p). As in the earlier work, the earth pressure coefficients KRea are
2
expressed here in terms of the vertical slope height PRM=^ReqYW /2.
This has immediate practical appeal. However, note that in Caquot et
al (1973) the earth pressure coefficients are expressed in the more
fundamental terms of the length down the sloping soil boundary.
Tables 1 and 2 show that an 'exacf answer can be found by almost
any correctly formulated equilibrium analysis when p = 90 and 5w =
0. This is because the most critical mechanism is a plane wedge, so that
Slope Caquot et al Two-part Logarithmic Previous Change

5w (1973) wedge spiral charts
(2)-(D
P (2)
<P (1) (2)
90 0 .217 .217 .217 - -
80 .25 .152 .150 .150 .168 11%
70 .5 .104 .100 .103 .123 16%
60 .75 .065 .059 .064 .077 17%
50 1 .030 .023 .028 .032 13%
Table 1 Earth pressure coefficients from different analyses, = 40 and r = 0
u
Slope Caquot et al Two-part Logarithmic Previous Change

8w (Z)-(P
P (1973) wedge spiral charts
(2)
<P (1) (2)
90 0 .490 .490 .490 - -
80 .50 .396 .393 .393 .454 13%
70 1.0 .336 .325 .331 .412 20%
60 .275 .284 .362 22%
50 .223 .239 .302 21%
40 .162 .187 .224 17%
30 .083 .106 .118 10%
Table 2 Earth pressure coefficients from different analyses, <|> = 20 and r = 0.
u
PAPER 1: JEWELL
0 I i i i 1 1 1
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Slope angle (3
Fig.9 Maximum required force from two-part wedge analysis: (a) previous charts,
(b) allowing 8w = <> | , (c) allowing 83 < 90, (d) with corrected reinforcement force
allocation across inter-wedge boundary, and (e) result of logarithmic spiral analysis
4
as long as the failure surface can reduce to a plane the exact result will
be found irrespective ofanyassumptions concerninginternal sliceboundaries.
The same also holds asp-><|) (for r = 0), which is the limiting infinite
u
slope where again the most critical mechanism tends to a plane surface.
The results show that both the two-part wedge and logarithmic spiral
limit equilibrium analyses perform well over the range of slope angles.
The logarithmic spiral mechanism is slightly superior for all the slope
cases examined, and agrees with the earth pressure coefficients of
Caquot et al. (1973) to within a few per cent.
Comparison with previous charts The final two columns in Tables 1

and 2 show that there is some conservatism in the previous design charts
for slopes within the range between the two extremes p = 90 and p = <(>.
At the extremes the values are "exact", as discussed above. The revised
design charts offer a reduction in the required reinforcement force for
equilibrium of the order 15% to 20% for most intermediate slopes.
4 The most critical logarthmic spiral has an infinite radius in this case.
10
REINFORCED E M B A N K M E N T S
It is helpful to identify the source of the conservatism in the earlier

work, which was based on a simpler two-part wedge mechanism. The
two simplifying assumptions made in that work were: (1) the inter-
wedge boundary is vertical (03 = 90 in Fig. 7(a)), and, (2) the inter-
wedge boundary is smooth (i.e. there is no vertical shear force between
the two wedges).
Investigations show that these assumptions, (1) and (2) above, are
only partially responsible for the conservatism in the computed results.
There is a third "hidden" assumption concerning the allocation of the
horizontal stabilising stresses between the two wedges which is also
significant.
To illustrate this point with some numerical results, consider the case
where d? = 20 and r = 0. The earth pressure coefficients are recorded
u
in Figure 9 from (a) the previous work, (b) allowing a rough but vertical
inter-wedge boundary and (c) additionally allowing the inter-wedge
boundary to find a critical inclination. Analysis (c) still indicates higher
required stresses for equilibrium than calculated from Caquot et al.
(1973) or the logarithmic spiral analysis.
The source of the discrepancy (for the analysis of equilibrium in zone 1)
is in the allocation of the reinforcement force across the inter-wedge
boundary. This is illustrated in Figure 10, where three reinforcement
force resultants P\j, Piw and P L are defined. The influence of these
reinforcement forces on the two wedges is shown correctly in Figure
10b. The reinforcement layers crossing the inter-wedge boundary exert
an equal and opposite force on the upper wedge, and thus have no net
effect on the wedge equilibrium. The net stabilising force resultants are
correctly allocated as Pu to the upper wedge, and Piw + P L to the lower
wedge.
Fig.10 Illustration of the allocation of the reinforcement force crossing the inter-wedge
boundary (internal equilibrium calculation)
PAPER 1: JEWELL
Taking account of the forces in the reinforcement layers crossing the

inter-wedge boundary in this way reduces the net required reinforce
ment force for equilibrium in the two-part wedge analysis, line (d) in
Figure 9, to a value corresponding logically with the existing earth
pressure solutions.
Important supporting evidence that this interpretation of force equili
brium between the wedges is correct comes from the agreement with
the logarithmic spiral analysis for which no assumption on inter-slice
boundaries has to be made.
RESULTS: r > 0 u
Apart from two closed form solutions for the vertical case p = 0, and
for the infinite slope case K R e q - 0, there are no published results for
r > 0 with which to compare the computed magnitude of the required
u
reinforcement force.
The two closed form expressions are as follows:
For the vertical case the reinforcement has to maintain effective stress
equilibrium in the soil, and additionally resist the horizontal pore water
pressure, so that
(KR\ = K (\-r )
Rt<l u +ru ...(1)
The limiting infinite slope Pum that is just stable without need for
reinforcement is
tan piim = (1 - r)tan<|>
u ...(2)
Both the two-part wedge and the logarithmic spiral analysis agree
exactly with equation (1) when p=90, and tend towards the limiting
slope Piim as the required force for equilibrium reduces to zero.
Slope Two-part Logarithmic Previous Change

<2)-U>
P wedge spiral charts
(1) (2)
90 .500 .500 - -
80 .390 .390 .451 14%
70 .319 .320 .399 20%
60 .256 .267 .341 22%
50 .196 .217 .273 21%
40 .130 .155 .188 18%
Table 3: Earth pressure coefficients from different analyses, <>

| = 30 and r = 0.25 u
Typical results for a range of slopes are given in Table 3, where $=30
and r =0.25. The results from both analyses are similar. The greater of
u
the two values was selected for the revised design charts.
Comparison with previous charts The comparison in Table 3 between

the earth pressure coefficients in the revised charts, and those from the
previous work, indicates again that there was some conservatism in the
earlier work, for the same reasons as discussed earlier in the section on
the results for r = 0.
u
REVISED CHARTS OF REQUIRED FORCE

The revised charts for the required reinforcement force for slope angles
in the range 90 > p > 30, for soil friction angles in the range 50 > $ > 20
and for three values of pore water pressure r = 0,0.25,0.50 are given
u
together in Charts 1 to 3 at the end of the paper.
OVERALL EQUILIBRIUM
As previously indicated (see Internal Equilibrium), having satisfied
the ideal equilibrium in zone 1 it is necessary next to proportion zone 2
to ensure satisfactory equilibrium on more deep-seated potential failure
surfaces.
The problem is illustrated in Figure 11. Clearly the reinforced zone
must extend to a sufficient depth into the slope so that an acceptable
equilibrium can be achieved with the reduced magnitude of available
reinforcement force, because of the fewer reinforcement layers inter
sected.
The present work has confirmed that the choice of a constant rein
forcement length LR made for the earlier charts does indeed provide
P A P E R 1: J E W E L L
an efficient and practical reinforcement layout, and this has been main
tained.
The overall equilibrium calculations for the required reinforcement
length L R / H were completed for the revised design charts assuming that
the maximum available force from the intersected reinforcement layers
was fully mobilised, as indicated in Figure 11. Clearly the requirement
for a bond length at the free end of the reinforcement layers would
invalidate this assumption. To allow for this, and to provide greater
flexibility in the range of reinforcement materials to which the charts
may be applied, requires the introduction of two new concepts for steep
slope design, namely bond allowance and load-shedding allowance.
BOND ALLOWANCE
The maximum bond force which can be mobilised Pbond (in kN), for
a section of reinforcement of length Lbond and width W , embedded in r
sand with a friction angle <>| and an effective stress normal to the
reinforcement & is given by the equation
n/
Pbond =2W L ndCT n/btan<|>

r bo
/
...(3)
where fb is the bond coefficient. A sufficient bond length is required

in a steep slope to mobilise the allowable reinforce ment force P ii. The a
required bond length L B for reinforcement at the base of a steep slope

( L > H /tan
R p) is
Lb ...(4)
H 2
yH 2W r
/*tan<|>
In the design of flatter slopes (LR < H / tan p) the depth of overburden
is limited by the sloping soil surface above the reinforcement, and this
smaller depth should replace one term H in the right-hand side of
equation (4).
In steep slopes, the required bond length Lb higher in the slope
increases as a simple function of L R / H and the depth of the reinforce
ment z below crest level
h = h ...(5)
H z
This bond length is shown in Figure 12 for a vertical wall. Also shown
is the mobilised reinforcement stress and force for a typical potential
failure surface. Only a proportion Pb of the maximum available rein
forcement force P R is available to maintain equilibrium on such a poten
tial failure surface.
14
t L R ](
(J
Av Mob
Zcrit
M a x i m u m /
available 7 <
stress /
>t )
\ /
Lost stress
d u e to b o n d / ^ X \
/s
V
\ /
^ B o n d length Lb
Fig.12 The variation of the reinforcement bond length with depth in the slope, showing
the loss of available reinforcement force due to bond along an overall failure
mechanism
Investigations with a plane failure surface inclined through the toe

of the slope showed that the influence of the required reinforcement
bond length is to reduce the maximum available reinforcement force
by an almost constant proportion, irrespective of the angle of the trial
surface in the range (45 +<|>/2) > 0!> 0, so that
= constant ...(6)
PR
This proportional reduction in the mobilised reinforcement force can

be closely but conservatively described as a simple function of Lb and
Lr. A bond allowance for steep slope design may now be defined
bond allowance = = 1- ...(7)

LR L r
and this provides a simple allowance for bond in design.

On any potential failure mechanism in an investigation of overall
stability only a constant proportion of the maximum available rein
forcement force may be mobilised from the layers intersected. This
proportion may be expressed as, from equations (4), (6) and (7),
1
bond allowance = 1 -
(
r
p
all
\
{ 1[ 1 1
tan<
...(8)
PR
U tv
The exact proportion of the maximum available reinforcement force
which can be mobilised could be calculated using equation (3) for the
reinforcement layers intersected in their bond length. The simpler ap
proach described above using the bond allowance captures (slightly
15
PAPER 1: JEWELL
conservatively) the magnitude of the mobilised force to well within the

accuracy which would be significant in routine design.
The power of a simplifying concept such as bond allowance is that it
represents the influence of a feature of behaviour - in this case the need
for a bond length at the end of the reinforcement layers - in terms which
have immediate physical appeal. The bond length at the base of the
slope L B / H , equation (4), combines many diverse factors such as the
allowable force, the reinforcement geometry, the reinforcement interac
tion with the soil, and the slope height, into a single non-dimensional
parameter.
It is anticipated that the non-dimensional parameter Lb/H and the
concept of bond allowance could be found as useful in the design of
reinforced soil slopes as the reinforcement length ratio L R / H .
LOAD-SHEDDING ALLOWANCE
The consequence of reducing bond as described above is to reduce
the mobilised reinforcement force. Greater reinforcement length LR /H
is then required to ensure satisfactory overall equilibrium in the rein
forced slope.
Alternatively, additional reinforcement layers may be included in the
slope, surplus to those required for the ideal equilibrium in zone 1 (see
Internal Equilibrium), so that the short-fall in reinforcement force can
be made up without increasing the reinforcement length.
Since the available reinforcement force is an approximately constant
proportion of the maximum available force at any depth in the slope,
(Pb = bond allowance x P R ) , the short-fall may be counteracted most
effectively by increasing the provision of reinforcement in the slope
by a constant factor. This factor can be called the load-shedding allow
5
ance.
In practical use, the requirement for reinforcement determined from
the design charts J C R e q would be increased in design to Kd, as illustrated
in Figure 13, where
K d = #Req x load-shedding allowance ...(9)
5 The name load-shedding allowance indicates that the requirement for

reinforcement force which is not met where bond is a problem is shed further
down the potential failure surface to where the extra reinforcement layers
have been included.
16
^ Additional stress
^1 made available
from load-shedding
allowance
(with
load-shedding
allowance)
z
Fig.13 Compensation for the loss of force due to bond through design with Kd > KReq
(seeFig.12)
There are a wide range of combinations of reinforcement length LR/H

and load-shedding allowance which can provide satisfactory overall
equilibrium in a reinforced slope with a given bond allowance.
To recapitulate, as the bond capacity in the reinforcement reduces
(bond allowance < 1.0), the reinforcement length required to maintain
balanced overall equilibrium has to be increased. Alternatively, the
6
number of reinforcement layers may be increased. Both approaches
compensate for the reinforcement bond at a cost of increased reinforce
ment quantity.
Investigations into the quantity of reinforcement required for differ
ent combinations of the three factors bond allowance, load-shedding
allowance, and the corresponding required reinforcement length LR/H led
to the choice for the revised design charts of counter-balancing exactly
the bond allowance and the load-shedding allowance, i.e. for the revised
design charts assume
1
load - shedding allowance - ...(10)
bond allowance
The attraction of this choice is that the reinforcement length deter
mined from the revised design charts is not influenced by the rein
forcement properties or bond coefficient.
The reinforcement properties influence design simply by increasing
the amount of reinforcement required in the slope. Poorer reinforce-
6 Clearly, very short reinforcement length (but not necessarily economic design)
could be achieved if a high load-shedding allowance were used. The limit is
eventually set by external equilibrium criteria, or criteria for no-tension in the
soil.
17
ment bond characteristics are compensated for by extra reinforcement

layers.
In practice, for typical granular soil slopes reinforced by geotextile
and polymer grid reinforcement, the additional requirement for rein
forcement due to bond is often less than 5%, and seldom greater
thanlO%. Typically load-shedding allowance < 1.1.
Bond generally only becomes significant in slope design as the
reinforcement force per unit width P ii/W increases, and as the bond
a r
coefficient fb decreases, which is particularly the case for smooth strip

reinforcements.
THE INFLUENCE OF BOND ON EQUILIBRIUM IN ZONE 1

The design procedure so far has adequately allowed for the influence
of reinforcement bond on all potential failure mechanisms through the
toe of the slope. However, bond also influences the stability in zone 1
on the similar, but equally significant critical failure mechanisms higher
in the slope, Figure 4.
A balanced solution for the influence of bond on the equilibrium in
zone 1 can be achieved by selecting a maximum allowable spacing for
the reinforcement higher in the slope. A critical depth can be used
to determine the maximum allowable spacing, and this occurs where
the bond length Lb becomes equal to the reinforcement length L R . For
a vertical wall this occurs at a critical depth below the slope crest
1
U ^>{ 1
( p \(
H
hi r
all tan
1 \
...(11)
LR
The additional provision of reinforcement to allow for bond at the
crest of the slope is illustrated in Figure 14. The effect of this provision
on the total quantity of reinforcement for typical geotextile and polymer
grid reinforced slopes is usually small (< 5%), because of the relatively
low density of reinforcement in the upper portion of a reinforced slope.
For completeness, where p < 90, the critical depth is given by the root
of the equation
H
= 0 ...(12)
2L#tanP H
The increase in critical depth from equation (12) is found to be small,
even for the flatter slopes. The conceptually more attractive and simpler
equation (11) is considered perfectly adequate for practical design
purposes.
EXTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM
The revised design charts apply to slopes on competent foundation
soils.
18
Fig.14 Provision of additional reinforcement near the crest of the slope (above Zcrit) to
compensate for lack of bond in zone 1
There are typically three concerns for external equilibrium in steep

reinforced slope design: (a) direct outward sliding of the reinforced
block, (b) local bearing capacity failure beneath the reinforced zone and
(c) complete failure of the whole reinforced slope on a mechanism
passing through the unreinforced fill behind the reinforced zone and
continuing through the foundation soil
Mechanisms (b) and (c) above have not been included in the scope of
the revised design charts, where, as with the previous work, the as
7
sumption has been made that the foundation has adequate capacity.
For very steep slopes, p > 85, particular attention should be given to
checking mechanism (b), using the conventional adaption of the Meyer-
hof (1953) bearing capacity rules commonly applied in conventional
reinforced soil wall design. For flatter slopes, particular attention should
be given to checking mechanism (c), using routine slope stability calcu
lations.
Direct sliding, mechanism (a) above, is a critical mechanism which
can occur across the surface of a reinforcement layer through the rein
forcedfill.A reduced shearing resistance/d tan<t> is considered for the
s
analysis of direct sliding, where /d is the coefficient of direct sliding for

S
soil over reinforcement.
7 It may be noted that in the calculation of overall equilibrium the foundation

properties <(>, r were assumed equal to the fill properties. For flatter slopes,
u
lower shearing resistances and higher pore water pressures, the critical
mechanism for overall equilibrium passes around the lower corner of the
reinforced zone and through the surface of the foundation soil, as envisaged in
(c).
19
PAPER 1: JEWELL
f L
f
Reduced shearing resistance

Wan0'
Fig.15 Two-part wedge analysis for direct sliding
The logarithmic spiral mechanism is not suitable for examining direct

sliding, and the calculations for the revised design charts were based on
the two-part wedge mechanism illustrated in Figure 15. The overall
equilibrium calculation already includes an investigation of the mech
anism shown in Figure 15 but with /d =1.00, i.e. perfectly rough rein
S
forcement.
In order to keep the number of design charts to a minimum a single
value for the coefficient of direct sliding had to be chosen, and the value
from the earlier work/ds = 0.8 was selected again. This value should
allow for most reinforcement materials, with the possible exception of
any particularly smooth geotextile sheets.
REVISED CHARTS OF REQUIRED LENGTH

The more sophisticated limit equilibrium analyses used in the present
work have again highlighted some conservatisms in the earlier work,
so that the revised design charts indicate shorter required reinforcement
lengths for equilibrium.
The required reinforcement length L R / H calculated by the two sep
arate limit equilibrium analyses for overall equilibrium were in good
agreement, adding confidence to the results. The required length for
direct sliding could only be checked with respect to the results from the
earlier work.
Some comparisons between the reinforcement length from the re
vised charts and from the earlier work are given in Tables 4 and 5. These
indicate a reduction in reinforcement length of the order 15 % to 30 %.
The three revised charts of the required reinforcement length are given
at the end of the paper together with the corresponding charts of required
reinforcement force.
20
Slope Revised Previous Change

(2)-(l)
P charts charts (2)
(1) (2)
90 .61 - -
80 .59 .63 6%
70 .56 .68 18%
60 .52 .70 26%
50 .48 .73 34%
40 .50 .66 24%
Table4 Required reinforcement length LR/H from different analyses,<|> = 30 and r = 0 u
Slope Revised Previous Change

(2)-d)
P charts charts (2)
(1) (2)
90 .68 - -
80 .68 .90 24%
70 .70 .97 28%
60 .84 1.05 20%
50 .98 1.12 13%
40 1.13 1.19 5%
Table 5 Required reinforcement length LR/H from different analyses, <|> = 30 and
r = 0.25
u
SAVINGS
A rough index to the savings which can be achieved through the
revised design charts may be found by assuming the reinforcement
quantity is directly related to the product of the required reinforcement
force and length. For a typical geotextile or polymer grid reinforced
slope, both the required force J C R e q and the required length LR /H can be as
little as 80% of the value from the earlier charts. However, the load-shed-
ding allowance and the allowance for bond at the crest of the slope can
account for an additional 10% of reinforcement, at most. The net saving
in reinforcement quantity for a design made with the revised charts is
typically of the order
revised design
= 0.8 x 0 . 8 x 1.1 = 0.70 (ie. 3 0 % saving)
9 ...(13)
previous design
21
PAPER 1: JEWELL
The above is only indicative and the savings will vary depending on
the slope case and the reinforcement material
REVISED CHART DESIGN PROCEDURE

The focus of attention for steep slopes has been the distribution of
maximum required stress in the slope and the provision of reinforcement
with a sufficient strength and spacing so that the minimum available stress
exceeds the maximum required stress at every depth. This focus is main
tained in the revised design procedure which will centre on the con
struction of these two distributions of stress.
The design described below is the stability analysis, or strength
limit state, which seeks to ensure an adequate margin of safety against
collapse.
The selection of the design values for the material properties of the
soil and the reinforcement, and the selection of safety margins, is almost
certainly the most important step in design, and this is discussed first.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND SAFETY MARGINS

The procedures follow the design philosophy which has been fully
described by Jewell and Greenwood (1988).
Soil properties The recommended approach with polymer reinforce

ment materials is to select directly a design value for the soil shearing
resistance equal to the critical state shearing resistance tfd = <t>'cs.
In a compact fill reinforced by polymer materials the mobilised
shearing resistance is almost certain to exceed the critical state value.
The ratio between the expected peak shearing resistance for the fill tfp
and the critical state shearing resistance <t>' may be considered to
cs
represent a factor of safety on the soil strength FS = tan<|)p/tan<t>' .

S CS/
Selection of <f>'d = <t>' removes the need to consider the influence of

cs
the reinforcement stiffness for stability analysis purposes.

Placement of fill during construction is normally well controlled in
the field so that the maximum expected soil density may be selected
directly for design y = Ymax-
d
Pore water pressures are altogether less certain. It would be prudent

in most designs to allow for some pore water pressures arising from
infiltration into the reinforced zone, or into the unreinforced soil behind.
This is particularly true for flatter reinforced clay fills, where long term
equilibrium pore water pressures of the order r = 0.25 have been u
recorded in the UK, Vaughan et al. (1978).

A design value for the pore water pressure coefficient r is best u
selected by considering the magnitude of the pore water pressures that

it implies and comparing these with the worst expected pore water
pressures in the slope.
22
The slope dimensions H and p may be taken equal to their expected

values for design. Inclusion of a nominal vertical surcharge of the order
2
10 kN/m would be prudent in routine design to allow for some margin
on over-filling, and other temporary loadings on the slope crest. Verti
cal surcharge loading is taken into account by designing an equivalent
slope of increased height H ' , as described later.
The above selection of design values <> | d, (r )d/ Yd/ H and p are sufficient
u
to determine the required earth pressure coefficient K Req, and the required
reinforcement length L R / H from the revised design charts.
Reinforcement properties There are two aspects: load-carrying capacity

and bond.
The allowable force Pan for the reinforcement must apply for conditions
in the ground, at the end of the design life at the design temperature (t& f
Td), and for the material having been subject to installation mechanical
damage and the subsequent action of the soil chemical and microbiol
ogical environment. A procedure for evaluating such an allowable force
is described in the paper to this symposium by Greenwood and Jewell
(1989), who give recommended values for the safety margin/ between m
the allowable force and the expected strength in the ground
{expected strength ) , T
P M = ^ (14)
Jm
The magnitude of f includes for (among other factors) the amount

m
of extrapolation of the reinforcement test data required to reach the

envisaged conditions at the design time and temperature.
For geotextiles (i.e. continuous sheets) the bond coefficient f\> may be
determined in a conventional direct shear test for "skin friction", or
direct sliding, as in this case fb = fds = tan67tan<|>. If the measured
coefficient is less than that assumed in the design charts, i.e. /d ^ 0.80 s
then greater length to resist direct sliding will be required than that
indicated in the charts.
There is no simple test for the bond coefficient of grid reinforcement,
and this parameter depends strongly on the proportions of the grid and
the shearing resistance of the soil. Currently available grids typically
have a bond coefficient in the range 1.0 >fh z 0.3 .The bond coefficient for a
grid depends on the shearing resistance of the soil and can change by a
factor of 2 depending on whether the grid is to be used in compacted
sandfillor compacted clay fill, i.e., from/b= 0.9 to/i, = 0.45, for example.
A method for estimating the bond coefficient of grids was described by
Jewell et al. (1984b), and the values deduced using their lower limiting
solution have been shown to give suitable, slightly conservative values
for design, Palmeira (1987).
23
The direct sliding resistance for grid reinforcement may be measured

in a direct shear test, and this should be checked to ensure that it falls
within the range for which the design charts apply.
The above design parameters allow the bond length at the base of the
slope LB/H to be determined.
Design chart procedure (1) First determine the design values for JCR^,
LR/H and LB/H as described in the sections above. A linear interpola
tion between charts is sufficient where the design pore water pressure
coefficient (r )d takes an intermediate value. Ensure that the charts are
u
valid for the design case by checking that/ds > 0.8

(2) Construct the distribution of maximum required stress for the slope
as follows:
(a) The required stress for equilibrium in zone 1 is determined from the
depth below the slope crest z and the required earth pressure
coefficient KReq, giving oReq =yd z KReq, Fig. 16(a)
(b) A greater provision of reinforcement is needed to allow for the
reinforcement bond characteristics. Calculate the bond allowance
(1 - LB/LR). Take the inverse to determine the loadshedding allow
ance, and increase the design required stress throughout the slope by
using an increased earth pressure coefficient Kd = KReq x load-shed
ding allowance, Fig. 16(a).
(c) Finally, additional reinforcement is required near the crest of the
slope to allow for the influence of bond on the equilibrium in zone
1 (see). Calculate the critical depth ZCRIT/H=LB /LR . Determine the
minimum required stress at the crest A M I N = y d H ( L B /LR)KReq Fig.
16(a).
(3) Now devise a reinforcement layout so that the minimum available
stress at every depth z exceeds the maximum required stress, the outer
envelope shown in Figure 16(a). The available stress a ^ A I I / S V S H av
depends both on the reinforcement allowable force and spacing, and

either or both of these may be changed at different elevations in the
slope.
Practical design would normally involve two zones of reinforcement.
The maximum allowable spacing is set by the lowest layer in any zone.
For all slopes the lowest zone extends from the base, where the selected
reinforcement must satisfy the inequality P u / s SH > YdHKd
a V
If the spacing is changed at a depth Z2 below the slope crest, the above
inequality must again be satisfied but using the depth zi rather than H .
Construct an envelope of available stress, marking in the maximum
depths at which the spacing may be changed, and marking in the
positions of the reinforcement layers. Start from the base of the slope
24
Reinforcement
spacing 2
Reinforcement
spacing 1
Maximum
K
^ Req Z
required
stress
K =K
d Req x load-shedding allowance
(a) (b)
*-crit
I H - L I LR B
Vmin = 7dH(L I L) B R K R e q
= load-shedding allowance
1-LB/L, R
Kd = K Req x load-shedding allowance

Fig.16 Illustration for the revised design procedure for steep reinforced slopes
and only change the spacing once the reinforcement layer is above the
maximum depth for any new zone, Fig. 16b.
The following practical limits to the maximum vertical spacing are
suggested for design
($v)max Minimum o/(H/8, lm) ...(15)
Allowing for uniform vertical surcharge Uniform vertical surcharge ^ sv
at the slope crest is allowed for by designing the slope with an artificially
greater height
...(16)
Design proceeds in exactly the same way as before (steps 1 to 3 above)

but using H' instead ofH for the slope height. The reinforcement layout
is simply terminated at the physical height of the slope.
Note, this procedure is exact for the required stresses. For significant
surcharge loading, say H'/H > 1.3 the required reinforcement length
25
PAPER 1: JEWELL
becomes rather conservative. Separate analysis would be recom

mended for steep slopes where there is substantial surcharge loading.
CONCLUSIONS
The design charts for steep reinforced soil slopes published by Jewell
et al. (1984a) have been fully revised in the light of the knowledge and
confidence developed over the past five years. The revised design
procedure has been expressed in a way that it is expected will be
common to all reinforced soil applications.
The earlier work has been shown to contain some conservatisms,
which was expected, and many of these have been eliminated in the
revised design charts. Overall, the earlier work has withstood well the
detailed investigation. It has been possible to reduce both the required
reinforcement force and length for most designs, and the revised design
charts provide savings of the order 20% to 30% on the quantity of
reinforcement for many slope cases.
A major innovation in the revised design charts has been the concepts
of bond allowance and load-shedding allowance. With these concepts it has
proved possible to extend the range of the design charts to almost any
reinforcement type.
The influence of reinforcement bond on the equilibrium in steep
slopes has also been highlighted. A non-dimensional measure of bond
length at the base of the slope LB /H has been introduced and shown to
have particular significance for the design of reinforced slopes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of Guy Houlsby and Rick Woods with a number of the
computations described in the paper is gratefully acknowledged. The
work was partially supported by AKZO bv.
REFERENCES
Bishop, A.W. and Morgenstern, N. (1960). 'Stability coefficients for
earth slopes.' Geotechnique, Vol. 10,129-150.
Bolton, M.D. (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands'. Geotech
nique, Vol. 36, No. 1,65-78.
British Standards Institution (1988). 'Report on strengthened/rein
forced soils and other fills.' Published Document, PD 6517:1988, London.
Caquot, A., Kerisel, J. and Absi, E. (1973). Tables de butee et de poussee,
2nd edition, Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Chen, W.F. (1975). Limit analysis and soil plasticity, Elsevier, New
York.
Fannin, R.J. and Hermann, S. (1989). ' Some soil and reinforcement
parameters for design.' Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Soil Mechs. and Fndn.Engng,
Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 2,1239-1242.
26
Greenwood, J.H. and Jewell, R. A. (1989). 'Strength and safety: the use
of mechanical property data', Reinforced Embankments Symposium,
Thomas Telford.
Houlsby,G.T. (1989) Private communication.
Institution of Civil Engineers (1989). Specification for the use of geotex
tiles and related materials. Ground Engineering Group Board, ICE (in
press).
Jarrett, P.M. and McGown, A. (editors) (1988). The application of
polymeric reinforcement in soil retaining structures. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Holland.
Jewell, R.A. and Milligan, G.W.E. (1989). 'Deformation calculations
for reinforced soil walls'. Proc.llth Int. Conf. Soil Mechs. and Fndn.
Engng, Rio de Janeiro, Vol 2,1257-1262.
Jewell, R.A. and Greenwood, J.H. (1988). T,ong term safety in steep
soil slopes reinforced by polymer materials'. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, Special issue on Durability, Vol. 7, Nos. 1 & 2,81-118.
Jewell, R.A., Paine, N. and Woods, R.I. (1984a). Ttesign methods for
steep reinforced embankments'. Polymer grid reinforcement, Thomas
Telford, 70-81.
Jewell, R.A., Milligan, G.W.E., Sarsby, R.W. and DuBois, D.D. (1984b).
'Interactions between soils and grids'. Polymer grid reinforcement, Tho
mas Telford, 18-30.
Meyerhof, G.G. (1953). The bearing capacity of foundations under
eccentric and inclined loads'. Proc 3rd Int. Conf Soil Mechs and Fndn
Engng, Switzerland, Vol. 1,440-445.
Palmeira, E.M. (1987). The study of soil reinforcement interaction by
means of large scale laboratoy tests, D.Phil thesis, University of Oxford.
Terzaghi,K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics. John Wiley, New York.
Vaughan, P.R., Hight, D., Sodha, V.G. and Walbanke, H.J. (1978).
Tactors controlling the stability of clay fills in Britain'. Proc. Conf. on
Clay Fills, Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Wroth CP. (1972) 'General theories of earth pressures and deforma
tions. General Reporf. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. and Fndn. Engng.,
Madrid, Vol. 2,33-52.
27
PAPER 1: JEWELL
STEEP REINFORCED SLOPE DESIGN CHARTS CHART 1
Jewell (1990) r = = 0.00
Minimum Required Force K Req

Minimum reinforcement length:
(1) The minimum length at the crest of the

slope is that required for overall stability.
(2) The minimum length at the base of the
slope is the greater of that required for overall
stability and to prevent direct sliding.
(3) Where reinforcement of constant length is
to be used select the greater length required to
satisfy equilibrium at the base of the slope, (2)
above.
(4) Where direct sliding governs the required
reinforcement length at the base of the slope it
is permissible to reduce the length uniformly
from Lj, at the base of the slope to at the
crest of the slope.
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Slope angle p
Minimum Required Length Minimum Required Length

Overall Stability (L /H) Direct Sliding (L^H)^
R ovrl
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Slope angle p Slope angle p
28
Jewell (1990) r=- = 0.25

7*
Minimum Required Force K Req

Minimum reinforcement length:


above.
from at the base of the slope to at the
crest of the slope.
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Slope angle p
Overall Stability (L /H)
R ovrl Direct Sliding (LRIH)^
30 40 50 60 70 40 50 60 70
29
PAPER 1: JEWELL

u
Jewell (1990) - = 0.50
Minimum Required Force K Req Minimum reinforcement length:


above.
from L at the base of the slope to L at the
dl w H
crest of the slope.
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Slope angle p

Overall Stability {L IH) R ovr{ Direct Sliding (L IH) R ds
X
\
30 40 50 60 70
30

R. A. Jewell, Ma, PHD, Ceng, Mice, University of Oxford

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

R. A. Jewell, Ma, PHD, Ceng, Mice, University of Oxford

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1.

Revised design charts for steep reinforced slopes

R. A. JEWELL, MA, PhD, CEng, MICE, University of Oxford

ments and refinements might be made. A major objective is to see

STEEP REINFORCED SLOPES: DEFINITIONS AND PARAMETERS

scribed in terms of a frictional shearing resistance, (<(>', cM)), the magni

of pore water pressures which might develop with water infiltration or

Peak strength envelope

Design effective stress o '

Fig.3 Illustration of bond and direct sliding in a steep reinforced slope

failure either immediately above or below a layer of reinforcement in

been chosen to safely encompass most practical cases.

Fig.5 Maximum required stresses in a steep reinforced slope, exceeded everywhere by

surcharge, q , (Fig. 5).

Because of similarity between critical potential failure surfaces such

Fig.6 Stress characteristics illustrating balanced equilibrium in zone 1 (Houlsby 1989)

therefore be represented as a linearly increasing maximum required stress

so as to provide an available stress at each depth in the slope a = Paii/svSh av

REQUIRED STRESSES: EARTH PRESSURE THEORY

2 The use of similarity to deduce stress distributions in earth pressure analysis is

method of characteristics. This is analogous to a Rankine active stress

Earth pressure coefficients only apply to a limited range of steep

outside this range.,

REQUIRED STRESSES: LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

Two-part wedge mechanism The forces in the two-part wedge mech

failure surfaces. The maximum required force for equilibrium, P R M , is

Logarithmic spiral mechanism In contrast to the above, the apparent

3 In a later publication the two-part wedge and logarithmic spiral mechanisms

acting on the failure surface at a radius re disturb the equilibrium with

A comparison between the earth pressure coefficients determined

Slope Caquot et al Two-part Logarithmic Previous Change

Slope Caquot et al Two-part Logarithmic Previous Change

Comparison with previous charts The final two columns in Tables 1

It is helpful to identify the source of the conservatism in the earlier

Taking account of the forces in the reinforcement layers crossing the

Slope Two-part Logarithmic Previous Change

Table 3: Earth pressure coefficients from different analyses, <>

Comparison with previous charts The comparison in Table 3 between

REVISED CHARTS OF REQUIRED FORCE

together in Charts 1 to 3 at the end of the paper.

Pbond =2W L ndCT n/btan<|>

where fb is the bond coefficient. A sufficient bond length is required

required bond length L B for reinforcement at the base of a steep slope

Investigations with a plane failure surface inclined through the toe

This proportional reduction in the mobilised reinforcement force can

bond allowance = = 1- ...(7)

and this provides a simple allowance for bond in design.

conservatively) the magnitude of the mobilised force to well within the

5 The name load-shedding allowance indicates that the requirement for

There are a wide range of combinations of reinforcement length LR/H

ment bond characteristics are compensated for by extra reinforcement

coefficient fb decreases, which is particularly the case for smooth strip

THE INFLUENCE OF BOND ON EQUILIBRIUM IN ZONE 1

There are typically three concerns for external equilibrium in steep

analysis of direct sliding, where /d is the coefficient of direct sliding for

soil over reinforcement.

7 It may be noted that in the calculation of overall equilibrium the foundation

Reduced shearing resistance

Fig.15 Two-part wedge analysis for direct sliding

The logarithmic spiral mechanism is not suitable for examining direct

REVISED CHARTS OF REQUIRED LENGTH

Slope Revised Previous Change

Slope Revised Previous Change