Search

The article presents a response to the discussions made by Robert K. Barrett and Dov Leshchinsky on the authors' paper "The influence of facing stiffness on the performance of two geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls." They appreciate the comments raised by Barrett and Leshchinsky. In doing so, they clarify and elucidate a number of points related to the details and contingents of the test program described in the referring paper. Moreover, they provide various implications to current practice.

Current limit equilibrium-based design methods for the internal stability design of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls in North America are based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Simplified Method. A deficiency of this approach is that the influence of the facing type on reinforcement loads is not considered. This paper reports the results of two instrumented full-scale walls constructed in a large test facility at the Royal Military College of Canada. The walls were nominally identical except one wall was constructed with a stiff face and the other with a flexible wrapped face. The peak reinforcement loads in the flexible wall were about three and a half times greater than the stiff-face wall at the end of construction and about two times greater at the end of surcharging. The stiff-face wall analysis using the Simplified Method gave a maximum reinforcement load value that was one and a half times greater than the measured value at the end of construction. Furthermore, the surcharge pressure required to reach the creep-limited strength of the reinforcement was about two times greater than the predicted value. The results demonstrate quantitatively that a stiff facing in a reinforced soil wall is a structural component that can lead to significant reductions in reinforcement loads compared to flexible facing systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]