Fhwa Hif 17 004

Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation
in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of
the information contained in this document.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the
objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve
Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards
and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its
information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to
ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
FHWA-HIF-17-004
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Limit Equilibrium Design Framework for MSE Structures with
October 2016
Extensible Reinforcement
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Principal Investigator(s): See Acknowledgements for Authors and 8. Performing Organization Report
Contributors No.
Dov Leshchinsky, Ph.D1, Ora Leshchinsky, P.E.1,
Brian Zelenko, P.E., John Horne, Ph.D., P.E.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Parsons Brinckerhoff
1015 Half Street, SE, Suite 650 11. Contract or Grant No.
Washington, DC 20003
DTFH6114D00047-5010
1ADAMA Engineering, Inc., 12042 SE Sunnyside Rd., Suite 711,
Clackamas, OR 97015
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period
Federal Highway Administration
HIBT-20
Office of Bridge Technology 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20005
15. Supplementary Notes
FHWA COR – Silas Nichols, P.E.

FHWA Alt. COR – Khalid Mohamed, P.E.
16. Abstract
Current design of reinforced soil structures in the U.S. distinguishes between slopes and walls using the
batter angle as a criterion. Using a unified approach in limit state design of reinforced ‘walls’ and
‘slopes’ should diminish confusion while enabling a wide and consistent usage in solving geotechnical
problems such as complex geometries and soil profiles. Limit equilibrium (LE) analysis has been used
successfully in the design of complex and critical (e.g., tall dams) for many decades. Limit state
analysis, including LE, assumes that the design strength of the soil is mobilized. Presented is a LE
framework, limited to extensible reinforcement, which enables the designer to find the tensile force
distribution in each layer required at a limit state. This approach is restricted to Allowable Stress Design
(ASD). Three example problems are presented.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Design, MSE Wall No restrictions.
Design, Limit Equilibrium, Geotechnical, Extensible
reinforcement
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 120

Form DOT F 1700.7(8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm
ft feet 0 .305 meters m
yd yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
AREA
in 2 square inches 645 .2 square millimeters mm
2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2
yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha
mi 2 square miles 2. 59 square kilometers km 2
VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters ml
gal gallons 3.785 liters l
ft3 cubic feet 0 .028 cubic meters m3
yd3 cubic yards 0 .765 cubic meters m3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 l shall be shown in m 3
MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or"t")
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
OF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oc
or (F-32)/1.8
ILLUMINATION
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux Ix
fl foot-lamberts 3.426 candela/m 2 cd/m 2
FORCEandPRESSUREorSTRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N
lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6 .89 kilopascals kPa
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0 .039 inches in
m meters 3 .28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1 .1 95 square yards yd2
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
km 2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi 2
VOLUME
ml milliliters 0 .034 fluid ounces fl oz
l liters 0.264 gallons gal
m3 cubic meters 35.31 4 cubic feet ft3
m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
oc Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit OF
ILLUMINATION
Ix lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
cd/m 2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot- lamberts fl
FORCEandPRESSUREorSTRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
2
kPa kilopasca ls 0. 145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in
*SI is t he symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
(Revised March 2003)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 MSE Structures: Limit Equilibrium Concept in a Nutshell ........................................ 4
1.2 Overall Organization of Report and Rationale ........................................................... 6
2.0 COMMON METHODS OF ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 8
3.0 LE APPROACH INCLUDING THE SAFETY MAP TOOL .................................... 10
4.0 COMPARISON OF LE PREDICTIONS WITH PHYSICAL MODEL TESTS...... 18
4.1 Extensible Reinforcement ......................................................................................... 18
4.1.1 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 28
4.2 Inextensible Reinforcement ...................................................................................... 29
5.0 COMPARISON OF LE PREDICTIONS WITH FE/FD RESULTS ......................... 30
5.1 Extensible Reinforcement ......................................................................................... 30
5.1.1 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 38
5.2 Inextensible Reinforcement ...................................................................................... 39
6.0 LE AND LRFD ................................................................................................................ 40
7.0 USE OF LE IN DESIGN OF MSE WALLS ................................................................ 42
7.1 General ...................................................................................................................... 42
7.2 The European Standard: Eurocode 7—Geotechnical Design ................................... 42
7.3 The German Approach: EBGEO .............................................................................. 43
7.4 The British Standard: BS 8006 ................................................................................. 44
7.5 The Japan Rail Approach .......................................................................................... 45
8.0 RETROSPECTIVE: LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED WALLS .... 47
9.0 FRAMEWORK FOR LE ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 49
9.1 Basics of Soil Reinforcing ........................................................................................ 49
9.2 Bishop LE Formulation............................................................................................. 51
9.3 Overview of the Modified LE Procedure.................................................................. 54
9.4 Concept of Rupture and Pullout in LE Analysis ....................................................... 56
9.5 Top-down Approach Yielding the Baseline Solution ............................................... 58
9.6 Facing Effects on Calculated Reinforcement Load at Limit State ........................... 60
9.7 Commentary.............................................................................................................. 62
10.0 INSTRUCTIVE DESIGN EXAMPLES ....................................................................... 65
10.1 Overview of Top-down Procedure............................................................................ 65
10.2 Example 1: Simple Wall Problem Compared with AASHTO 2002......................... 67
10.2.1 AASHTO Approach.............................................................................................. 67
10.2.2 LE Framework ...................................................................................................... 69
10.2.3 Closely Spaced Reinforcement ............................................................................. 78
10.2.4 Seismicity and Closely Spaced Reinforcement .................................................... 82
10.2.5 Secondary Reinforcement ..................................................................................... 87
10.3 Example 2: Simple Slope Problem ........................................................................... 92
i
10.4 Example 3: Tiered Reinforced System ..................................................................... 99
10.5 Commentary............................................................................................................ 105
11.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS ....................................................................................... 109
12.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 112
13.0 SOFTWARE REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 117
APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF BISHOP EQUATION FOR REINFORCED SOIL .. 118
ii
FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Result of missing reinforcement: close-up (left) and general view (right)
[January 2008, Salt Lake City, Utah] ...........................................................................2
Figure 1-2. Metallic reinforced wall: limit state shallow failure [June 2010, Monterrey,
Mexico, Hurricane Alex] ..............................................................................................3
Figure 1-3. Geosynthetic reinforced wall: limit state shallow failure [I-85 near Exit 70,
Cusseta, Alabama; photo taken February 2007] ..........................................................3
Figure 1-4. Geosynthetic rupture in reinforced tall slope [Yeager Airport, Charleston,
WV, March 2015].........................................................................................................4

Figure 1-5. Basic statics: (a) test body ABC representing the summation of all
reinforcements along AB as ΣT; (b) free body diagram and force polygon .................5
Figure 3-1. Available tensile resistance along reinforcement in current design ............................11
Figure 3-2. The basic problem of multi-tiered slope/wall .............................................................12
Figure 3-3. Safety map for the unreinforced problem using Bishop’s analysis.............................13
Figure 3-4. Safety map for the reinforced problem using Bishop’s analysis.................................14
Figure 3-5. Safety map using Spencer’s two-part wedge translational surfaces ...........................15
Figure 3-6. Safety map using three-part wedge surfaces ...............................................................16
Figure 3-7. Effects of replacing the foundation soil with select fill (two-part wedge) ..................17
Figure 4-1. The Norwegian wall: geometry and geogrid layout (Fannin and Hermann,
1990) ...........................................................................................................................19
Figure 4-2. The Norwegian wall: traces of critical slip circles considering the impact of
soil strength and offset ...............................................................................................20
Figure 4-3. The Norwegian wall: (a) loads as function of φ and offsets and (b) loads as
function of φ and reinforcement length in upper tier .................................................22
Figure 4-4. Failed geotextile-reinforced slope/wall in centrifuge modeling (courtesy Prof.
Zornberg) ....................................................................................................................22
Figure 4-5. General layout and dimensions of tested centrifugal models (after Zornberg et
al., 1998) .....................................................................................................................23
Figure 4-6. Prototype at failure deduced from centrifugal model test (left) and predicted
and measured locus of Tmax-i (right) ...........................................................................23
Figure 4-7. Configuration of centrifuge tiered wall model (after Mohamed et al., 2013) .............24
Figure 4-8. LE predicted slip surface vs. observed from centrifugal test (after Yang et al.,
2009) ...........................................................................................................................25
Figure 4-9. LE predicted failure acceleration vs. measured value (after Yang et al., 2009) .........25
Figure 4-10. Cross-section of wrapped-face RMC test wall (after Bathurst et al., 2006) .............26
Figure 4-11. max(Tmax), Tmaxmax, at various surcharge levels (after Yang et al., 2013) .................27
Figure 4-12. Section of FHWA wall (reproduced after Allen and Bathurst, 2001).......................28
Figure 4-13. FHWA wall: (a) Flat and (b) backsloped crest (Leshchinsky et al., 2014) ...............28
Figure 5-1. (a) Safety map and Bishop critical slip circle (Fs=1.00). (b) Maximum shear
zone using FLAC (Fs=0.98) (Leshchinsky and Han, 2004) ......................................31
Figure 5-2. (a) Bearing capacity using Spencer 3-part wedge (Fs=0.92). (b) Shear zone
for bearing failure using FLAC (Fs=0.86) (Leshchinsky and Han, 2004) .................32
Figure 5-3. Slip surfaces predicted by FE and LE versus the location of ruptured
geotextiles (after Mohamed et al., 2014) ....................................................................33
iii
Figure 5-4. Mobilized tensile load (FE) at various accelerations and location of failure
surface predicted by LE (after Mohamed et al., 2014) ...............................................34
Figure 5-5. Sum of Tmax versus the uniform surcharge on RMC wall (after Yang et al.,
2013) ...........................................................................................................................35
Figure 5-6. Effect of cohesion wall facing on Fs (after Han and Leshchinsky, 2010) ..................36
Figure 5-7. Critical surfaces predicted by LE and FD (after Han and Leshchinsky, 2010) ..........37
Figure 5-8. max(Tmax) versus W/H (after Han and Leshchinsky, 2010) ........................................37
Figure 5-9. Defined constraint reinforced space (after Leshchinsky et al., 2004) .........................38
Figure 7-1. Potential slip surfaces through and around the wall (after EBGEO, 2011) ................43
Figure 7-2. External stability modes of failure (after BS 8006, 2010) ..........................................44
Figure 7-3. Internal wedge stability (after BS 8006, 2010) ...........................................................45
Figure 7-4. Internal log spiral stability—coherent method (after BS 8006, 2010) ........................45
Figure 9-1. Schematics of reinforcement layer required to stabilize steep slope ..........................51
Figure 9-2. Circular test body used in the Bishop Method ............................................................52
Figure 9-3. Forces acting on Slice i ...............................................................................................53
Figure 9-4. Required force in layer i defined by front and rear pullout resistance ........................56
Figure 9-5. Length of layer i: Ideal (lower left), excessive (upper right), short (lower
right) ...........................................................................................................................57
Figure 9-6. Example of top-down numerical procedure ................................................................58
Figure 9-7. Example for determining the required connection capacity [Leshchinsky et
al., 2014] .....................................................................................................................60
Figure 9-8. Model to consider impact of facing on limit state.......................................................61
Figure 10-1. Sketch of analyzed wall ............................................................................................67
Figure 10-2: Example 1: Graphical representation of Tables 10-1 & 10-2 ...................................70
Figure 10-3. Example 1: Baseline Treq-i(x) rendered by LE top-down approach ...........................71
Figure 10-4. Example 1: Treq for Layer 10 restricted by rear end pullout .....................................72
Figure 10-5. Example 1: Treq for Layer 9 restricted by rear end pullout .......................................72
Figure 10-6. Example 1: Treq for Layer 10 restricted by rear and front end pullout ......................73
Figure 10-7. Example 1: Distribution of tensile resistance needed for LE ....................................74
Figure 10-8. Example 1: Critical circle using LTDS corresponding to Tmax-i in Table 10-2 ..........75
Figure 10-9. Global stability: Actual LTDS distribution along some reinforcement layers ..........76
Figure 10-10. Safety map generated for the design example using Bishop analysis .....................77
Figure 10-11. Safety map generated using Spencer analysis considering 2-part wedge ...............78
Figure 10-12. Graphical representation of Tables 10-2 & 10-3.....................................................80
Figure 10-13. Close reinforcement: Color coded map of distribution of tensile resistance ..........81
Figure 10-14. Close reinforcement: Computed Treq along each layer ...........................................81
Figure 10-15. Safety map generated for the closely spaced reinforcement ...................................82
Figure 10-17. Computed Treq along each layer for PGA=0.30g ....................................................85
Figure 10-18. Color coded map of distribution of tensile resistance for PGA=0.30g ...................85
Figure 10-19. Safety map for PGA=0.3g running Bishop’s circular arc analysis .........................86
Figure 10-20. Safety map for PGA=0.3g running Spencer 2-part wedge analysis ........................87
Figure 10-22. Computed Treq(x) considering 5 ft long secondary reinforcement ..........................90
Figure 10-23. Color coded map of Treq(x) considering 5 ft long secondary reinforcement...........91
Figure 10-24. Safety map for the case of secondary reinforcement ..............................................92
iv
Figure 10-26. Baseline Treq-i(x) for Example 2 ..............................................................................95
Figure 10-27. Color coded map of distribution of tensile resistance for Example 2 .....................96
Figure 10-28. Safety map generated for Example 2 using Bishop analysis ..................................96
Figure 10-29. Safety map for adjusted strength of reinforcement .................................................97
Figure 10-30. Safety map for adjusted length of reinforcement ....................................................98
Figure 10-31. Design section for Example 3 .................................................................................99
Figure 10-32. Graphical representation of results in Table 10-7 .................................................101
Figure 10-33. Baseline Treq-i(x) for Example 3 ............................................................................102
Figure 10-34. Color coded map of distribution of tensile resistance for Example 3 ...................103
Figure 10-35. Conventional stability analysis: Critical circle and Fs for LTDS=703 lb/ft ..........104
Figure 10-36. Example 3: Safety map for the designed problem ................................................105
Figure 10-37. Link between LE results and possible design specification ..................................107
Figure A-1. Forces acting on slice i .............................................................................................118
v
TABLE
Table 5-1. Summary Fs calculated by LE and FD for a given geometry and ∑Tmax
(Leshchinsky et al., 2004) ..........................................................................................38
Table 10-1. Calculated loads and factors of safety for strength and pullout .................................68
Table 10-2. Example 1: Values produced by the LE framework ..................................................69
Table 10-3. Impact of decreased spacing of reinforcement layers ................................................79
Table 10-4. Wall with closely spaced reinforcement subjected to PGA=0.3g ..............................83
Table 10-5. Impact of secondary reinforcement ............................................................................88
Table 10-6. Computed values for Example 2 produced by the LE framework .............................93
Table 10-7. Computed Tmax and To for Example 3.......................................................................100
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
Ka Active lateral earth pressure
Ko At-rest pressure
AASHTO American Assoication of State Highway and Transportation

Officials
ASD Allowable Stress Design
To_i Connection capacity
To-I Connection loads
EA Effective block area
Rv Effective weight
CEN European Committee for Standardization or Comite Europeen de

Normalisation
F Factor of safety
FHWA Federal Highway Assocaition
FD Finite difference
FE Finite element
δ Interface friction
JR Japan Railways
LA Limit analysis
LE Limit equilibrium
LL Live load
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design
LTDS Long term design strength
Tmax Maximum load
Tmax-I Maximum load in each reinforcement layer
MSE Mechanically stabilized earth
vii
M-C Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion
FE/FD Numerical models
R Radius
Treq(x) Required reinforcement resistance
SF Safety factor
viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Measured field data generally indicates that under typical conditions, the maximum mobilized
reinforcement force, particularly for geosynthetics in mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls
and slopes, is less than predicted in current design. While reasonable conservatism in design is
prudent, it seems that the one major reason for what appears as an overly-conservative design is
the lack of distinction between typical and atypical field conditions. Atypical conditions may
temporarily exist during the lifespan of the structure, and these conditions are addressed in any
sound design. These conditions should consider situations such as heavy rainfalls, earthquakes,
and vehicular collision impact. Measured field data related to reinforcement force and
corresponding to, for example, high degree of backfill saturation is rare although numerous
failures have occurred after heavy rainfall events. That is, measured data is usually for typical
field conditions thus may not represent atypical conditions.
Leshchinsky and Tatsuoka (2013) pointed out that the apparent small mobilization of
reinforcement force under typical or normal conditions is mainly due to three reasons. One is the
frictional strength of soil used in design is often significantly lower than the actual value when
one considers typical select, well-compacted backfill. For example, AASHTO (2002, 2007)
limits φ to a maximum value of 40°, allowing a default value of 34° if no shear testing is
performed. Consequently, while for the specified gradation and compaction level the φ value
could be much more than 40°, in design, a typical value of 34° is used. This alone may result in
approximately doubling the predicted load in geosynthetic reinforcement. A second contributor
to underestimation of reinforcement load is neglecting toe restraint. Frictional resistance
generated along a 1 ft wide leveling pad or bottom facing block/panel can reduce the
reinforcement load by as much as 50% (e.g. Huang et al., 2010; Leshchinsky and Vahedifard,
2012). A third contributor is potential soil suction which generates an apparent cohesion in
seemingly acceptable granular backfill. Such apparent cohesion which can be diminished with
change in moisture content has a large impact on stability (e.g., Ling et al., 2009) thus rendering
the reinforcement, in many cases, nearly inactive or dormant. However, even if all these factors
are considered, experimental data shows that AASHTO’s design could still be overly-
conservative.
As an example, consider the failure of a wall designed based on AASHTO (2002) and shown in
Figure 1-1. It occurred simultaneously on both sides of the rounded corner. Forensic study
indicated that, layer by layer, sectors of geogrid reinforcement were not placed near the curved
corner in the upper tier thus forming a vertical prism of unreinforced soil. The obvious
expectation is that failure should have occurred during construction since unreinforced
cohesionless soil, meeting AASHTO’s specification, could not stay stable as a vertical slope.
However, collapse occurred about a year after the end of construction. The soil moisture content
increased to a point where soil suction, and subsequently apparent cohesion, diminished to a
level where missing reinforcements led to a predictable failure. Viewed differently, adequate
installation of geogrids in this case would have rendered the reinforcement mostly dormant, i.e.,
hardly mobilized during and in the months following construction. However, as the apparent
cohesion was diminishing with increased moisture, the geogrid strength and facing resistance
would have been activated to a level needed to maintain the stability of the structure designed for
cohesionless backfill. This case demonstrates that measuring the reinforcement load under
normal conditions must be assessed carefully as it may lead to unsafe conclusions regarding
realistic, perhaps atypical, limit state conditions.
Figure 1-1. Result of missing reinforcement: close-up (left) and general view (right)
[January 2008, Salt Lake City, Utah]
Sound geotechnical design needs to look at conditions which are likely to occur during the
lifespan of the structure. Under these conditions the structure should be in static equilibrium.
Limit equilibrium, LE, is one of several methods of analysis that can be used to assess limit state.
It is noted that limit state failure in MSE structures is not a hypothetical situation; it has
happened (e.g., Koerner and Koerner, 2013, Valentine, 2013). In structures where failure occurs
along a zone extending from the reinforced into the retained soil (i.e., compound failure), the
rupture of the reinforcement is not directly visible as the reinforcement is buried and entangled in
a large mass of collapsed soil. However, often the facing fails as the shear strength of the backfill
is fully mobilized along a shallow slip surface. It is accompanied by rupture of the reinforcement
at the connection with backfill falling and slipping or sloughing along the front end of the
reinforcement. Examples of such limit state situations are shown in Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3.
While it is not known whether the actual designs of these walls followed AASHTO, it is
apparent that water played an important role leading to collapse of apparently stable structures.
Figure 1-4 shows a ‘landslide’ of a tall reinforced slope, seemingly designed following FHWA
(2002) procedure. The 30 layers of geogrid within the 90 feet high head scarp ruptured, all far
from the slope face. The actual reasons for the failures depicted in these three figures are not
fully known. However, the fact is that a strength limit state failure occurred sometime after
construction, resulting in rupture of geosynthetic layers. The tradition of assessing stability of
geotechnical structures while considering feasible long term conditions is clearly needed when
designing MSE structures.
The main objective of this report is to introduce a rational design framework suitable for
determining the limit state conditions, enabling the designer to establish adequate margins of
safety against such state. This rational approach uses LE analysis to produce baseline solution
for a given problem of geosynthetic reinforced walls and slopes. This unified approach does not
use an artificial distinction between reinforced ‘walls’ and ‘slopes.’ The modified LE approach
allows for consistent results in solving geotechnical problems having complex geometries and
soil profiles. At this stage the LE framework is limited to extensible reinforcement and is
restricted to Allowable Stress Design (ASD).
Figure 1-2. Metallic reinforced wall: limit state shallow failure [June 2010, Monterrey,
Mexico, Hurricane Alex]
Figure 1-3. Geosynthetic reinforced wall: limit state shallow failure [I-85 near Exit 70,
Cusseta, Alabama; photo taken February 2007]
Figure 1-4. Geosynthetic rupture in reinforced tall slope [Yeager Airport, Charleston, WV,
March 2015]
1.1 MSE Structures: Limit Equilibrium Concept in a Nutshell
Details of a LE methodology suitable for design of MSE structures are provided in Chapters 9
and 10. Aspects such as connection and reinforcement loads, pullout resistance, mixed length
and spacing of reinforcements (e.g., secondary layers), are considered to be mutually dependent.
However, to facilitate the understanding of the review presented in the following chapters, the
LE concept as related to soil reinforcing is briefly described below.
Consider the problem in Figure 1-5a (Leshchinsky, 2009). For simplicity, a planar potential slip
surface AB is assumed. Rather than showing the reinforcement force at each intersection with
AB, the summation or the resultant of these forces, denoted as ΣT, is shown at some elevation.
The assumed AB fully defines a test body ABC. Figure 1-5b shows a free body diagram for ABC.
In this simple illustrative case, the problem is statically determinate and solving the force
equilibrium equations (i.e., see force polygon), one can find ΣT without resorting to statical
assumptions. The line of action of ΣT can be determined based on the distribution of T. Imposing
moment equilibrium for the test body makes it possible to find the location of the frictional
resultant R; this is not usually done as it is not practically needed but it indicates that moment
equilibrium is implicitly satisfied too. Repeating the calculations for a different test body (i.e.,
different angle θ) will yield different ΣT. The maximization process is repeated until max(ΣT) is
found. The value of max(ΣT) is then distributed amongst all reinforcing layers using an assumed
distribution function such as triangular, uniform or trapezoidal (e.g., Leshchinsky et al., 2010b).
While globally such an approach is consistent, an assumed distribution may result in some layers
being locally overstressed. Chapter 9 introduces a methodology or framework in which global
equilibrium is satisfied while potential local overstressing is addressed rationally.
Figure 1-5. Basic statics: (a) test body ABC representing the summation of all
reinforcements along AB as ΣT; (b) free body diagram and force polygon
It is noted that while the problem in Figure 1-5 considers for simplicity a planar surface, more
critical surface geometries (i.e., surfaces requiring larger max(ΣT)) may exist. Commonly, the
planar surface that render max(ΣT) defines an active wedge. The shear strength of the soil along
AB (Figure 1-5) is assumed to be fully mobilized. Full mobilization of soil strength in a limit
state is feasible even when dissimilar materials are involved provided that these materials exhibit
plastic strength (e.g., soil) or having ductile behavior while appropriate shear strengths were
selected for analysis. A classic example would be a layered soil profile such as a granular soil
layer over cohesive soil layer. However, this may not be the case for reinforcement that is
incompatible with the embedding soil. Hence, a discussion on this potential issue is presented.
AASHTO classifies reinforcement as either ‘extensible’ or ‘inextensible’ without providing an

explicit definition of what constitutes extensible or inextensible. It implies that such
classification is manifested by two empirical criteria. The first criterion is by determining the
equivalent lateral earth pressure coefficient, Kr, for a given reinforcement at a working load
condition. The second criterion is by examining the locus of Tmax through the reinforcement
layers. This locus, often called ‘failure surface,’ defines an active wedge, although it is measured
at working load conditions. These criteria serve as the basis for AASHTO’s design. The
empirical data for establishing the classification of reinforcement is scattered, and thus requires
statistical interpretation.
When dealing with LE, extensible and inextensible reinforcement can be defined more rationally.
That is, reinforcement that is sufficiently ductile to allow the soil to mobilize its shear strength
would be considered as extensible. If AASHTO’s granular compacted backfill, meeting
gradation requirements, is considered for walls, reinforcement rupture strains greater than, say,
approximately 3% will allow the soil to fully mobilize its strength. Based on this “rule of thumb”
criterion, most geosynthetics will be considered as extensible allowing the soil to mobilize its
strength while contributing tensile resistance, well below rupture, to sustain a test body in limit
equilibrium state. In design, geosynthetic reinforcement then must have sufficient long-term
strength to allow for LE state with a prescribed margin of safety. Ductility of reinforcement
allows for load shedding (e.g., Leshchinsky et al., 2010a) meaning possible redistribution of
loads amongst reinforcement layers.
Using the 3% rupture strain as a criterion, metallic reinforcement would generally be considered
as inextensible. It means that prior to a LE state in which the soil strength is fully mobilized, the
metal may be overstressed and rupture, and thus cease resistance contribution needed for
stability. In reality, inextensible reinforcement restrains the formation of an active wedge and
since the soil does not contribute its full strength, the reinforcement then must carry loads higher
than extensible reinforcement to satisfy equilibrium of the wedge. While it may not be a problem
meeting the needed strength of metallic reinforcement, its potential rupture after exceeding its
yield strength could be incompatible with soil strength, thus requiring careful evaluation when
considering inextensible reinforcement in LE analysis. As shown in the following chapters, a fair
amount of experimental and numerical work has been conducted to establish the limit state for
extensible reinforcement while similar work with inextensible reinforcement is seriously lacking.
1.2 Overall Organization of Report and Rationale
Experience indicates that reinforced soil structures are safe and economical. The intention of
showing strength limit state failures in Chapter 1 is not to intimidate designers from using good
technology. It is just to demonstrate that if conditions that may occur during the life of the
structure are not adequately considered in strength limit state design, failure may occur. Such
conditions include, for example, water percolation or seepage, seismic events, and material
degradation. Limit state failures may be due to inadequate design and/or poor construction
violating design assumptions. What appears as conservative design under typical conditions
may fail under atypical but predictable conditions. The objective of this report is to provide a
framework for adequate design strength limit state failure. It can deal with aspects such as water,
seismicity, complex strata, and complex structure geometry.
To develop this document, a sequence of tasks had to be accomplished. The presentation follows
this sequence. First, an overview of common design approaches is briefly presented in Chapter 2.
Second, a general LE approach is discussed (Chapter 3) including a detailed example using the
safety map tool. It is shown that this tool can be effective in determining the layout and strength
of reinforcement. However, this approach (termed ‘conventional’) requires the designer to
specify the long term strength of the reinforcement including its connection. While the strength
can be ‘guessed’ through trial and error, the connection strength is assumed. To determine
whether the LE design approach is warranted, comparisons of its limit state predictions with
experimental test results (Chapter 4) and with continuum mechanics-based numerical methods
results (Chapter 5) were conducted. This literature review revealed that, generally, the
comparisons with structures reinforced with extensible inclusions were reasonably good.
However, strength limit state comparisons with inextensible reinforcement are scarce.
Consequently, the scope of this report is limited to the development of a design framework of
geosynthetic reinforced structures.
When formulating LE in the context of LRFD, it became apparent that there are fundamental
conflicts between LRFD and LE applied to soil (i.e., material possessing frictional strength).
Resolving these conflicts (Chapter 6) is beyond the scope of this project. Hence, the scope was
limited to ASD thus enabling the use of standard LE analysis in the framework.
Design standards in a few other countries were reviewed (Chapter 7). Use of LE in design of
MSE walls in codes such as the German EBGEO adds confidence in developing a design tool
based on LE for use in the USA. Since LE is already in use for design of reinforced slopes (i.e.,
face batter greater than 20 degrees), a brief retrospective of applicability of limit state analysis in
reinforced walls is provided in Chapter 8. Such analysis is for the strength limit state where the
reinforcement is sufficiently ductile to allow the soil to mobilize its strength well before it
ruptures. It is noted that ASD design requires a minimum factor of safety on the soil strength,
generally between 1.3 and 1.5. Such design artificially reduces the soil strength resulting in
longer and stronger reinforcement. Hence, the actual structure is not at the brink of failure; it has
a safety margin, similar to engineered ordinary slopes.
The original contribution in this report starts in Chapter 9. A methodology is presented

providing the designer with a baseline solution for the reinforced problem. That is, for a given
layout of reinforcement, soil strata, a simple or complex geometry, surcharge, and possible future
events (earthquake, flooding), the designer gets the force in the reinforcement, including at the
connection. This force varies along each reinforcement layer ensuring that a prescribed factor of
safety on soil strength is essentially the same everywhere within the reinforced mass. That is, a
safety ‘map’ is produced where the soil is equally mobilized everywhere through adjustment of
the reinforcement force. It is computationally extensive and the methodology presented ‘scans’
the mass with numerous trial slip circles using a top-down approach. The method of analysis
selected in the framework is Bishop’s analysis.
At first, the framework methodology may appear abstract, difficult to follow. To ease the
understanding of the methodology and realize its practical implications, instructive examples are
presented in Chapter 10. It includes comparison with AASHTO ASD, assessment of spacing
effects, secondary reinforcement, a seismic problem, and a hybrid complex problem comprised
of a reinforced ‘wall’ topped with a reinforced ‘slope’, carrying live load, and reinforcement
length limited by cemented sandstone ‘retained soil’. It is shown that the baseline solution
enables one to select adequate reinforcement and specify minimum connection strength. The
example problems demonstrate that ‘traditional’ LE stability assessment is needed after selecting
the reinforcement to ensure that the designed structure is indeed stable for other possible modes
of failure. The implications of limit state connection loads are discussed in the context of design
of critical structures where movement is severely restricted. In the concluding remarks (Chapter
11), issues discussed before are summarized.
2.0 COMMON METHODS OF ANALYSIS
The general objective in designing MSE structures is to determine the required strength and
layout of the reinforcement so as to satisfy prescribed performance criteria. For a given facing,
the layout and strength of the reinforcement are coupled, possibly leading to many potential
solutions yielding satisfactory performance. The selected solution should be economical,
considering the cost of facing, reinforcement, backfill, and construction. In Chapters 9 and 10 an
analytical framework is presented helping the designer in making a rational consideration of all
factors.
The following is a brief review of several design methodologies including semi-empirical,

analytical, and complex numerical approaches:
1. Lateral Earth Pressure: Most design methods determine the reinforcement load based on
calculated lateral earth pressures (e.g., the ‘Simplified Method’ as in AASHTO 2002, 2007).
The approach is semi-empirical (e.g., lateral earth pressure coefficient and connection load
are empirically selected or arbitrarily imposed). The main advantage of this approach is its
simplicity. However, experience shows that it could lead to overly conservative selection of
reinforcement strength when max(Tmax) is used as the selection criterion. Also important is its
limitation for wall face batter to a maximum of 20° as well as its applicability to only very
simple geometry and to homogeneous backfill. It has limited consideration of the interaction
amongst reinforcement layers, and therefore, it offers little insight in terms of producing an
optimized design which may include intermediate reinforcement layers at some elevations. In
fact, the empirical coefficients used in this approach were determined at working load
conditions, not at a limit state. Nevertheless, frequently the locus of Tmax is termed failure
surface thus implying the logical conclusion that it was established for a limit state.
Furthermore, it is often confused with LE analysis where actually LE does not deal explicitly
with lateral earth pressures. This confusion is promoted by the fact that for geosynthetics the
locus of Tmax is assumed to coincide with the failure plane rendered by Coulomb analysis.
While Coulomb’s is one of several possible LE analyses, it does not necessarily imply for
uniformly spaced reinforcement a linear increase in force with depth as done, for example, in
AASHTO for extensible reinforcement.
2. Continuum Mechanics: This approach is numerically based (finite element, FE, and finite
difference, FD). It is comprehensive in a sense that basic rules of mechanics are considered
while accounting for boundary conditions and detailed material constitutive behavior
including nonlinearity. It is valid for slopes, walls, stratified soil, water, and more. To obtain
reliable results at working load conditions (e.g., displacement), quality field data is needed,
more than would generally be used in typical design. FE and FD results at a limit state could
be reliable, not requiring an a priori assumption regarding the shape of the critical failure
surface. However, FE/FD requires a designer with understanding of the numerical tool
including its potential limitations and pitfalls (e.g., Cheng et al., 2007; Shukha and Baker,
2003; Duncan 1996).
3. Limit Analysis (LA): Numerical upper bound in LA, based on the theory of soil plasticity,
yields kinematically admissible failure mechanisms; i.e., it is not necessary to assume
arbitrarily a failure mechanism, which is an advantage when complex problems are
considered. Numerical LA can deal with layered soil, complex geometries, water, seismicity,
etc. It is valid for reinforced slopes and walls. However, limited familiarity of practicing
engineers with LA hinders its current use in routine design.
4. Limit Equilibrium (LE): LE can be applicable for complex problems including walls, slopes,
compound geometries, layered strata, water, seismicity, etc. Its application to reinforced soil
problems is merely an extension of an approach that has been used for decades in other, some
critical, geotechnical problems. One concern with LE (and LA) is its lack of direct
consideration of compatibility between dissimilar materials. However, in unreinforced soil
problems, consideration is given to the selection of material properties and prevailing failure
mechanisms when vastly different soil layers exist. A thirty-year experience shows that the
use of LE in conjunction with soil and geosynthetics, both “ductile” materials, is not much of
an issue. However, material properties for limit state design should be carefully selected as
stated in Section 1.1. Chapters 4 and 5 indicate that there is limited work done in
conjunction with limit state of inextensible reinforced structures. Hence, the presented LE
framework is currently limited to extensible reinforcement.
The mechanics of LE is tangible and simple to apply. If properly used, it can yield reasonably
good agreement with experimental data (e.g., see Chapter 4) as well as with results obtained
from numerical analysis methods such as FE and FD (discussed in Chapter 5). Current LE design
of geosynthetic structures is concerned mainly with global instability. The framework presented
in Chapters 9 and 10 extends its use to local conditions thus yielding the required reinforcement
strength along each layer considering a given layout of the reinforcement, geometry of the
structure, backfill types, seismicity, toe resistance, cohesion, and other relevant factors.
3.0 LE APPROACH INCLUDING THE SAFETY MAP TOOL
Duncan and Wright (2005) provide an overview of LE analysis of reinforced slopes and walls.
There are numerous papers on reinforced slope stability analysis published in journals and
conference proceedings since the late 1970’s. In fact, one may consider the design of reinforced
slopes using LE as common nowadays. However, LE analysis that is general enough to deal with
the specifics of MSE walls is quite limited (e.g., Leshchinsky et al., 1995; Leshchinsky, 1997;
Leshchinsky et al., 2010b; Leshchinsky and Vahedifard, 2012). The papers by Han and
Leshchinsky (2006) and Leshchinsky et al. (2014) deal with specifics such as required tensile
resistance along the reinforcement, providing a design framework. Practical modification of this
framework is presented in Chapters 9 and 10.
Since stability of reinforced soil structures is a subset of slope stability problems, some design
codes allow for LE-based design of such structures (see Chapter 7). FHWA and AASHTO allow
for LE design of reinforced slopes, arbitrarily defining it as having a maximum inclination of
70°, while requiring LE assessment of global stability of reinforced walls (i.e., inclination ≥70°)
as a final design step. LE analysis is recognized by FHWA and AASHTO as a legitimate
strength limit state design tool; however, its implementation in walls is lacking.
In this chapter, the safety map methodology using LE analysis to select satisfactory layout of
reinforcement is discussed, mainly through instructive demonstrations. It is based on safety
factors in Allowable Stress Design (ASD) being applicable to any reinforced soil structure. The
detailed demonstration is presented here, not just referenced, since the design framework in
Chapters 9 and 10 is a special case of the safety map. That is, for any potential (circular) slip
surface in the framework, the strength of the reinforcement is determined so as to render a
constant spatial factor of safety; i.e., the likelihood of failure at any location within the reinforced
soil mass is the same.
Some generic slope stability software packages (e.g., ReSSA, Slide, Slope/W) offer a diagnostic
tool that facilitates optimal design of reinforced soil structures. This tool, formally introduced by
Baker and Leshchinsky (2001), is termed “safety map”. It is a color-coded map that, for a
specific failure mechanism, shows the spatial distribution of the safety factors within the soil
mass, thus indicating zones where the margin of safety is too low or where it is excessively high.
The safety map, in the context of reinforced soil, indicates whether the assumed strength and
length of reinforcement produces adequate stability. The specified strength of reinforcement
along its length is illustrated in Figure 3-1. Note that at any location along the reinforcement, its
strength is limited by either its intrinsic rupture strength or its pullout resistance, whichever value
is smaller. Pullout resistance depends on the overburden pressure, reinforcement anchorage
length, and reinforcement-soil interface properties. At the front side, pullout is superimposed on
the connection strength when moving from the front into the backfill soil. In conventional LE
analysis this connection strength has a known value using, for example, the method in AASHTO.
The pullout resistance shown in Figure 3-1 varies linearly thus reflecting a simple problem with
zero batter and a horizontal crest. For more complex boundary conditions, the pullout resistance
distribution will not be linear (further details are given in Chapters 9 and 10).
10
QI
Pullout failure Reinforcement
()
... >,
.E ;::
(front side) i/nsic strength
()
~ 111
a.
(/) 111 Puii:ut'fallurJ:-
C: () (back side):
~
I
I
I
Connectio~
strength l_
T Reinforcement length
Front end w/ Rear end
facing unit
Figure 3-1. Available tensile resistance along reinforcement in current design
The factor of safety, Fs, used in current LE methods is related to the soil shear strength. It
signifies the value by which the soil strength should be reduced to attain equilibrium at a limit
state. It means that the reciprocal value of Fs (i.e., 1/Fs) signifies the average level of
mobilization of the soil strength. The safety factor, SF, has similar meaning to Fs except that its
value at any location within the mass is larger than Fs unless SF is examined on the trace of the
critical slip surface where it degenerates to its minimum value of Fs. That is, for each analyzed
potential slip surface there is an associated safety factor, SF, and the factor of safety, Fs,
corresponds to the lowest SF; i.e., Fs=min(SF). The most likely (i.e., the critical) slip surface is
associated with Fs.
It is noted that Baker and Leshchinsky (2001) introduction of the safety map is done
mathematically rather than intuitively. That is, they showed that contour lines of SF associated
with numerous analyzed potential slip surfaces do not intersect with each other thus making the
concept of safety map physically valid. The practical implications of the safety map in the
context of current LE design of reinforced soil is best demonstrated through an example
problem. The following example problem was generated using program ReSSA. It was originally
published by Leshchinsky (2005) with additional elaboration by Leshchinsky (2011).
Consider the problem of stability of a multi-tiered slope/wall adjoining a rock slope as detailed in
Figure 3-2. The design objective is to efficiently determine the required layout and strength of
reinforcement to ensure sufficient minimum margin of safety Fs. The slope of the lower tier is
2(v):1(h) while the top tier is at 20(v):1(h). According to AASHTO’s definition, this is a case of
tiered walls over reinforced slope and, as such, there is no clear design methodology. Note that
the foundation soil is comprised of an 8.2-ft thick layer of residual soil possessing drained shear
strength of φ=15°. Also note that the bedrock defines a slender slope/wall structure while
effectively limiting the depth of potential slip surfaces.
11
I q=210 psf I
3.3 ft (1:3) Select Fill:
y=127 pcf
$
16.4 ft (20:1) 4>=34°
·r
19.7 ft (10:1)
le
1
23.0 ft (5:1)
L Bedrock:
1 y=150 pcf
29.6 ft (2:1)
ct>=4QO
c=10,000 psf
Residual Soil:
y=127 pcf
4>=15°
Figure 3-2. The basic problem of multi-tiered slope/wall
For cohesionless unreinforced slopes, the critical slip surface coincides with the steepest slope
surface. That is, if circular arcs are considered, the critical circle will have its center far from the
slope rendering an arc that degenerates to planar surface coinciding with the slope surface. The
corresponding Fs for the unreinforced problem then is trivial. As it is in an infinite cohesionless
slope, its value is equal to tan(φ)/tan(β) where β is the angle of the steepest slope which is the
upper tier in this example; i.e., the steepest slope is 20(v):1(h) meaning that
Fs=tan(34°)/20=0.034. Figure 3-3 illustrates rotational failure surfaces as rendered by Bishop’s
analysis. It shows the location of the critical circle. By itself, this surface is of little value when
designing for reinforcement. However, the red zone in the safety map shows that, practically,
most of the granular backfill needs to be reinforced since the safety factor, SF, is less than 1.3
nearly everywhere. Note that for reinforced slopes, FHWA requires Fs≥1.3. The safety map,
Figure 3-3, indicates visually the zones within which the SF is unsatisfactory.
As a first iteration in the design process, the reinforcement layout shown in Figure 3-2 is
specified. The long-term design strength of the reinforcement, LTDS, for the bottom tier is 5482
lb/ft; for the second tier, it is 3426 lb/ft; for the third tier, it is 2056 lb/ft; and for the top tier, it is
548 lb/ft. The connection strength is assumed to equal the design strength of the reinforcement;
interface strength coefficient of reinforcement-backfill was taken as 0.8tan(φ) [i.e., F*α =
0.8tan(φ)]; coverage ratio is Rc = 100%. Re-running the reinforced problem using Bishop’s
analysis yields the safety map shown in Figure 3-4; Fs now is 1.29 (i.e., practically acceptable)
and its corresponding critical circle is limited by the bedrock. The safety map implies the
following:
12
1. SF everywhere meets the required minimum of 1.3. The map shows that for a rather large
zone, the range of safety factors is between 1.3 and 1.5 (i.e., an economical range for safety
values). Hence, the selected strength and length of the reinforcement is adequate to resist
rotational failure, in a seemingly economical arrangement.
2. The red zone extends into the residual soil and is restricted by the bedrock. Hence, although
the red zone in Figure 3-3 indicates an economical selection of reinforcement, it also signals
different potential failure mechanisms that can adapt to the given geology, producing a more
critical situation.
Figure 3-3. Safety map for the unreinforced problem using Bishop’s analysis
Figure 3-5 shows the safety map employing a two-part wedge translational failure mechanism
combined with Spencer’s stability analysis. Slip surfaces along the interface with the foundation,
as well as along each reinforcement layer, are examined. The corresponding safety map implies
the following:
1. Fs for the initially assumed reinforcement is 0.9, much lower than the acceptable value of
1.3. As can be seen, the critical slip surface propagates along the interface with the
foundation (top of residual soil), extending beyond all reinforcement layers and limited by
the bedrock.
2. The red zone signifies the range in which the safety factors are less than 1.3, i.e.,
unacceptable values. As seen, there are zones within each tier in which SF values are
unacceptable as they are still less than 1.3.
3. Clearly, the reinforcement for the top tier must be stronger. It also must be stronger for the
tiers below.
13
4. While stronger reinforcement will improve stability against failures within the reinforced soil
zones in all four tiers, it will not resolve the problem of failure around the reinforcement.
Lengthening the reinforcement layers in the second and, perhaps, the third tier can solve this
problem as reinforcement layers intersect the critical two-part slip surface.
Figure 3-4. Safety map for the reinforced problem using Bishop’s analysis
The lesson from using the two-part wedge translational mechanism combined with the initially
assumed layout shows that one needs to increase both the strength and length of reinforcement.
The depth of the red zone in the safety map suggests the extent to which the reinforcement
should be lengthened; the existence of the red zone within the reinforced zone implies the need
for increase in reinforcement strength. One can now lengthen and strengthen the reinforcement
until the factor of safety is 1.3. Figure 3-6 shows the safety map employing three-part wedge
failure mechanism combined with Spencer’s stability analysis. Translational failure mechanisms
within the problematic zone, the foundation soil, are examined. The safety map implies that:
1. Fs for the initially assumed reinforcement is 0.7, much lower than the permissible value of
1.3. As can be seen, the critical slip surface propagates within the residual soil foundation,
extending beyond all layers and limited by the bedrock.
2. The red zone signifies the range in which the safety factors are less than 1.3, i.e.,
unacceptable values. As seen, there is one such zone extending between the rear of the
reinforcement and the bedrock as well as within the entire foundation soil zone.
3. The safety map implies that while increasing the strength of the reinforcement may narrow
the red zone, it is not likely to eliminate it altogether. Lengthening of the reinforcement in the
three upper tiers may help but not likely to render a safe and economical design.
14
4. The safety map indicates that the residual soil creates a zone which decreases stability
significantly. A logical effective solution in this case could involve ground improvement
such as replacement of the residual soil before construction of the tiered system starts. This
will also increase the resistance to direct sliding failure depicted by the critical two-part
wedge in Figure 3-5.
Figure 3-5. Safety map using Spencer’s two-part wedge translational surfaces
The safety map corresponding to the three-part wedge mechanism implies that replacing the
residual soil may produce a satisfactory solution. Recalculating the same problem but with
foundation soil that is the same as the reinforced one (i.e., φ = 34°; not shown) yields Fs = 1.26
(as compared to 1.3) for the three-part wedge (figure not provided), a nearly acceptable value.
The safety map shown in Figure 3-7 is a result of rerunning the problem for the two-part wedge
translational mechanism. As seen, the problem associated with the foundation soil is resolved
also for the two-part wedge (in fact, the safety factor along the foundation now is 1.37, see color
code). The red zones in which safety factors less than 1.3 are within the second, third, and fourth
tiers. These zones indicate that only a slight increase in reinforcement strength is needed; the
length is adequate. Such an increase in reinforcement strength in the three upper tiers should
produce a rather economical utilization of the reinforcement as the range of the safety factors
will be mainly between 1.3 and 1.5.
While an attempt to demonstrate the usefulness of the safety map in reinforced slope design is
presented, one realizes that using LE analysis, the aspects of ‘internal stability’ (i.e.,
reinforcement strength, pullout, and connection) as well as ‘external stability’ (i.e., sliding along
the reinforcement or along the foundation) are implicitly examined albeit globally. In fact,
compound stability as well as ‘bearing capacity’ (i.e., foundation or deep-seated failure) are
considered too while accounting for the given soil profile, and the layout and strength of the
reinforcement. Chapters 9 and 10 provide a framework for baseline solution so that the minimum
15
required strength of reinforcement can be determined locally (as opposed to globally) within the
mass. It should supplement the global approach which has been demonstrated in the example
here. In fact, the framework in Chapters 9 and 10 use the safety map in ‘reverse’. It considers a
design Fs (=SF) that is constant for any circular surface within the reinforced mass by changing
iteratively the reinforcement strength required to render such constant Fs. That is, the long-term
strength of the reinforcement is not given but rather is computed so that Fs = constant anywhere
within the mass. It produces the baseline solution ensuring prescribed stability locally and, in its
final stage, globally.
Figure 3-6. Safety map using three-part wedge surfaces
16
F• Range:
>2.47
2.34
2.21
2.08
1.95
1.82
Residual soil replaced
1.69
with select fill soil
1.56
- 1.30 1.43
1.17
Figure 3-7. Effects of replacing the foundation soil with select fill (two-part wedge)
17
4.0 COMPARISON OF LE PREDICTIONS WITH PHYSICAL MODEL TESTS
There has been notable research attempting to verify the limit state of reinforced earth structures
using extensible reinforcement. However, reported work on limit state that deals with global
internal or compound failures of MSE walls reinforced with inextensible inclusions is scarce.
Physical modelling of MSE walls includes full-scale testing as well as small-scale modeling that
obey similitude laws (e.g., centrifuge modelling or use of material with heavier unit weight such
as done by Leshchinsky and Lambert, 1991). While small-scale models obeying similitude laws
could be simple to construct and relatively inexpensive, large scale testing is expensive and
usually suffers from practical limitations such as inducing failure and 3D effects that may affect
the results in relation to limit state and 2D LE analysis. For example, 3D effects increase stability
(i.e., decrease load in the reinforcement) possibly leading to unconservative conclusions when
dealing with 2D problems, as commonly considered in design (Zhang et al., 2014). Inducing a
limit state in a large scale structure is usually done by increasing a uniformly distributed
surcharge load acting on the crest. Such surcharge increases both pullout resistance and the
maximum load in the reinforcement, Tmax. This leads to a different evolution of failure for most
reinforced earth structures as typically the predominant factor in failure is the self-weight of the
reinforced backfill (i.e., gravity). Furthermore, significant soil suction (e.g., Yoo and Jung, 2007;
Yoo, 2013; Kim and Borden, 2013) could complicate interpretation of data as it creates apparent
cohesion; see Ling et al. (2009) to realize values of apparent cohesion in sand and its impact on
stability of steep slopes. It is objectively difficult to conduct flawless large scale tests at a limit
state.
4.1 Extensible Reinforcement
A 2(v):1(h) geogrid reinforced slope/wall, termed here as the Norwegian ‘wall’, was
instrumented and tested by Fannin and Hermann (1990), as illustrated in Figure 4-1. Note that
the drawing also shows a 2(v):1(h) upper slope which was termed by Fannin and Hermann
(1990) as permanent berm surcharge. A literature survey identified a follow-up publication,
Fannin (2001), where it is stated that the berm surcharge was indeed 2(v):1(h) but it does not
detail the offset of this berm; however, a photo in Fannin (2001) shows a small offset, probably
in the order of two feet. Through personal communications with Fannin, an approximately two
feet offset was confirmed as reasonable. It was also confirmed that the upper steep slope was
reinforced by biaxial geogrid; however, the exact layout of the reinforcement in the berm
surcharge could not be recalled. Technically, per FHWA or AASHTO classification, the
structure in Figure 4-1 is a two-tier ‘slope’ as its inclination is 63.4° (<70°). As a facing, a wire
grid was used. The reported moist unit weight (γ) was 108 pcf and the plane strain residual
strength friction (φps-residual) was 38o. Loads in the geogrid were measured using specially devised
metallic load cells.
The two-tier problem was analyzed using Bishop LE method. The peak strength was assumed to
be 42o to 43o based on common differences between peak and residual strength reported in the
literature (e.g., Lee and Seed, 1967, Bolton, 1986). Coincidentally, testing and analysis of
exhumed materials from the Norwegian site was conducted at the University of British Columbia
25 years after its construction. A report on the testing (Quinteros, 2014) concludes that the
mobilized friction angle (i.e., suitable for LE analysis of the Norwegian wall with a horizontal
18
crest) is 41±1°. This is close to the assumed peak plane strain value of 42o to 43o for a
surcharged reinforced slope. Figure 4-2 shows the results of a sensitivity analysis on the effects
of φ and offset on the critical slip circles while ignoring possible reinforcement of the upper tier
as well as excluding potential slip surfaces emerging at the face of the upper tier. The critical
circles shown are for LE state using program ReSSA (3.0) seeking the geogrid tensile force for
Fs=1.0. Note in Figure 4-2 that for the offsets and soil strengths used, the critical Bishop circle
tends to intercept only primary reinforcement layers. Also, the trace of the critical slip surface
relative to the reinforcement layers is not sensitive considering the parameters used. Moreover,
for large offsets, the critical circle is relatively shallow in the upper tier thus is likely to be
affected by reinforcement in the lightly-reinforced upper tier. In fact, Figure 4-2 implies a
difficulty in representing the upper tier as ‘pure’ surcharge load as often done in practice. That is,
the slip circle propagating through the upper tier mobilizes soil resistance, an aspect ignored if
one replaces that tier by simple surcharge; i.e., surcharge is a conservative approximation as soil
resistance is ignored. Conversely, the mass of the sliding portion in the upper tier could be larger
than reflected by simple uniform surcharge implying that the driving load could be larger; i.e.,
surcharge is unconservative approximation. LE analysis avoids the dilemma often associated
with approximation that could be conservative or unconservative.
Figure 4-1. The Norwegian wall: geometry and geogrid layout (Fannin and Hermann,
1990)
19
Offset= 1 ft. Offset=3 ft. / Offset=5 ft.

$=38° $=38° Ii $=38°
I
I
I
/
L
y y y
X X X
Offset= 1 ft. Offset=3 ft. Offset=5 ft.

I
$=40° I $=40° $=40°
y y y
X X X
Offset= 1 ft. Offset=3 ft. Offset=5 ft.

$=42° $=42° $=42°
y y y
X X X
Figure 4-2. The Norwegian wall: traces of critical slip circles considering the impact of soil
strength and offset
Figure 4-3 compares the measured and predicted max(Tmax). The left figure corresponds to
Figure 4-2; it shows the large impact φ and offset have. However, it ignores the reinforcement
(albeit weak) in the upper tier. The figure on the right uses an offset of two feet showing the
effects of assumed length of reinforcement, L, of five to seven feet in the upper tier, placed at a
vertical spacing of two feet (see inset). For all φ and L values used in this figure, the trace of the
critical slip circle goes around the reinforcements in the upper tier (see inset) thus making it
20
needed to stabilize the upper berm only, not affecting max(Tmax) in the lower tier. That is, even
weak but short reinforcement in the upper tier will ‘push’ the critical circle deeper, around it.
For φ=43o, the calculated max(Tmax) is about 45% larger than measured if L=5 feet and about
10% larger for L=7 feet. For φ=42o, the calculated max(Tmax) is about 70% larger than measured
if L=5 feet and about 45% larger for L=7 feet. While the predictions by LE using Bishop’s
analysis are conservative relative to reported measured values, the deviations are deemed
reasonable when peak soil strength is used, especially when considering the complexity of the
reported tiered problem.
It can be argued that the Norwegian wall was not in a LE state. The work by Quinteros (2014)
implies that the mobilized soil strength, 41±1°, for the horizontal crest case is close to the
assumed plane strain peak strength. For the two-tier system, Fannin and Hermann (1990) report
noticeable increase in reinforcement loads implying that the mobilization of soil strength was
even ‘closer’ to peak strength. Experience indicates that when an ‘active’ state develops (i.e., soil
strength is mobilized), external geometrical deformations are hardly visible (Leshchinsky et al.
2009), the same as in conventional retaining walls. Hence, the Norwegian case is considered
relevant for LE comparisons. It is assumed in back-calculations that apparent cohesion due to
suction was negligible in the Norwegian wall. However, if there was some viable apparent
cohesion, the LE verification could be considered unconservative. While a field large-scale test
is insightful, there are objective uncertainties associated with it (e.g., seasonal changes in
properties of the soil mass, within different zones of the soil mass, such as unit weight, moisture
content/saturation level, and shear strength) even if the field tested structure is well-instrumented
and well-executed. Due to uncertainties, interpretation of field tests requires an idealization as
does ‘theoretical’ analysis such as LE, LA, FE, or FD.
Zornberg et al. (1998) report the results of centrifugal tests on dry sand that was placed by
pluviation (i.e., there was no apparent cohesion due to moisture). Geotextile meeting centrifugal
similitude modeling requirements was used; acceleration was increased until collapse occurred
(Figure 4-4). The tested 2(v):1(h) slope/wall had wrapped face; the re-embedded tails of the
geotextile can be considered as secondary layers.
21
(a) (b)
Figure 4-3. The Norwegian wall: (a) loads as function of φ and offsets and (b) loads as
function of φ and reinforcement length in upper tier
Figure 4-4. Failed geotextile-reinforced slope/wall in centrifuge modeling (courtesy Prof.

Zornberg)
Figure 4-5 shows the general layout of reinforcement in the model tested by Zornberg et al.
(1998). Figure 4-6 (left) shows the dimensions of the prototype corresponding to the centrifugal
22
model at failure. Using the LE methodology in Chapter 9 (but with log spiral method),
Figure 4-6 (right) shows the locus of predicted and measured location of Tmax-i. The exact locus
of Tmax-i is rather insensitive in the LE calculations and hence, the agreement is considered good.
The computed Tmax-i in the prototype was 654 lb/ft; the ultimate strength of the geotextile in the
prototype as reported by Zornberg et al. (1998) was 662 lb/ft. Clearly, the calculated locus of
Tmax-i and the actual values Tmax-i, both relevant to design, calculated using peak plane strain
φ=39.5° (Figure 4-6), are in as good of an agreement as one can expect.
Figure 4-5. General layout and dimensions of tested centrifugal models (after Zornberg et
al., 1998)
Figure 4-6. Prototype at failure deduced from centrifugal model test (left) and predicted
and measured locus of Tmax-i (right)
Mohamed et al. (2013) used centrifugal models to study the stability of two-tiered walls with
different offsets (Figure 4-7). Geotextile reinforcement and poorly graded sand with a peak plane
strain friction angle of 42.3° were used. For analysis, the Spencer method, combined with
general shaped slip surface (i.e., not a predetermined slip surface geometry), was employed using
23
the program Slide. The analysis sought Tmax at failure as well as the trace of the critical slip
surface.
Figure 4-7. Configuration of centrifuge tiered wall model (after Mohamed et al., 2013)
For their layout of reinforcement, Mohamed et al. (2013) suggested to use in LE analysis
uniform Tmax with depth. Such distribution is commonly used in LE analysis including FHWA
(Berg et al., 2009) when dealing with reinforced slopes. Note that the baseline solution produced
in the LE design framework in Chapters 9 and 10 (as well as the distributions in Figure 4-6)
Tmax-i are the spatial strength required for a limit state; its peak values might be uniform with
depth depending on factors such as the reinforcement layout. Furthermore, the reported location
of the critical noncircular failure surface predicted by their LE analysis agreed well with the
actual locations of the failure surfaces observed experimentally. It is noted that the reported
traces of critical noncircular traces of slip surfaces are not very different from circular ones. It is
likely that circular surfaces would have rendered only a slightly less critical Tmax values. Their
conclusions are in agreement with Leshchinsky and Han (2004) work that compared LE and FD
(FLAC) for tiered walls. In fact, in a follow-up paper by Mohamed et al. (2014), a comparison
with FE analysis (Plaxis) was conducted, showing good agreement with the LE analysis they
used; the findings of this follow-up paper are discussed in the Chapter 5.
Yang, Gupta, and Zornberg (2009) studied the stability of a geosynthetic reinforced wall within a
narrow space. They conducted centrifugal tests and compared the results to LE analysis. Spencer
method with noncircular slip surface (program UTEXAS4) was used. Several centrifugal tests
were conducted with increasingly limited space. The agreement between predicted slip surfaces
and measured one was good in all cases. Figure 4-8 is just one example.
24
Figure 4-8. LE predicted slip surface vs. observed from centrifugal test (after Yang et al.,
2009)
An indication about the agreement Tmax or pullout, whichever is smaller for each layer, can be
realized in Figure 4-9. As can be seen, the predicted acceleration (analogous to prototype’s wall
height) by LE versus the measured value is close.
Figure 4-9. LE predicted failure acceleration vs. measured value (after Yang et al., 2009)
25
Yang et al. (2013) compared LE and FE analyses with an RMC wall (Bathurst et al. 2006) as
illustrated in Figure 4-10. Comparisons with measured Tmax values were made under different
uniform surcharge loads.
Figure 4-10. Cross-section of wrapped-face RMC test wall (after Bathurst et al., 2006)
Circular arc combined with Bishop’s stability analysis (program STEDwin) and φ=42° were
used. With constant Tmax for all layers, the location of the locus of Tmax was nearly linear,
agreeing well with the LE predicted slip surface. While this reference includes many
comparisons (most are not relevant for this work), it is interesting to show the comparison in
Figure 4-11. When the surcharge is zero, the agreement between Tmax from LE and the measured
max(Tmax) is good. In fact, within a range of typical surcharge loads, the agreement is still
reasonably good. It is noted that the main significance of max(Tmax) is that it is typically used to
select the required reinforcement long term strength.
26
12 ;
;
Rankine ;
11 ;
~ ;; /
10 ; Coulomb
,. ,.
;
~ . • / Li~it Equilibrium
- E
.......
z
9
8
7 ,. ,.
;
;
;
/
/
/
/
/
' .. /
-
/
.:.:: ,. ;
/ /
X
6 /
(0
E 5 /
X
(0
~E 4
3 Range of Measured
Values
2 Finite Element
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Surcharge Load (kPa}
Figure 4-11. max(Tmax), Tmaxmax, at various surcharge levels (after Yang et al., 2013)
FHWA wall at Algonquin was analyzed by Leshchinsky et al. (2014) using LE and data reported
by Allen and Bathurst (2001), superseded by Allen and Bathurst (2003), as illustrated in
Figure 4-12. This wall had relatively large facing blocks (2–ft thick). Studies by Huang et al.,
(2010), and Leshchinsky and Vahedifard (2012) indicate that toe resistance along its interface
with the foundation could be substantial. No measured data regarding this resistance was
reported for the Algonquin wall. Hence, three values of interface friction between the leveling
pad and the foundation soil, δb-f, were assumed: 0o, 30o, and 43o. Computed results using the LE
framework (with log spiral analysis) are shown in Figure 4-13. Figure 4-13a shows that for the
case of horizontal crest, the measured Tmax-i reasonably corresponded to δb-f between 30° and 43°
although with some scatter. Figure 4-13b shows Tmax-i for the backslope surcharge. Similar to the
case of the horizontal crest, the measured Tmax-i reasonably corresponds to δb-f between 30° and
43°. Accurate comparisons in this case history are not warranted as the available data about toe
resistance can only be speculated. The main value of this example is in demonstrating the impact
of toe resistance, an aspect that is ignored in design and in most LE analyses (i.e., δb-f is assumed
as zero). While toe resistance adds to structural redundancy, it also poses a problem in
interpreting much of the existing field data, regardless whether the wall is at working load
conditions or near collapse.
27
Figure 4-12. Section of FHWA wall (reproduced after Allen and Bathurst, 2001)
(a) (b)
Figure 4-13. FHWA wall: (a) Flat and (b) backsloped crest (Leshchinsky et al., 2014)
4.1.1 Concluding Remarks
Not all reported cases in the literature that compare LE with the performance of physical models
of MSE structures are summarized here. However, the summarized cases are based on modelling
28
that is deemed meaningful in terms of both experimental and analytical (i.e., LE) aspects. It is
clear that for wrapped face MSE structures, whether a reinforced steep slope or wall, LE exhibits
good agreement with tested physical models. This agreement is in terms of both predicted critical
slip surface and strength of ductile/extensible reinforcement. It demonstrates that correct LE
analysis for reinforced soil structures is simply a subset of slope stability analysis, commonly
used in design of geotechnical structures. However, combined factors such as toe resistance,
apparent cohesion, and underestimation of soil strength (using φ=34° rather than, say, 50°) may
increase stability by 2 times or more. When any of these factors exists, the required
reinforcement strength for limit state could be about half or less the value predicted by LE.
Current practice does not take advantage of toe resistance, ignores apparent cohesion, and limits
frictional strength to 40°. However, LE methodology can readily be applied in cases where these
restrictions are relaxed. Such inclusion would provide a useful tool for forensic studies as well as
be instructive for designers.
4.2 Inextensible Reinforcement
It seems that little work exploring limit state, as related to global slip surfaces, has been done on
MSE wall reinforced with inextensible, axially stiff material. It appears that in practice
(Anderson et al., 2012) the reinforced soil mass may be modelled as a block, using a high
cohesion value and forcing critical failure surfaces to be outside the structure. For example, they
suggest that the reinforced soil mass can be represented by φ=34° and c=1460 psf in
conventional global LE analysis.
A major difficulty in conducting limit state analysis through the reinforced mass is the possible
incompatibility between soil and inextensible, stiff metal (‘brittle’ relative to soil) leading to
difficulty in selecting adequate strength of the soil for use in LE analysis. This is not a trivial
problem and good experimental work could shed light on proper strength selection. Rupture of
reinforcement before the soil mobilizes its strength could happen leading to structural collapse.
Since usually inextensible reinforcement is relatively strong and carries high loads, LE for low
coverage ratio, Rc, will typically indicate that slip surfaces will mobilize mainly the pullout
resistance of the reinforcement, an aspect that is in agreement with LE analysis. However, this
observation must be first substantiated experimentally. It is interesting to note that there are some
papers dealing with limit state using physical and analytical modelling of soil nail reinforcement;
e.g., Jacobsz (2013). However, such walls are designed and built differently than MSE walls.
Based on the review in this chapter, the design framework in this report is restricted to
geosynthetic (extensible) reinforcement. Future research should indicate whether and its scope
can be extended to include metallic (inextensible reinforcement).
29
5.0 COMPARISON OF LE PREDICTIONS WITH FE/FD RESULTS
Numerous publications reported comparisons of predictions by LE and numerical analysis,

mainly for unreinforced slopes. There are quite a few papers on the subject for extensible
reinforcement. While a considerable amount of numerical comparative work was conducted on
MSE walls with inextensible reinforcement, very little was done in a way relevant to limit state
or global stability as implied by LE.
Numerical analysis (FE/FD) is based on continuum mechanics. Such analysis of geotechnical

structures produces much information, some of which is ignored in design. The proposed
Strength Reduction Method, SRM, by Zeinkiewicz et al. (1975) made it possible to consider limit
state in FE/FD analysis in a format with which geotechnical engineers are familiar; i.e., it can
produce the conventional factor of safety on soil strength, Fs. In the strength reduction
technique, a series of trial factors of safety are used to adjust the actual cohesion, c, and the
internal angle of friction,φ, of the soils as follows:
ctrial =c/Fstrial (5.1a)
φtrial = arctan[tan(φ)/Fstrial] (5.1b)
The adjusted strength parameters of soil layers are used in the analysis iteratively, satisfying
boundary conditions and equilibrium anywhere within the continuum. The strength reduction
values change by increments until the adjusted cohesion and friction angle render the soil
structure unstable, being on the verge of failure. The amount of strength reduction needed to
reach this ‘numerically’ unstable state is, by definition, the same factor of safety as in LE
analysis; i.e., it signifies the margin of safety against collapse of a structure. Producing Fs
reduces the FE/FD complete solution into a singular useful number in the context of limit state
design. FE/FD can consider dissimilar materials utilizing constitutive laws of the various
elements involved while following the principles of mechanics. It is another tool, a very
instructive one, which could be useful, especially in complex problems and where accurate data
is available. Today’s user friendly FE/FD software combined with affordable cost made it
popular, especially amongst researchers.
The geometry of the critical surface in FE/FD is not postulated as typically done in LE. It is
difficult in FE/FD to determine the safety factor along surfaces other than the critical one which
may be less critical than the SRM solution but still require consideration for good engineering
practice (Cheng et al., 2007). Perhaps future implementation of the safety map may resolve this
limitation when it comes to reinforced soil design.
5.1 Extensible Reinforcement
Leshchinsky and Han (2004) studied the stability of geosynthetic reinforced multitiered walls.
They used FD (program FLAC) and compared the results with LE (program ReSSA) using
Bishop’s analysis as well as Spencer’s for 2-part and 3-part wedges. The reinforcement strength
was taken as uniform at each elevation unless pullout resistance at the intersection with the
analyzed surface was smaller (i.e., conventional approach in reinforced slope stability analysis).
The parametric study included elements such as the impact of offset, reinforcement length,
30
strength and stiffness, surcharge, and water. Wrapped facing was considered. For each case the
reinforcement strength was selected so that Fs=1.0 in LE. Using this strength, FD analysis of the
problem then was conducted comparing the resulting Fs and its associated failure surface. For
most cases the resulting Fs in FD was within 2% of that obtained in LE.
Figure 5-1 shows the critical Bishop’s circle for LE and the spatial distribution of the safety
factor. It also shows the FD maximum shear zone (which implies the location of the slip surface).
As seen, both Fs values and the failure zone are very close.
(a) (b)
Figure 5-1. (a) Safety map and Bishop critical slip circle (Fs=1.00). (b) Maximum shear
zone using FLAC (Fs=0.98) (Leshchinsky and Han, 2004)
Figure 5-2 shows a foundation failure. Here the largest deviation of Fs was observed, about 6%,
and the traces of the failure zones are quite close. It is likely that a multi-polygonal surface
combined with Spencer would have reduced Fs slightly; however, such a difference for low Fs is
practically insignificant. Note that the figure showing Spencer’s 3-part wedge includes the trace
of the critical slip surface and its corresponding line of thrust. This thrust line shows the location
where interslice force resultants are acting indicating the reasonableness of the static solution.
For the analyzed problem the line of thrust is considered reasonable. The use of LE to assess
foundation stability instead of classical bearing capacity for rigid footing is discussed in Chapter
10. It can be stated that adequate LE stability analysis would identify the most critical
mechanism for a given problem without a priori assuming that it must initiate at the rear end of
the bottom reinforced soil zone as implicitly assumed in traditional bearing capacity for MSE
structures. In-depth discussion on traditional bearing capacity of MSE walls versus LE/LA is
given by Leshchinsky et al., (2012).
31
Une of Thrust
Fs = 0.92
Spencer Method: 3 -P11rt Wedge Surfllce

.____________ _= ==--' a
(a) (b)
Figure 5-2. (a) Bearing capacity using Spencer 3-part wedge (Fs=0.92). (b) Shear zone for
bearing failure using FLAC (Fs=0.86) (Leshchinsky and Han, 2004)
It is interesting to note that Leshchinsky and Han (2004) changed the reinforcement stiffness to
represent that of metals. The LE predictions were still close, suggesting that the problem of
incompatible materials in terms of stiffness may not be an issue when using LE. However, as
discussed earlier, it could be an issue when the metallic reinforcement ruptures before the soil
mobilizes its strength, which was not considered in their study. Potential rupture possibility may
require a strain-based selection of strengths as noted in Section 1.1.
Mohamed et al. (2014) compared FE (Plaxis), LE using Spencer noncircular slip surface
(program Slide), and centrifugal models considering two-tiered walls. Figure 5-3 shows one
typical case where the predicted failure surfaces by FE and LE were close to each other as well
as the surface inferred from tested centrifugal model. Figure 5-4 shows the mobilized tensile
force in the reinforcement at various elevations as well as the trace of the failure surface
predicted by LE. The mobilized force is approximately uniform with height, agreeing with the
common approach used in global LE.
32
• Reinforcement tea rs
(by centrifuge test)
I
I
I
-
Failure surface
I
{by LE) I
Incremental shear strain I
{by FE) I
I
Maximum tension line ~
(by FHWA)
Figure 5-3. Slip surfaces predicted by FE and LE versus the location of ruptured
geotextiles (after Mohamed et al., 2014)
Mohamed et al., 2014, conclude that excellent agreement was obtained among the centrifuge
models, FE, and LE in locating the failure surface. The calculated max(Tmax) values obtained
from FE analyses agreed with the results obtained from the LE, assuming uniform distribution of
reinforcement with height; i.e., the distribution used in conventional global LE of reinforced
slopes.
33
o.u
...,
O.o<
O.o< o.os o.u 0.1' 0.,
o.u
....
o.os
O.o< 0.,
o.u Upper tier

...,
....
O.o< o.os I 0 .U 0 .16 0.,
Mob ilized re inforcement o.u

Laye r 11
tensile load {by FEM)
o.u 0.1' o,
Layer9
Failure surface
0 .16 0.,
{by LEM)
o,
... Layer 6
o.u 0 .16 0.,
Lower tier
Layer 4
..., o.u o,
o.u 1 0 .1'
o.os
O.o< Layer 2
,' O.o< o.os o.u 0.1' 0.,
Tensile load o.u ,'

...,
{kN/m) .... ,' Laye r 1
O.o< ..., o.u 0 .1' o,

Distance from wall face (m)
Figure 5-4. Mobilized tensile load (FE) at various accelerations and location of failure
surface predicted by LE (after Mohamed et al., 2014)
Yang et al. (2013) compared FE (program Plaxis) and LE (Bishop using STEDwin) considering
the tested RMC wall (Figure 4-10; Bathurst et al. 2006). Figure 5-5 shows the summation of
Tmax, ∑Tmax, versus the uniform surcharge applied on this wall (reported experimental results are
for zero and 1671 psf surcharge load). Yang et al. (2013) suggested that some ‘facing’ effects
could have played a role and, therefore, arbitrarily represented a facing as a cohesive soil layer
having an assumed cohesion of 210 psf. See Figure 5-6 for the impact of facing (or cohesion)
when compared to FE predictions. Yang et al. (2013) conclude that their study “… demonstrated
that the modeling of facing stiffness in the LE analysis can improve the prediction of Tmax.” The
RMC wall in this case was a wrapped face and therefore one may ask what facing stiffness such
a system has. Since there was no physical facing, presentation of the experimental data as done
by Yang et al. (2013) is not relevant in the context of this report; however, a comparison
between FE (albeit with imaginary ‘facing’) and LE with and without ‘facing.’ Without
speculation about the RMC wall, the FE analysis, not the experimental work, demonstrates the
effect of 210 psf cohesion in lieu of ‘facing’. It produces similar results to LE with the same
cohesion as facing.
34
90
80
Rankine ,; ,;
70 Limit Equ ilibnum '-...,_ ,; ,;
without Facing ~ ,;
_60
E Limit Equ ilibnum ~,;
z' with Facing ,; ,;
-
.:.::
50
,;
,;
,;
,;
,;
,;
/
-·
,;
,;
--
/ "'
,; ~::,...,-
20 ,; / .~ •
10
/
...~ .
Finite Element
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Surcharge Load (kPa)
Figure 5-5. Sum of Tmax versus the uniform surcharge on RMC wall (after Yang et al.,
2013)
Han and Leshchinsky (2010) studied the stability of back-to-back walls using FD (program
FLAC) and LE (program ReSSA with Bishop circular arc). To eliminate facing effects (as done
in current design) as well avoid numerical difficulties associated with the FD analysis, they
represented the facings as high cohesion soil so as to exclude from consideration slip surfaces
emerging through the face; i.e., forcing toe failures. Figure 5-6 shows that for given allowable
reinforcement and soil strengths, an increase in facing cohesion results in an asymptotic Fs. That
is, the slip surface then is forced to emerge at a weak zone having zero cohesion and same
friction as the soil; this zone was the lowest elevation of a facing unit. Note that for both
reinforced backfills, φ=25o and φ=34o, and at zero cohesion for facing, the required strength of
the reinforcement for Fs=1.0 is about 3 times larger for the lower φ. However, as the cohesion
representing the facing increases while holding the reinforcement strength constant, Fs for the
lower φ attains higher value. This is the effect of using much stronger reinforcement combined
with forced toe failure.
35
1.25 - -------------------------~
1.2
1· ~
q> = 25°
1.15
Ta= 30.2 kN/m
...."'
t 1.1
....
~
Ill
Ill
0
......
6
{J
Ill
1.05
~
q> = 34°
1 Ta= 11.2 kN/m
0.95
0.9 + - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - ---!
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Cohesion of wall facing (kPa)
Figure 5-6. Effect of cohesion wall facing on Fs (after Han and Leshchinsky, 2010)
Figure 5-7 shows the critical surfaces predicted by LE and FD. It is noted that the LE approach
used does not consider the impact of the right wall on the left wall. Figure 5-8 shows the
predicted max(Tmax) as a function of the distance between the two opposing facings, W (L/H used
was 0.7). It is seen that when this distance is large, the two walls are independent of each other
and the agreement between FD and LE is good. However, when it gets smaller, the walls affect
each other; this was not considered in the LE used by Han and Leshchinsky (2010), thus leading
to relatively conservative LE predictions. For realistic backfill, the differences are not
significant.
36
Figure 5-7. Critical surfaces predicted by LE and FD (after Han and Leshchinsky, 2010)
Figure 5-8. max(Tmax) versus W/H (after Han and Leshchinsky, 2010)
Leshchinsky et al. (2004) used LE (program ReSSA with Bishop’s circular arc) and FD
(program FLAC) to study the effect of narrow backfill space on the required strength of
reinforcement. The constraint reinforced space was defined as shown in Figure 5-9.
37
Reinforced
H backfill
Bedrock
B
Figure 5-9. Defined constraint reinforced space (after Leshchinsky et al., 2004)
Table 5-1 shows the factors of safety calculated by FD and by LE. For the same reinforcement
strength and layout, Fs values are very close.
Table 5-1. Summary Fs calculated by LE and FD for a given geometry and ∑Tmax
(Leshchinsky et al., 2004)
Parameters
B/H m φ ∑Tmax-i Fs Fs
[deg.] [kN/m] (FLAC) (ReSSA)
0.2 2 20 122.5 0.99 1.00
0.2 3 20 120.3 0.98 1.00
0.2 5 20 116 0.98 1.00
0.2 10 20 111.0 0.99 1.00
0.1 10 20 92.9 0.96 1.00
0.1 10 30 64.9 1.06 1.00
0.1 10 40 45.3 1.09 1.00
0 5 20 78.3 0.97 1.00
0 5 30 55.5 0.99 1.00
0 5 40 38.2 1.06 1.00
0.1 10 35 54.5 1.02 1.00
5.1.1 Concluding Remarks
The agreement between LE and FE/FD predictions in terms of both required strength of
extensible reinforcement and location of critical slip surface is generally good. It should be noted
that there are numerous uncited papers dealing with FD/FE on MSE walls reinforced with
38
extensible reinforcement. Most of these papers include realistic FE/FD simulations of wall
systems that also consider facing effects. In some of these papers it is argued that LE is overly-
conservative; however, the ‘LE’ used is as in AASHTO. While facing is usually ignored in
design, its effects are relevant when comparing predictions. Since many of these papers
implicitly consider facing effects while comparing results to AASHTO where facing is ignored,
they were excluded from the comparison with LE here as they are deemed irrelevant in the
context of this work. Finally, the LE analysis producing good agreement in the comparisons
assumes that, at a LE state, Tmax is the same in each of the reinforcement layers. However, FE/FD
may produce Tmax that is not exactly constant amongst layers but with max(Tmax) close to that
predicted in LE analysis. Note that the numerical process is terminated just before the system
collapses, indicating numerical divergence or instability. It means that since the system is
approaching failure, numerically exceeding max(Tmax) in FE/FD will render a domino effect
where layers quickly become overloaded, theoretically leading to a collapse in a rapid
progressive manner. Therefore, the value of max(Tmax) in both LE and FE/FD is not only
practically important in selecting an adequate reinforcement, it also signifies in the analyses the
theoretical collapse of a system thus making this value in the comparisons meaningful. It is noted
that in the LE methodology presented in Chapters 9 and 10, the distribution of Tmax with height is
not necessarily uniform; it depends on the reinforcement layout, pullout and backfill properties.
5.2 Inextensible Reinforcement
There is voluminous literature on FE/FD studies of metallic MSE walls. Studies such as Damians
et al. (2013) are for MSE walls at working load conditions or for a particular overstressed
element (Damians et al., 2015). It seems that studies in terms of both LE and FE exploring these
structures at a limit state for global collapse are scarce. This is surprising as global instability of
metallic MSE walls under atypical conditions may happen, albeit rarely. Such studies could be
particularly instructive as FE/FD may help in selecting appropriate strengths, perhaps strain-
based, of soil and reinforcement to be used in LE analysis.
The review in this chapter leads to a similar conclusion to that in Chapter 4. That is, studies
related to limit state of metallic MSE walls are scarce. Consequently, the design framework in
this report is restricted to geosynthetic (extensible) reinforcement. Future research is needed to
further evaluate metallic (inextensible) reinforcement.
39
6.0 LE AND LRFD
The basic premise in load and resistance factors deign, LRFD, is that the loads acting on a
structure and its resistance to collapse are independent of each other. The implication of this
approach is that the statistical variability of these components in a structure can be identified in a
straightforward manner. Equilibrium then can consider factored loads and resistances, assumed
to be mutually exclusive, at a limit state leading to rational and economical design.
The LRFD approach is well-suited for structural engineering. In the context of LRFD,
implementation in slope stability engineering is more difficult:
• There are difficulties in establishing the statistical variability of the load and resistance
factors, especially as related to a particular site. An acceptable method by AASHTO is to
‘calibrate’ the factors so that the LRFD calculations outcome would be similar to that of the
equivalent allowable stress design, ASD. With evolving research and experience these
factors could be readjusted or refined to better reflect actual variability.
• Frictional material, such as soil, does not lend itself in a straightforward manner to the basic
premise of LRFD. Consider Mohr-Coulomb (M-C) failure criterion: τ=c+σ tan(φ) where τ
and σ are the shear and normal stress at a point on a failure surface, respectively, and c and φ
are the cohesion and internal angle of friction, respectively, of the soil at the same point. In
LE, M-C is employed over the slip surface when assessing limit state. Increase in load may
increase σ which then will increase the shear resistance,τ, thus directly linking load and
resistance. Conversely, decreasing the resistance means a decrease in c and/or φ. This may
result in an increased load.
• Soil weight is considered as a load in LRFD. When deep-seated failures (i.e., when the slip
surface also provides passive resistance) are likely, applying a load factor on soil weight will
simultaneously increase and decrease stability. That is, the ‘active’ zone will decrease
stability while in the ‘passive’ zone the load factor will increase stability.
• Pullout resistance enables the reinforcement to mobilize its strength and, therefore, is an
important aspect of LE analysis. Pullout is directly related to the normal stress acting along
the common interface between the embedded reinforcement and the confining soil. Hence,
increasing the weight of the soil by a load factor increases pullout resistance. Once more,
contrary to the basic premise of LRFD, load (soil weight) and resistance are coupled.
Seemingly, this issue has been artfully resolved by AASHTO where the load factor for
pullout calculations is taken as 1.0 while a resistance factor is applied on the entire pullout
equation and not its actual resistive components. However, the weight of the same reinforced
soil as related to calculation of the force in the reinforcement is increased by a load factor of
1.35.
Perhaps for these reasons, implementing LRFD in LE (or limit state) analysis is a challenge. It is
noted that AASHTO requires LE assessment of the global stability of MSE walls. In this
assessment, the load factor is taken as 1.0 and the resistance factor is the calculated as (1/Fs).
AASHTO suggests considering (1/Fs), the resistance factor, as a formal design criterion. For
example, if Fs ≥1.3, the target design then is for (1/Fs) ≤ 0.77. Essentially, this is ASD which, in
40
this case, limits the average mobilization of the soil strength along the critical slip surface to a
maximum of 77%. The German code (EBGEO 2011) terms this value as ‘Utilization Factor’.
The objective of this work is to develop a generic and complete LE approach for designing MSE
walls in a limit state. Considering the difficulties of associating LRFD with LE concepts, the
scope of this approach in the context of design is limited to ASD. That is, limit state will be
assessed for the design M-C shear strength of the soil while the long-term strength of the
reinforcement will be factored for safety. In the current AASHTO design specification, the
unfactored design strength of soil in MSE walls is used; i.e., the resistance factor on soil strength
is unity. This is analogous to using Fs=1.0 in ASD, with long-term limit state stability
determined by factors applied to the reinforcement. It is recommended that, in lieu of LRFD,
future development of limit state design will include stochastic stability analysis. That is,
probabilistic LE analysis is quite established and it can be used within the framework presented
in this report to consider the stochastic nature of data used in design.
41
7.0 USE OF LE IN DESIGN OF MSE WALLS
7.1 General
AASHTO and FHWA define a slope when the face inclination is less than 70°; otherwise it is a
wall. This boundary of 70° seems arbitrary. However, lateral earth pressures in walls are
associated with planar slip surfaces resulting in simple formulae. It can be verified that as the
slope angle turns shallower (i.e., as the batter increases), the planar surface is progressively less
critical than a curved one, thus yielding potentially unsafe pressures. Consequently, the 70° is
considered as a practical acceptable limit when calculating lateral earth pressures.
When dealing with the internal stability of reinforced structure, the current FHWA approach may
render a paradoxical situation. That is, the reinforcement strength for a 70° degree ‘wall’ could
be about twice that required for a 69.9° slope. This jump or discontinuity stems from using LE
analysis with uniform Tmax amongst reinforcement layers for slopes while for walls, lateral earth
pressure, linearly increasing with depth, is used. That is, setting the 70° face angle has resulted
with inconsistent analyses leading to a contradictory outcome. This is unnecessarily confusing.
To ensure smooth transition one could use the ReSlope method developed for the US Army
Corps of Engineers (Leshchinsky, 1997). However, while this approach extends rationally wall
results to slopes, it is recognized that the outcome could be conservative, as is the case for
current AASHTO and FHWA design procedures for walls. Conversely, as shown in Chapters 5
and 6, adequately modified LE analysis will reasonably agree with physical models as well as
numerical analysis predictions dealing with strength limit state.
Proper LE analysis can deal consistently with all modes of failure, thus rendering the current
artificial separation into internal stability (reinforcement strength, connection strength, and
pullout), external stability (sliding, eccentricity, and bearing capacity), and global/compound
failure, unnecessary. The framework of such analysis is presented in Chapter 9. However, some
of these elements and details are currently used by FHWA (Berg et al., 2009) in its design
guidelines for reinforced slopes; thus, this report represents an evolutionary process.
7.2 The European Standard: Eurocode 7—Geotechnical Design
Eurocode 7 (2004), EC 7, provides a generic framework which members of the European

Committee for Standardization or Comite Europeen de Normalisation (CEN) follow after
establishing specific local national rules. As such, EC 7 is unspecific, especially as related to
MSE walls; i.e., Chapter 9 in EC 7 deals with retaining walls but without explicit reference to
MSE walls. It states that “Calculations for limit states shall establish that equilibrium can be
achieved using the design actions or effects of actions and the design strengths or resistances, as
specified in clause 2.4. Compatibility of deformations shall be considered in assessing design
strengths or resistances.” Clause 2.4 (i.e., Section 2.4) provides very general guidelines for
geotechnical calculations. When assessing limit state, EC 7 allows any method of calculation,
such as LE, LA, FE, or FD, provided that consideration of relevant aspects of equilibrium are
included using the correct strength values while realistic modes of failure are examined. Since
EC 7 is short on details, it seems to be not very useful for this study except that it requires the
assessment of strength or ultimate limit state in design where LE can be used.
42
7.3 The German Approach: EBGEO
The German code, EBGEO (2011), was specifically developed for geosynthetic reinforcement.
The EBGEO (2011) approach complies with the design framework established by EC 7 while
having specific details developed in Germany. It states that in limit state, one should consider
“…all possible failure mechanisms and slip planes intersecting reinforcement layers (previously:
analysis of internal stability), not intersecting reinforcement layers (previously: analysis of
external stability) and where the sliding body moves directly on reinforcement are investigated.”
The geosynthetic resistance along a slip surface intersecting a reinforcement layer is the lesser
value of pullout resistance or the reinforcement strength. However, connection strength is
assumed, designed to be equal to the reinforcement strength; it is not designed based on
structural demand as done in Chapters 9 and 10. It is interesting to note that EBGEO does not
distinguish between walls and slope; i.e., the 70° boundary has been removed. This is possible
since a unified and consistent LE analysis is adopted in this design code.
EBGEO (2011) states that all possible slip planes should be considered until the critical failure
mechanism is identified. A variety of surfaces and their locations are shown in Figure 7-1.
Generally, the following geometries of slip surfaces are suggested: circular or log spiral surfaces
as well as composite surfaces “with at least two failure” wedges. EBGEO (2011) clearly
indicates that LE analyses should be conducted for limit state.
Figure 7-1. Potential slip surfaces through and around the wall (after EBGEO, 2011)
EBGEO (2011) uses 2-part wedge (LE) for sliding while considering the reinforcement mass to
remain intact or coherent. It calculates the ratio of driving force to resisting force using the term
‘Utilization Factor’ for this ratio. While still a LE analysis, it could have been done using the
general LE approach used for other surfaces where, for consistency, the soil mobilization, 1/Fs,
is used as a measure instead of a ratio of forces. Furthermore, it uses conventional bearing
capacity approach to assess the ability of the foundation soil to carry the reinforced coherent
mass. Once more, for consistency, bearing capacity could be assessed using general LE
approach, as discussed in Leshchinsky et al. (2012) as well as Chapter 10. In general, the
consistent LE analysis used in EBGEO, specifies a partial factor (‘resistance factor’) of 1.25 on
the soil strength. This means that the soil strength allowed to be mobilized (utilized) is 1/1.25, or
80%, of its full strength. Generally, the load and resistance factors are not consistent with
AASHTO and FHWA.
Numerous geosynthetic reinforced walls have been designed in Germany and Austria following
the EBGEO guidelines. It is believed that these walls have performed well.
43
7.4 The British Standard: BS 8006
The British Standard, BS 8006 (2010) “Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and
other fills,” is a comprehensive document. Like FHWA, it covers reinforced walls and slopes
separately. It uses partial load and resistance factors; it is interesting to note that the factor on
φpeak at the limit state is 1.0, similar to AASHTO but different from EBGEO. Similar to
AASHTO, internal, external, and global stability are assessed separately. For internal stability,
two methods are presented: the tieback approach and the coherent gravity method (which is for
metallic walls). Similar to AASHTO, the two approaches are based on lateral earth pressure.
Limit state has specific load and resistance factors. For external stability, Figure 7-2 shows the
failure mechanisms to be considered. Similar to AASHTO (but with different load and resistance
factors), the Meyerhof method is used for bearing capacity. In global stability, potential slip
surfaces, passing partially through the structure, should be considered; like AASHTO, LE global
stability analysis is conducted on the reinforced mass.
In addition to a lateral earth pressure approach, and unlike AASHTO, BS 8006 suggests that
wedge stability analysis be made (especially if the structure is not very simple) as shown in
Figure 7-3. It is for extensible reinforcement where slip surfaces are examined to verify stability
with respect to Tmax at a limit state. This approach is LE-based, similar to ReSlope (Leshchinsky,
1997). The line of Tmax for inextensible reinforcement (associated with the coherent gravity
method) and its rupture failure can be determined using the log spiral mechanism as shown in
Figure 7-4. BS 8006 also suggests an alternative, simpler mechanism using bilinear surfaces.
Although BS 8006 is explicit on details, it is not clear how incompatibility of inextensible
reinforcement is accounted for in stability calculations.
Figure 7-2. External stability modes of failure (after BS 8006, 2010)
It is interesting to quote the following from BS 8006 (2010) (Section 7, p. 135) “Slopes with face
angles within 20° of the vertical may be designed in accordance with the procedures in Section 6
if desired.” Section 7 deals with the design of reinforced slopes while Section 6 with the design
44
of MSE walls. The words “if desired” imply that slopes having an inclination greater than 70°
may be designed using LE, as done in BS 8006 for reinforced slopes.
Figure 7-3. Internal wedge stability (after BS 8006, 2010)
Figure 7-4. Internal log spiral stability—coherent method (after BS 8006, 2010)
7.5 The Japan Rail Approach
Japan took a leadership role in developing reinforced soil walls during the implementation of its
high speed rail network (i.e. bullet train) in the early 1970’s. Numerous laboratory and field
testing efforts supported this development. In the 1990’s Japan Railways (JR) incorporated
geosynthetic reinforced walls with rigid facing into their infrastructure. JR uses these walls as
true bridge abutments and as retaining walls supporting the tracks for the critically important
45
bullet train. To date, over about 100 miles of walls, sometimes called “Tatsuoka Walls,” have
been constructed, surviving some serious earthquakes, and are performing very well.
The limit state design of JR geosynthetic MSE walls is based on LE, considering static and
seismic loadings (Design Standard for Railway Earth Structures, 2013; Tatsuoka, et al., 2010).
Usually one and two-part wedge analysis is conducted. The seismic aspect follows a modified
M-O formulation. It considers strain softening of the compacted backfill. That is, the peak soil
strength is used to determine the location of the critical slip surface under static conditions.
However, under seismic conditions the soil loosens and its strength degrades to its residual value,
acting along the surface determined statically.
Japan Highway Department is also using the LE-based design approach, but is different than
JR’s method. It appears that design of metallic walls follows the methodology developed by the
wall supplier Terre Armee. It includes LE global stability analysis considering also failure within
the reinforced soil and assuming circular arc surfaces. Details related to Japan Highway
Department design were not identified.
46
8.0 RETROSPECTIVE: LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED WALLS
Limit state analysis of reinforced soil slopes and walls is based on the premise that:
• Reinforcement tensile resistance produces stability with a prescribed margin of safety; i.e.,
stability at a limit state hinges on the reinforcement being sufficiently strong. Therefore,
tensile force in the reinforcement is mobilized to ensure that stability.
• At a limit state, the soil contributes its full shear strength along a potential slip surface.
Depending on the reinforcement stiffness and/or its spacing, its length, its pullout resistance, and
its tensile load, the reinforced soil might be substantially restrained from movement, thus not
allowing for the soil shear strength along a potential slip surface to be fully mobilized.
Considering the smaller resistance contributed by the soil, the reinforcement then must
contribute larger resistance to render a system in static equilibrium. However, since LE assumes
mobilization of an allowable soil strength, the calculated load in the reinforcement might be
smaller than actually needed when the soil is restrained from movement; i.e., LE would
underestimate the reinforcement load. This is completely equivalent to the case of active lateral
earth pressure (signified by Ka) and at-rest pressure (signified by Ko) in the design of
conventional retaining walls. That is, when, say, a cantilever wall moves outwards a little, an
active wedge is formed while the retained soil mobilizes its strength, and the lateral resultant
force acting on the wall then corresponds to Ka. However, if this wall does not move, the retained
soil does not mobilize its full strength, and the lateral resultant force on the wall will correspond
to Ko, producing a load that typically could be 50% to 100% larger than for the active state.
With ‘brittle’ reinforcing material (i.e., reinforcement that reaches its yield strength at strains
lower than those of the backfill), overstressing of the reinforcement due to lack of soil movement
might result in rupture, its strength dropping to zero, essentially rendering an unreinforced,
globally collapsed structure. However, with ductile reinforcement, overstressing could result in
its local straining which allows soil movement, subsequently leading to load relaxation in the
reinforcement as, simultaneously, the soil mobilizes and contributes more of its strength. That is,
load redistribution may occur as an ‘active’ state of stresses develops.
Practically, ductility of geosynthetics that rupture at strains larger than, say, about 3 to 5% would
be sufficient to allow for a limit state in which the strength of compacted cohesionless select-soil
is fully mobilized. As to metallic reinforcement, this possibility has yet to be established for
different soils. While it might be the case with high-quality and very well-compacted backfill, it
is possibly not the case with ‘less than perfect’ backfill. As shown in previous chapters, there is
not enough data to support the use of inextensible reinforcement with LE analysis. Consequently,
the scope of this work is limited to geosynthetic reinforced slopes and walls.
There is an overwhelming number of publications dealing with MSE walls and slopes. The
following retrospective conclusions can be drawn from the previous chapters:
• The LE safety map is a useful design tool in finding the optimal layout of the reinforcement
meeting a certain limit state performance criterion (i.e., ensure that a minimum Fs is met).
However, it is based on global stability analysis, and thus not being able to reveal local
stability aspects such as mobilization of connection strength or overstressing of some
reinforcement layers, while understressing others. It could be a complete diagnostic tool of
47
the limit state of the reinforced mass once local conditions have been assured by LE analysis
(see Chapter 10); i.e., it would ideally be used as a final check.
• Limit state comparisons between predictions by LE analysis and physical model testing with
geosynthetic reinforcement show good agreement. Each layer in the LE analysis carried the
same Tmax. The agreement was demonstrated for wrapped face walls. Toe resistance and
facing units may reduce the load in the reinforcement significantly.
• Limit state comparisons between predictions by LE analysis and continuum mechanics-based
numerical models (FE/FD) show good agreement. However, each layer in the global LE
analysis carried the same Tmax while in FE/FD most layers were at about Tmax level of load
and some were still understressed. The limit state predictions are not overly sensitive to the
exact distribution of Tmax amongst layers as (numerical) failure follows a domino collapse
process; i.e., exceedance of certain Tmax at some layers may trigger a ‘numerical’ collapse.
Numerical models imply the effect of facing/toe restraint and this can be implemented in LE
analysis as well (see Chapter 9).
• FHWA defines walls as having a face inclination ≥70°. It allows design of reinforced slopes
solely based on LE analysis; however, it uses lateral earth pressures for walls. The two
approaches yield incompatible results; for a wall at 70°, max(Tmax) could be about twice the
value needed for a slope at 69.9°. Moreover, the lateral earth pressure approach is perhaps
applicable for cases similar to the ones it was calibrated for. Calibration-based approach
limits its application to more complex geometries and structures.
• The German and Japan Rail codes use LE analysis in design of geosynthetic reinforced walls.
The German code does not distinguish between walls and slopes.
• LE approach is not consistent with the principles of LRFD. Therefore, in this work the
traditional ASD approach is maintained. The methodology of LE stability analysis introduced
in this work can be expanded into a stochastic analysis (i.e., probabilistic approach). That is,
in lieu of an LRFD approach, a stochastic rather than deterministic slope stability analysis
can be used while being consistent with the principles of soil mechanics. However, while
stochastic approach to limit state is increasingly being used in practice, it is beyond the scope
of the presented deterministic work.
Consequently, to be consistent with existing knowledge and experience, Chapters 9 and 10 are
limited to the ASD approach and to extensible reinforcement only. Chapter 9 provides a
methodological approach to determine the mobilization of reinforcement strength considering
local and global conditions. That is, it produces the baseline distribution of minimum required
reinforcement strength and connection capacity so that everywhere the soil is uniformly
mobilized. This modified LE approach is capable of considering such aspects as toe restraint,
facings, and short intermediate reinforcement layers. Chapter 10 provides instructive examples
of design using the modified LE approach.
48
9.0 FRAMEWORK FOR LE ANALYSIS
9.1 Basics of Soil Reinforcing
Slopes in this work are inclusive of MSE walls. When referring to slopes, it is implicitly assumed
that such a structure is steep, having insufficient stability to function as intended unless
reinforced. The objective of the design then is to determine the required layout and strength of
the reinforcement so as to ensure everywhere within the mass a prescribed minimum margin of
safety.
Figure 9-1 presents a schematic of a typical reinforced slope/wall. For clarity only one layer of
reinforcement is shown; however, the concept is applicable to multiple reinforcement layers. A
test body, bounded by the slope surface and an assumed slip surface, is considered at a state of
limit equilibrium (i.e., limit state). The mass would be unstable unless the reinforcement
develops some force at the location of the slip surface. The amount of force developed renders a
system in limit equilibrium/limit state. Commonly it is called an “active wedge”; however, here
it could be along any slip surface. For each such test body the reinforcement restores stability to
a limit state. That is, at each location a different force is mobilized in the reinforcement to
produce a state of static limit equilibrium of the selected test body. Many test bodies and their
associated slip surfaces can be analyzed to produce the distribution of required force along the
reinforcement, as illustrated in Figure 9-1.
It is noted that if the shear strength of the soil along a potential slip surface is not fully mobilized,
the force in the reinforcement needed to maintain stability will be larger when compared with the
postulated case described before. That is, to maintain static equilibrium of the free body, less
resistance contributed by the soil requires larger force to be contributed by the reinforcement.
This phenomenon means that, at a state commonly known as “working load conditions,” the
reinforcement’s restraining force would be larger than at a limit state. That is, soil movement is
restrained by the reinforcement, and therefore, it cannot fully mobilize its strength. This
phenomenon is typical to inextensible (relatively stiff) reinforcement and, in the context of limit
equilibrium, could be a concern if the reinforcement is not sufficiently ductile. For this reason,
the present scope of this work is limited to geosynthetics only, where rupture strain is in excess
of about 3%.
The capacity of the reinforcement to mobilize its intrinsic tensile resistance, producing
equilibrium for the test body, is enabled by its interaction with the confining soil along common
interfaces. Such interaction is due to interface friction, adhesion bonding, and passive resistance.
Adhesion bonding is usually not considered in long term design, and generally, is not relevant to
MSE wall backfill. Passive resistance requires stiff protruding elements transverse to the
direction of force mobilized in the reinforcement. Generally, passive resistance is not a
significant element when dealing with planar geosynthetic reinforcement. Hence, the main
contributor to interface interaction is friction. In geosynthetics this friction is usually defined as:
δ = tan−1[𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 tan(φ)] (9.1a)
49
where φ is the internal angle of friction of the embedding soil and Ci is the interaction coefficient,
determined experimentally from standard pullout tests. It is common to specify for Ci
conservative default values without conducting pullout tests. A typical range of values for
reinforcing geosynthetics is 0.5 to 1.0. It is noted that pullout in AASHTO and FHWA is
characterized by two parameters F* and α:
𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 = 𝐹𝐹 ∗ 𝛼𝛼⁄tan φ (9.1b)
where F* is the pullout resistance factor and α is the scale effect correction factor. Combining
Eqns. 9.1a and 9.1b:
δ = tan−1(𝐹𝐹 ∗ 𝛼𝛼) (9.1c)
AASHTO provides default design values for F* and α which can be converted to δ using Eqn.
9.1c. However, note that these values are suitable to well-defined backfill material as specified in
AASHTO.
Actual pullout resistance can be calculated by dividing the length of the reinforcement into small
segments 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 and integrating (i.e., summing) the incremental pullout resistance dPr calculated as:
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑟𝑟 = 𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐 𝜎𝜎 tan 𝛿𝛿 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 (9.2)
at every point 𝑑𝑑 along the length of the reinforcement where 𝜎𝜎 is the overburden pressure acting
over the respective 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑, and 𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐 is the coverage ratio. The values of 𝜎𝜎 and δ are a function of
location 𝑑𝑑 and may therefore be variables. Commonly, the overburden pressure at 𝑑𝑑 is taken as
𝜎𝜎 = 𝛾𝛾 𝑍𝑍 where 𝑍𝑍 is the vertical distance to the soil surface above point 𝑑𝑑. External surcharge, if
acting above 𝑑𝑑, is added to 𝜎𝜎.
The physical meaning of integration or summation of Eqn. 9.2 is illustrated in Figure 9-1. Two
pullout envelops are sketched, each starting at an opposing end of the reinforcement. On the right
side, the available pullout resistance linearly increases from zero along (𝐿𝐿 − 𝑑𝑑) where L is the
total length of the embedded reinforcement layer. The linear increase in the depicted case is due
to constant overburden pressure generated by a horizontal ground surface. Physically, this
pullout resistance can be meaningful or valid up to the location where the considered slip surface
intersects the reinforcement. On the left side, the integrated or summed pullout resistance
initially assumes a parabolic shape followed by a linear increase. The reason for the parabolic
rate of increase of pullout resistance on the left is due to changing overburden pressure when 𝑑𝑑 is
under the slope. Once 𝑑𝑑 is under the horizontal ground surface, the overburden pressure is
constant, resulting in a linear increase rate in pullout capacity. As with the pullout available from
the right side, on the left side it is physically meaningful up to the intersection with the analyzed
slip surface. Note that at this stage, the available front-end pullout does not consider anchorage
or connection to the facing. Imposing the need for front end pullout so that the reinforcement can
50
mobilize its required resistance should produce the required connection capacity; this is
discussed in section 9.4.
If the required intrinsic tensile resistance needed for limit state (LE) is above the pullout
envelopes, the reinforcement cannot mobilize sufficient resistance as pullout mode of failure will
prevail. Physically, the intrinsic tensile resistance due to strength of the reinforcement at any
point 𝑑𝑑 can develop only if it is below or at the pullout resistance envelops.
Current AASHTO design considers pullout resistance capacity only at the rear end or rear side of
the reinforcement. However, as presented herein, sufficient pullout resistance on both sides of
point 𝑑𝑑 is needed to enable mobilization of the required tensile force at any point 𝑑𝑑 along the
reinforcement. This approach enables the development of the framework leading to a rational
determination of the reinforcement strength required at any point and elevation considering the
layout of reinforcement. Furthermore, for each layer it produces the required capacity of the
connection to the facing.
Figure 9-1. Schematics of reinforcement layer required to stabilize steep slope
9.2 Bishop LE Formulation
Generally, LE problems are statically indeterminate since, for a test body, there are more
unknowns than available equations. Hence, one cannot solve the problem without making some
assumptions. Consequently, there are many LE methods, with each based on a unique set of
assumptions. Methods such as Spencer, Janbu, and Morgenstern-Price, are rigorous in a sense
that, for 2D problems, all three limit equilibrium equations are explicitly solved for a general
shape slip surface. Other methods use specific surface geometry such as log spiral or planar
which, for a homogeneous soil profile, satisfy all LE equations implicitly. Bishop (1955) method
51
uses circular arc surface satisfying only moment equilibrium and vertical force equilibrium for a
given test body. The assumptions in statics made by Bishop render a numerically stable solution
with ease, usually close to results obtained from complex rigorous methods. Unlike the log spiral
approach, the Bishop Method can deal with realistic geotechnical problems such as an
inhomogeneous soil profile. When the soil profile is homogeneous, however, the trace of the
critical circle as well as the resulting factor of safety are nearly identical to that of the critical log
spiral. Also, the circular arc can nearly degenerate to a planar surface if this defines the critical
test body. Being simple and often used in practice, the Bishop Method is selected in this work.
However, the computational scheme presented as a framework in this report can be replicated
with any LE slope stability method.
Consider a test body defined by a circular arc and the soil surface as shown in Figure 9-2. The
mass is divided into n slices. Note that a surcharge load acting on Slice i is represented as a
resultant force having the components Qvi (vertical) and Qhi (horizontal). Reinforcement layer i
intersects the base of the circle within Slice i. Other reinforcement layers may or may not
intersect Slice i and/or other slices. Figure 9-3 shows the forces acting on Slice i as a free body
extracted from the test body in Figure 9-2. For clarity, not all possible forces on this slice are
shown (e.g., force due to pore water pressure, pseudostatic forces). Also not shown are the
locations of forces although these locations affect the LE equations. Bishop (1955) considered
such forces on a slice (without reinforcement or seismic forces) in assembling the global moment
equilibrium for the test body while also satisfying vertical force equilibrium. Based on an
assumption related to interslice horizontal forces, his formulation yields the associated safety
factor for each analyzed test body defined by a circle. His solution requires an iterative
computation process.
Figure 9-2. Circular test body used in the Bishop Method
52
Ts(x)
Figure 9-3. Forces acting on Slice i
Following step-by-step the derivation by Bishop (1955), it can be shown that inclusion of the
reinforcement as a known force yields the safety factor, SF, associated with a ‘test body’ defined
by a circular arc having radius R, as:
′ ′
ቂ𝑐𝑐 ∆𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 +൫𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 +𝑄𝑄𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 −𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 ∆𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 ൯ቃ 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝜙𝜙𝑖𝑖
∑ ቊ 𝑖𝑖 ቋ
𝑚𝑚 𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖
𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 = 𝑄𝑄 𝑑𝑑 (9.3a)
∑ቂ(𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 +𝑄𝑄𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖 ) sin 𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖 + ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 − 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑅𝑅𝑐𝑐 cos 𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖 ቃ
𝑅𝑅
and
mαi= cos αi + (sin αi tan φi’)/SF (9.3b)
Many of the variables in Eqn. 9.3a are marked in Figure 9-7 and are self-explanatory. Refer to
Appendix A which provides a derivation of the Bishop Equation for reinforced soil. Note that
∆𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 is the width of slice i, 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 is the average porewater pressure acting on the base of slice i,
𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖′ 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑 𝜙𝜙𝑖𝑖′ are the effective cohesion and friction angle available at the base of slice i, and 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 is
the vertical distance of the horizontal force component of surface surcharge from the center of
the analyzed circle. Coverage ratio of the reinforcement is denoted as Rc. While cohesion is
shown in Eqn. 9.3a, it is not recommended to count on this shear strength parameter within the
53
reinforced soil in long term design. Note in Eqn. 9.3a that the reinforcement force Ti, at the base
of slice i is considered to act horizontally. Such an assumption is common in slope stability of
geosynthetic reinforced slopes.
It is noted that Eqn. 9.3a is written for a circular slip surface. In fact, it represents the global
resisting moments divided by the global driving moments for a circle having a radius R.
However, since the numerator and denominator are multiplied by R to obtain moments, this
constant value cancels out and the Bishop’s equation misleadingly appears as a ratio of summed
forces treated as scalars. Consideration of force vectors and the statics in Bishop’s formulation
does not allow for an arbitrary inclusion of Ti (or its moment) in the numerator or having an
opposite sign to the one in the denominator in Eqn. 9.3a. Furthermore, the safety factor relates to
the soil strength alone; it is not applied to the force in the reinforcement. The factor of safety on
the reinforcement load is applied later after its required load for limit state has been determined.
There is no physical reason to impose the same safety factor on soil and the reinforcement.
The objective of the conventional LE analysis is to determine the critical test body; i.e., the
circular arc that yields the lowest safety factor, the factor of safety Fs. This process is conducted
through examination of many test bodies using their respective safety factors in the minimization
process. Looking at the process differently, the factor of safety determined using LE procedures
represents a surface along which the soil shear strength is mobilized the most:
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = min(𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹) (9.3c)
Physically, the value of (1/Fs) implies the average degree of mobilization of soil strength along
the critical slip surface. That is, if Fs=1, the full shear strength of the soil is mobilized and
failure is imminent unless the reinforcement is sufficiently strong. A value of Fs=1.5 means that,
in an average sense, 67% of the soil strength is mobilized. However, a value of Fs=0.5 (i.e.,
Fs<1.0) means that 200% of the soil strength is mobilized, an impossibility. Consequently, in the
context of reinforced soil, the resistance of reinforcements that is needed to maintain stability at
an acceptable state of LE is sought. That is, the required mobilized force in the reinforcement is
sought so to ensure that the design strength of the soil is not exceeded; i.e., Fs≥1.0.
9.3 Overview of the Modified LE Procedure
The following sections provide details of the modified analysis that forms the framework for LE
design, producing the baseline requirement for reinforcement. For a given problem, including
layout of reinforcement, the framework produces the required reinforcement resistance, 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑),
at any location 𝑑𝑑 along each layer. This enables the designer to select reinforcement with
adequate long term strength as well as assess the required connection strength. Stated differently,
the framework helps the designer assess the demand, not the capacity, aspects for reinforcement.
In this section an overview of the analytical process is provided, facilitating the understanding of
the details shown later.
Recall the concept of safety map introduced in Chapter 3. The safety map is a diagnostic tool
showing the distribution of the safety factor in zones within the soil mass, providing a visual tool
identifying under or over designed slopes or walls. If Bishop Method is used, Eqn. 9.3a is solved
for many test bodies and potential circular slip surfaces, to determine the smallest safety factor
54
within the mass. Rather than examining only the critical surface along which the factor of safety,
Fs, from Eqn. 9.3c, as done, the ‘state of stability’ is examined using the safety map at relevant
zones. Such representation is an objective and efficient tool to optimize the layout of the
reinforcement.
The modified LE procedure that renders 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑) is, in a sense, an antithesis to the safety map.
The objective now is to produce the same safety factor everywhere within the mass by adjusting
systematically Ti for each test body (circle) in Eqn. 9.3a. That is, if the full strength of the soil is
allowed, then Fs=1.0 everywhere and the required reinforcement resistance at each location,
𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑), can be determined by solving Eqn. 9.3a using a trial and error process. Such an
approach produces a ‘virtual’ structure where failure is likely to occur at any location within the
mass as SF=Fs everywhere and not only along a singular surface. The term ‘virtual’ structure is
used to indicate in reality that the reinforcement strength is dictated by a specified product, not
varying along 𝑑𝑑 as produced by the modified procedure. Hence, the procedure determines the
required minimum capacity of the reinforcement at any location. The following can be stated
about the procedure:
• When assessing 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑) along each layer, its value at the intersection between the slip circle
and the respective layer cannot exceed the pullout resistance of the rear end of that layer (see
Section 9.1).
• Initially, front end pullout can be exceeded when calculating 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑). However, the front end
pullout resistance then must be adjusted to ensure that the 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑) can indeed be mobilized.
This adjustment produces the required minimum capacity of the connection. That is, the
pullout resistance resulting from the integration of Eqn. 9.2 along 𝑑𝑑 must equal or
exceed 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑). This can be achieved by introducing additional resistance at 𝑑𝑑 = 0. The
additional resistance is the connection capacity 𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜 = 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑 = 0) where 𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜 is the
connection load or the required connection minimum strength. Once 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑) has been
determined, the front end pullout curve has to be shifted or translated vertically until it is
tangent to the demand curve 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑) produced by the LE analysis; the amount of vertical
shift is 𝑇𝑇𝑜𝑜 and, mathematically, it ensures that 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑) can indeed develop. Further
discussion in following sections should help explain this concept.
• While for long and equally spaced reinforcement each layer will carry the same maximum
load, Tmax-i, practical layout of reinforcement may affect the distribution of Tmax-i with depth.
The maximum load mobilized in each layer and its location is a result of the analysis, not a
priori assumed.
• The basic premise of the analysis is that without reinforcement, the mass is unstable. In such
a case the analysis will render 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑) ≥ 0 everywhere. However, within any mass for
practical reasons reinforcement is installed also within stable zones. In these zones the
analysis will yield 𝑇𝑇𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑑𝑑) < 0. Negative required tensile resistance implies that the
reinforcement needs to destabilize the mass to reach the prescribed Fs; it implies that
reinforcement in such zones is not needed for stabilization.
55
9.4 Concept of Rupture and Pullout in LE Analysis
To determine the required tensile resistance along reinforcement i, Treq_i(x), each layer is
discretized into small segments. Each test body, defined by a circular arc passing through a
particular segment, will require Treq_i(x) which is determined by solving Eqn. 9.3a for a target SF
equal to, say Fs=1.0, rendering a limit state or LE where the design strength of the soil is fully
utilized. The circle requiring the maximum value of Treq_i(x) at each segment, explained in the
next section, renders the prevailing value of required tensile resistance at that location; i.e.,
smaller values rendered by many other circles passing through this segment are irrelevant. While
LE equilibrium requires a certain value of Treq_i(x) to meet the target Fs, the capacity of some
layers could be limited by its pullout resistance (see Section 9.1 for the relevance of pullout
resistance in soil reinforcing). In such a case, reinforcement layers below and possibly above
(depending on reinforcement layout) should compensate for the lesser load carried by that layer.
While this compensation may work for insufficient pullout resistance at the rear end of the
reinforcement, at the front end pullout resistance needs to be increased by adjusting the
connection capacity To_i. Figure 9-4 illustrates the synergy between the available pullout
resistance and Treq_i(x) along a layer (see Sections 9.1 and 9.3 for additional insight). Note that
for simplicity both ends’ pullouts are shown as linear, a situation corresponding to surcharge-free
vertical slope with horizontal crest. The actual pullout distribution is calculated by integrating
Eqn. 9.2 considering the overburden pressure as well as the properties of the interface soil-
reinforcement. Figure 9-4 shows that the value of To_i is determined by translating the front end
pullout resistance curve, parallel to itself, up to a point where the envelop is tangent to Treq_i(x).
The amount of translation at x=0 is the required connection capacity (or minimum required
strength), To_i. Such shifting of pullout resistance at the front end ensures that the intrinsic
resistance of the reinforcement in the ‘active’ mass indeed can develop as calculated at a limit
state. However, Treq_i(x) calculated by the many circles passing through all segments for LE state
can be mobilized only up to the magnitude of the rear pullout capacity.
Figure 9-4. Required force in layer i defined by front and rear pullout resistance
56
The synergy of pullout and required tensile resistances shown in Figure 9-4 implies that each
reinforcement layer could be either too short or too long or have an ideal length. Figure 9-5
illustrates these three possibilities. If the reinforcement is too short, there will be insufficient
pullout resistance to enable the development of Treq_i(x) at its rear (e.g., this is likely to happen
along secondary short reinforcement layers that facilitate construction or reduce connection
tension load). Consequently, other layers intersecting relevant circles should make up for this
deficit in available tensile resistance which is needed for LE state. If the reinforcement is too
long, there is excessive pullout resistance, rendering portion of the reinforcement dormant (e.g.,
this is likely to happen with lower layers when the foundation soil is competent). If the length of
a layer is ideal, the pullout resistance at the rear exactly enables the development of Treq_i(x). In
such a case, the rear end pullout resistance curve is ideally tangent to Treq_i(x). Note that
imposing pullout capacity which enables Treq_i(x) to develop creates a zone in which the
reinforcement load capacity is slightly more than needed for a LE state. In the ideal length case,
this excess or redundancy is at both front and rear zone areas, as indicated at the lower left of
Figure 9-5.
Figure 9-5. Length of layer i: Ideal (lower left), excessive (upper right), short (lower right)
57
9.5 Top-down Approach Yielding the Baseline Solution
The numerical procedure to determine Treq_i(x) considering the rear end pullout is illustrated by
using a set of figures. Note that the connection load or the minimum required connection
capacity, To_i, is determined only at the end of the iterative computational procedure.
Mathematically, To_i is an auxiliary parameter that must enable the development of Treq_i(x) in the
front portion of the reinforcement. It is noted that the process leads to the minimum required
reinforcement and connection strengths at a limit state and is termed baseline solution. Equipped
with this information, the designer can assess an actual problem ensuring that it produces
sufficient margins of safety.
For a given geometry and reinforcement layout, select point 1 for a circle emerging below the
top layer, denoted reinforcement 1 in Figure 9-6. Initially, the emerging point is selected above
or at reinforcement 2. Each test body defined by a circle is considered at an LE state by solving
Eqn. 9.3a for a target SF=Fs value. The only unknown in this equation is the required tensile
resistance of reinforcement 1 at its intersection with the analyzed circle. Many circles passing at
the same point (or same segment that is approximated as a point) on reinforcement 1 and
emerging at point 1 are considered. The prevailing value at each point (segment) is the maximum
required tensile resistance, i.e., it is the result of a numerical maximization process. Repeating
the process for all segments on reinforcement 1, a curve of Treq_i(x) is obtained (see Figure 9-6).
Its value ensures that any test body passing through any point along reinforcement 1 and
emerging at point 1 has the same Fs; i.e., equal likelihood of failure. Also note that the pullout
capacity of the top layer at this stage is excessive thus enabling the full development of Treq_i(x).
That is, for circles emerging at point 1, the reinforcement is dormant at its rear end.
Figure 9-6. Example of top-down numerical procedure

58
Next, select emerging point 2, below reinforcement 2 and above or at reinforcement 3. The
process to establish Treq_i(x) is repeated; however, this time, it is for reinforcement 1 and 2.
Circles intersecting two layers of reinforcement are initially assumed to mobilize equal force of
each layer unless that required strength is limited by insufficient pullout resistance capacity.
However, if the evenly distributed required strength (dotted line in Figure 9-6) at a point
(segment) is less than the value required for previous emerging point 1 (value A in Figure 9-6),
the higher value prevails as it is required for LE state for a circle emerging at point 1.
Subsequently, selecting for the two layers an equal mobilized force value of A means excessive
strength for reinforcement 2. Hence, while the (previous) value A is kept for reinforcement 1, a
reduced value of B is assigned to reinforcement 2 by solving Eqn. 9.3a for a prescribed Fs while
using T1=A. For the specific circle used to determine B (“failure surface 1”), a state of LE exists
as reinforcement 1 carries A>B. As seen in Figure 9-6, for a certain circle (“failure surface 2”)
the required resistance from the two layers is equal to each other, C=D. To the right of C, the
required strength of reinforcement 1 is increased from its calculated value for the previous
emerging point 1, dictated to be equal to that of reinforcement 2 rendering LE state for all test
bodies. Figure 9-6 indicates that rear end pullout of the top layer is nearly exceeded (“failure
surface 3”); in fact, at this stage, reinforcement 1 has an “ideal” length.
The process is repeated for emerging point 3. In Figure 9-6, for failure surface 1 the required
tensile resistance in reinforcement 3 is the same as in 2 but smaller than in 1 (i.e., A>B=C). For
failure surface 2, all layers require equal resistance; i.e., D=E=F. While failure surface 3 also
renders equal load G=H=I, deeper surfaces than surface 3 require load contribution by
reinforcement 1 that is larger than its pullout resistance enables. Consequently, in zones to the
right of surface 3, the load in reinforcement 2 and 3 is increased to ensure an LE state by
compensating for insufficient pullout resistance of the top layer.
The top-down process continues down to the toe elevation, generating Treq_i(x) for all layers
considering its rear pullout capacity. However, the required connection capacity or To_i, enabling
Treq_i(x) at the front portion of the reinforcement has not yet been determined. Refer to the
illustrative example in Figure 9-7, originally presented by Leshchinsky et al. (2014) for a log
spiral failure mechanism. However, for such a simple problem, Treq_i(x) from Bishop’s analysis
will be close to the log spiral with nearly indistinguishable traces of respective surfaces. Hence,
the slip surfaces and numbers are attributed here, as an approximation, to Bishop. In Chapter 10
specific detailed examples for Bishop’s analysis are presented. Figure 9-7shows the results for a
wall having H=13.1 ft. with a batter of 20o, γ = 127 psf, and φ=30o and a given layout of
reinforcement L=0.7H=9.2 ft., Sv= 3.3 ft., and Rc=100%. For this example, the required Treq_i(x)
was calculated using the top-down process. Pullout resistance is considered as a function of
simplified overburden pressure (i.e., 𝜎𝜎 = 𝛾𝛾 𝑍𝑍 where Z is measured vertically between the
reinforcement elevation and the soil surface – see Eqn. 9.2) and the interaction coefficient Ci
(here Ci =0.8). For batter greater than zero, the slope angle will affect the overburden pressure
near the connection. As a result, the front end pullout resistance is not linear, as illustrated in
Figure 9-7 (see discussion in Section 9.1). In this problem, the overburden at the rear end of the
reinforcement is uniform and, as implied by summation of Eqn. 9.2 over segments starting at the
end, should result in pullout resistance that varies linearly with its distance from the end of the
reinforcement. As can be seen, the front end pullout offers nonlinear resistance curves which
were shifted (i.e., copied parallel to themselves) so as to be tangent to the Bishop’s calculated
59
Treq_i(x). Such shift renders To_i for each of the layers enabling the calculated mobilized force in
the reinforcement. Practically, the point of tangency could be sensitive to numerical inaccuracy.
If the reinforcement is equally spaced and sufficiently long, the top-down limit state approach
will result in the same required maximum tensile resistance Tmax-i for each layer. Such
requirement is approximately implied through interpretation of some experimental work
(Zornberg et al., 1998). This distribution is also assumed in geotechnical practice of reinforced
slope stability analysis.
Figure 9-7. Example for determining the required connection capacity [Leshchinsky et al.,
2014]
9.6 Facing Effects on Calculated Reinforcement Load at Limit State
To examine the impact of facings, the simple model shown in Figure 9-8 was used. Given the
dimensions and bulk unit weight of the facing units, typically termed as blocks, γu, the effective
weight, Rv, of the effective block area, EA (see Figure 9-8), above a desired elevation can be
calculated as Rv=γu EA. Only the weight of facing above the interface at a desired elevation (i.e.,
the shaded area in Figure 9-8) is calculated. This might be conservative, especially for small
batters (say, <10°), however, the simplicity of it is attractive for the purpose of this work. Once
Rv is calculated at a certain elevation, the shear resistance value at that elevation, Rh, can be
assessed using a given value of interface friction. For block to block this friction is denoted as δb
b and for block (or leveling pad) and foundation it is denoted by δb-f. That is, the horizontal limit
state frictional resistance could be Rh=Rv tan(δb-b) or Rh=Rv tan(δb-f). Bishop’s moment
equilibrium, Eqn. 9.3a, written about the center of the analyzed circle can now be modified to
60
include the moment due to the shear force Rh at the point of emergence of the respective circles.
This moment would be (D Rh) where D is the vertical distance between the respective Rh and the
center of the analyzed circle. This additional moment resistance modifies the denominator in
Eqn. 9.3a. Note that the vertical force Rv is not included as a modifier to Eqn. 9.3a, as it is
considered to be part of the test body; i.e., an internal force that generates Rh in a limit state.
Figure 9-8. Model to consider impact of facing on limit state
Parametric studies conducted by Leshchinsky et al. (2014) show (for simple wall geometry) that
changing δb-b from 0 to 50° only slightly decrease the reinforcement tension in its front end while
having small effect on Tmax-i, i.e., δb-b has local effect on the reinforcement, all in the vicinity of
its connection to the facing. However, δb-f, the facing to foundation shear resistance (i.e., toe
resistance), when combined with large δb-b, has large impact on the required tensile resistance.
Changing its δb-f value from 0 to 50°, while keeping δb-b relatively high, decreases max(Tmax-i) by
over 50%. This impactful toe resistance is produced by a typical 1 ft. thick block. The large
impact of toe resistance on Tmax was discussed by Ehrlich and Becker (2010), Huang et al.
(2010), and Leshchinsky and Vahedifard (2012). The implication stemming from LE is that
while high shear resistance facing may prevent limit state occurring through the facing (as is the
case with conventional gravity walls), failure through the toe is feasible. This toe failure then is
resisted by toe resistance and reinforcement tension. In the event that toe resistance is ignored, as
commonly done in design, not only Tmax-i is affected very little by the facing shear resistance, but
also the required connection capacity To-i is not affected much. This is a consequence of Treq(x)
distribution being predominantly affected by slip surface emerging through the non-resisting toe.
This connection capacity is required to enable the development of Treq(x) within the sliding or
active mass.
61
It is recommended to ignore the effects of narrow facing in design. This recommendation is due
to possible uncertainty in the long term availability of toe resistance. However, the ability to
account for facing is useful when massive facing is used (e.g., 28 inch wet cast concrete or 36
inch gabions) or in forensic studies and in interpretation of field data.
9.7 Commentary
Presented is a LE-based framework that produces the baseline distribution of Treq. This
distribution provides a rational basis for limit state design. To assess the reasonableness of the
proposed framework, exhaustive parametric studies using log spiral surfaces were conducted and
presented by Leshchinsky et al. (2014). In this report the basic formulation and procedure for
Bishop’s circular arc analysis is provided, generalizing the framework to deal with realistic
design problems as shown in the next chapter. The following commentary, concluding this
chapter, briefly summarizes the presented approach:
1. The distribution of Treq is based on ‘free bodies’ at LE state, each uniformly mobilizing the
design strength of the reinforced soil. Subsequently, a state of LE at any zone within the
reinforced mass is attained by assigning local reinforcement force so as to ensure a
prescribed margin of safety. However, if that zone is stable without reinforcement, an LE
state cannot be attained there; i.e., it is not relevant to soil reinforcing.
2. The maximum load in each reinforcement layer, Tmax-i, is implied by the baseline solution of
Treq-i. In design, a geosynthetic is selected so as to have long term strength that enables
max(Tmax-i) considering durability, installation damage, and creep. These aspects are
accounted for by using established relevant reduction factors (see Chapter 10).
3. AASHTO requires that the long term connection capacity would be based on an arbitrary
(and safe) equality To-i=Tmax-i. Conversely, the framework finds the connection load based on
front end pullout resistance that enables the reinforcement to mobilize its strength thus
rendering a LE state. Parametric studies (Leshchinsky et al., 2014) show that for a typical
layout of reinforcement, the connection load would be less than about 0.6Tmax-i. For vertical
walls, the connection load at lower elevations is very small since the high overburden
pressure results in high front end pullout resistance. The same studies indicate that To-i/Tmax-i
for large batter may increase with depth since the pullout resistance at the front end could be
low due to lower overburden pressures under the slope. When closer spacing is used in a
given problem, the top-down methodology yields Tmax-i which gets progressively smaller
while front end pullout of individual reinforcement is unaffected by spacing. Such a
situation leads, at a certain spacing, to a rapidly diminishing connection load, To-i. That is, the
soil-reinforcement interaction next to the face is such that there is hardly any need for facing
support at a limit state. Such interaction could be referred to as soil arching occurring in the
horizontal direction (Leshchinsky 1997). It is interesting to note that the phenomenon of
negligible connection load has been demonstrated in GRS-IBS where the geosynthetic
spacing is close, typically about 8 inches.
4. There are two possible consistent concepts that can be utilized in applying the presented
framework in design. One is consistent with conventional LE analysis. The second is
consistent with AASHTO perspective. Here is a brief of each concept:
62
– In conventional LE analysis, a design factor of safety, Fs, is applied on the soil strength.
This means that soils used in the actual analysis have reduced strength:
φm=tan-1[tan(φ)/Fs] and cm=c/Fs. That is, limit state or LE is conducted on ‘artificial’
soils having reduced strength of φm and cm. Consequently, for any Fs>1.0, the resulting
Tmax values, as well as length of reinforcement, will be larger than needed for a true limit
state where Fs=1.0. For reinforced slope design, FHWA recommends Fs≥1.3 (Berg et al.,
2009). The minimum value of Fs=1.3 compared with Fs=1.0 results in an increased value
Tmax by a non-constant number, typically more than 1.5, depending on the soil strength.
Hence, when assessing Tult in the process of selecting geosynthetics, it is not common to
further factor max(Tmax) by an additional factor of safety. Such an approach is common in
the design practice of reinforced slopes where the long term design strength, LTDS, of the
geosynthetics is used in the stability analysis. Furthermore, increased value max(Tmax)
also means increase in the required resistance along the reinforcement, Treq(x), leading to
an increased connection load To. Hence, similar to max(Tmax), To resulting from LE
analysis when Fs>1.0 increase the connection load compared with the value for Fs=1.0.
Also note that connection load is derived from an upwards shifted front end pullout
curves (see Figure 9-4, Figure 9-5, and Figure 9-7). Pullout resistance is affected by the
relevant parameters F* and 𝛼𝛼 or Ci, as well as the soil strength (Eqns. 9.1). Hence, a
decrease in design φ due to Fs>1.0 renders flatter pullout curves resulting in larger
required upwards shifting and subsequently, larger To.
– In AASHTO max(Tmax) is multiplied by a factor of safety of Fs-strength=1.5 applied on
LTDS so as to select reinforcement with adequate Tult. Also in AASHTO, the peak soil
strength is used to determine max(Tmax); i.e., no Fs is applied on the strength of the
reinforced soil. Furthermore, the minimum length of reinforcement is constrained to
L/H=0.7. Finally, in AASHTO, a factor of safety on pullout, Fs-po=1.5, is directly
imposed on the resistance equation. In the context of the LE framework, the design shear
strength of soil can be used as in AASHTO. It yields max(Tmax) which should be
multiplied by 1.5 and by reduction factors to determine the required minimum Tult -- see
Chapter 10. Also, a factor of safety of 1.5 on pullout resistance (Eqn. 9.2) should be
applied in the LE analysis of limit state. This factor on pullout will result in an increase of
To beyond its limit state value, as required in design.
5. In this work, it is recommended to use above option as in AASHTO since it is more tangible
than considering an artificial soil where the outcome depends on a single factor of safety
applied to the soil strength. Although such a design should be safe, it is a significant leap
from current design methodology for reinforced slopes. Therefore, a system initially
designed by the top-down approach using the second option in 4 must also be checked for
suitable global LE stability. Hence, the first option in 4 above should be used to check the
top-down designed reinforced structure to ascertain sufficient global stability; i.e., to verify
that the specified structure has global Fs greater than, say, 1.3.. This requirement is
completely analogous to FHWA and AASHTO requirements for assuring global stability
checking compound and deep-seated/foundation stability for a structure that has been
synergistically designed based on internal and external stability.
6. FHWA (Berg et al., 2009) and AASHTO require that global stability of MSE structures be
checked using LE analysis to ensure that the factor of safety on soil strength is Fs≥1.3. In this
check one should assess stability against compound and deep-seated/foundation failures as
63
well as potential failures corresponding to other mechanisms. The same design requirement
exists for global stability analysis of the structure produced by the LE top-down framework
presented herein. This is particularly important since the LE framework should produce,
generally, less conservative reinforced mass than AASHTO. Stability aspects such as
‘bearing capacity’ and ‘sliding’ required in AASHTO in ‘external stability’ can be evaluated
by using existing, commercially available tools for LE slope stability. Global stability
assessment will be demonstrated and discussed in Chapter 10.
7. Although the LE approach can consider the shear strength of facing units as well as toe
resistance, it is recommended to ignore it in design (see Section 9.6). Perhaps there is
justification for considering in design the impact of large facing units; however, it is beyond
the scope of this work.
64
10.0 INSTRUCTIVE DESIGN EXAMPLES
Presented are several design examples which are based on the Framework for LE Analysis
discussed in the previous chapter. Since no commercial software for this LE framework is
available yet, program ReSSA has been modified ad hoc for demonstration purposes. The
framework presented in this report is transparent and detailed. Therefore, it can be implemented
by software developers in existing or new codes, using Bishop or other LE methods.
Development of commercial computer codes is beyond the scope of this report. Note that for
completeness, global LE stability features in ReSSA were used as well. However, such global
stability can be assessed by any suitable commercial slope stability software and the use of
ReSSA for this analysis is solely due to convenience.
10.1 Overview of Top-down Procedure
Before dealing with specific example problems, here is a step-by-step recap of the top-down
computation process used to generate the baseline results (i.e., Tmax-i and To-i):
1. The designer initially develops a trial layout or arrangement of

reinforcement layers; i.e., vertical spacing and length behind the face of
the slope.
2. Using a "top‐down" order, conduct a search and analyze failure surfaces

emerging at the face of the slope, from the top of the slope down to, but
not crossing, the elevation of the second layer of reinforcement, using
search limits extending sufficiently behind the face of the slope while
considering realistic failure modes. For each failure surface evaluated in
the search, adjust the reinforcement force so as to obtain the target factor
of safety. Record the resulted force at its location along the length of the
reinforcement, where the failure surface crosses the reinforcement. This
force indicates the tensile force that must be mobilized in a LE state. Its
location, relative to the rear of the reinforcement, indicates the embedded
length over which pullout resistance behind the failure surface can
develop. The mobilized force cannot exceed rear end pullout resistance.
The uppermost layer must have sufficient embedded length to develop
the required pullout resistance since there are no overlying layers to
share the responsibility of ensuring stability as prescribed by the target
factor of safety. For each location along the reinforcement, the largest
reinforcing force needed to obtain the target factor of safety for all failure
surfaces crossing that point determines the required tensile force at that
location. The completion of the stability analyses for this step produces
the largest required force as a function of location along the length of the
top reinforcement.
3. Repeat Step 2 for the upper two layers of reinforcement by searching from the top
of the slope down to, but not crossing, the elevation of the third layer of
reinforcement. If the failure surface under consideration only crosses a single
65
layer of reinforcement, the layer must have sufficient embedded length behind the
surface to develop the required pullout resistance. Surfaces crossing multiple
layers of reinforcement are stabilized by the tension developed in, or shared by
each layer to obtain the target factor of safety on soil strength. The combined
stabilizing resistance (e.g., moment) provided by the reinforcement forces is
distributed to each layer by initially assuming equal mobilization of force (which
produces unequal moments in each layer due to the differences in moment arm
about the center of the circular failure surface). If the initial computational
assumption of equal mobilization of force results in a layer’s force that exceeds
the available pullout resistance behind the surface, assign that layer the
maximum available pullout resistance and increase the forces in the remaining
layer(s) assuming equal force mobilization such that the stabilizing moment to
obtain the target factor of safety is achieved. The force determined for each layer
of reinforcement at the location where the failure surface under consideration
crosses is compared to the forces determined at the same location for all surfaces
evaluated in previous steps. Each layer present in previous steps is assigned the
highest required force in previous steps if that force exceeds the force determined
in the current step, assuming equal force mobilization. Forces are recalculated in
the remaining layers crossed by the failure surface, assuming equal force
mobilization among layers not assigned a force determined from previous steps
such that the combined stabilizing moment provided by all of the reinforcement
layers crossed by the failure surface under consideration produces the target
factor of safety. For a given failure surface, this process m a y result in lower
required forces in layers that were not required to mobilize higher forces in
previous steps, compared to the initial assumption of equal force mobilization in
all layers. As in Step 2, for each location along each layer of reinforcement, the
largest reinforcing force needed to obtain the target factor of safety for all failure
surfaces crossing that point determines the required tensile force at that location.
4. Repeat the processes described in Steps 2 and 3 down to the toe elevation. Now
you have the required force in each reinforcement layer, considering rear pullout,
needed to render the same factor of safety nearly anywhere within the reinforced
soil mass.
5. Determine connection loads (To-i) so that there is sufficient "front end" pullout
capacity to enable the reinforcement to mobilize the required resistance, calculated
in Steps 2-4, to produce the prescribed factor of safety. This is done by adjusting
the front pullout envelope so that the calculated required force in each layer is
below this envelope. The amount of adjustment or shift from zero resistance at
the slope is the minimum connection load at each elevation.
6. Based on Tmax-i and To-i determine the minimum required long-term rupture
strength of the reinforcement and the required connection capacity.
7. Adjust the lengths of reinforcement layers and repeat Steps 2 to 6 to achieve an

economical design.
66
In general, the top-down process seeks the reinforcement force at each location needed to
produce the same factor of safety at any location with the reinforced mass. That is, produce a
safety map with constant factor of safety. The baseline solution for a given problem then enables
the designer to rationally establish the baseline ‘demand’ for reinforcement. Such a process
leads then to selection of reinforcement and connection that has the necessary long term
capacity.
10.2 Example 1: Simple Wall Problem Compared with AASHTO 2002
10.2.1 AASHTO Approach
To compare the framework design approach with AASHTO, it would be best to select a simple
problem. Since the LE design is based on ASD, AASHTO’s ASD is selected (AASHTO 2002).
It is noted that the static LRFD in the current AASHTO for a simple problem will render similar
design outcome to ASD. Hence, the comparison with AASHTO ASD, which is selected for
clarity (i.e., avoiding irrelevant load and resistance factors and their integration in design), is also
valid for the outcome of LRFD-based design. AASHTO design here was conducted using
program MSEW (3.0).
Consider a wall having 8° batter and 20 ft high; i.e., 𝜔𝜔=8° and H=20 ft, as illustrated in
Figure 10-1.
Figure 10-1. Sketch of analyzed wall
Ten layers of equally spaced geosynthetics are placed at Sv=2 ft with the bottom layer (#1) at 1 ft
above the toe elevation. Following AASHTO, L/H=0.7 is used, corresponding to reinforcement
length L=14 ft long for all layers. The coverage ratio Rc=100%. For simplicity and without
affecting the generality of the conclusions, the wall embedment depth is taken as zero.
No seismicity is considered. AASHTO suggests using an arbitrary connection capacity of

To-i=Tmax-i. Generally, when multiple layers exist, the strength of the connection has little effect
on global stability, especially if it exceeds the minimum required by the LE baseline solution.
The relevant soil properties are (1) Reinforced soil: γ=125 pcf, φ=34°, c=0; (2) Retained soil:
γ=120 pcf, φ=30°, c=0; and (3) Foundation soil: γ=110 pcf, φ=28°, c=0.
67
For global stability, the long term design strength, LTDS, of the reinforcement is needed. The
reduction factor for durability, RFd, and for installation damage, RFid, are each taken as 1.1. The
reduction factor for creep, RFc is 1.66. Hence, the reduction factor on the ultimate strength,
yielding the long term strength, RF=1.1×1.1×1.66≅2.0. The ultimate strength of the
reinforcement is Tult=4050 lb/ft and, therefore, LTDS=4050/(1.1×1.1×1.66)=2,016 lb/ft.
The pullout resistance factor and scale correction factor are taken as F*=0.8tan(φ) and α=0.8,
respectively. Using Eqn. 9.1b, the interaction coefficient for reinforced soil having φ=34° is
Ci=0.64. Such interaction coefficient corresponds to pullout mechanism having an interface
friction angle of δ=23.3°, Eqn. 9.1c. For sliding mechanism, the friction between reinforcement
and reinforced soil is taken as ρ=28°.
Using AASHTO (2002) for the given structure, in external stability one gets:
• Actual maximum eccentricity e/L=0.073 < 0.167 maximum allowed value.

• Actual minimum factor of safety against sliding 2.09 >1.5 min. required value.
• Bearing capacity factor of safety 4.18 > 2.0 min. required value.
• Clearly, using L=14 ft in this case satisfies external stability.
The values in Table 10-1 show the calculated Tmax-i. It also shows along each layer the calculated
factor of safety on strength considering LTDS (i.e., Fs-strength=LTDS/ Tmax) and the calculated
factor of safety against pullout, Fs-po.
Table 10-1. Calculated loads and factors of safety for strength and pullout
Height above Toe Tmax-i

Layer i Fs-strength Fs-po
[ft] [lb/ft]
1 1 1343 1.50 16.1
2 3 1202 1.68 15.9
3 5 1060 1.90 15.3
4 7 919 2.19 14.3
5 9 777 2.59 13.3
6 11 636 3.17 12.3
7 13 495 4.08 11.3
8 15 353 5.71 10.3
9 17 212 9.51 9.4
10 19 71 28.5 8.4
Note that layer 1 (bottom layer) has Fs-strength=1.50, the minimum value required in design. At
the top the available strength of the reinforcement is hardly utilized. However, as expected, the
pullout resistance at the top layer is the lowest thus rendering the lowest Fs-po although the load
is the smallest.
68
From internal stability calculations it may be concluded that geosynthetic having Tult=4,050 lb/ft
combined with RF=2.0 and a factor of safety on Tmax of Fs-strength=1.50 is adequate based on
AASHTO (2002) criteria.
10.2.2 LE Framework
To use the LE framework with Bishop’s analysis, pullout resistance at each location was reduced
by Fs-po=1.5. This value is consistent with AASHTO ASD. Running Bishop modified to be
consistent with the LE framework (top-down approach) resulted in the values shown in Table
10-2.
Table 10-2. Example 1: Values produced by the LE framework
Height above Tmax-i xi where Tmax-i To-i

Layer i Toe [ft] [lb/ft] [ft] [lb/ft] To-i/Tmax-i
1 1 665 1.0 439 0.66
2 3 708 2.0 315 0.44
3 5 708 3.5 281 0.40
4 7 708 4.8 226 0.32
5 9 708 5.9 192 0.27
6 11 708 6.7 137 0.19
7 13 708 7.4 123 0.17
8 15 708 8.0 89 0.13
9 17 708 8.3 103 0.15
10 19 676 7.2 363 0.54
AASHTO and the LE framework yield max(Tmax) of 1,343 lb/ft and 708 lb/ft, respectively. This
means that with Fs-strength=1.5, Tult=4,050 lb/ft and Tult=(1.5×2.0×708)=2,124 lb/ft for
AASHTO and LE, respectively. That is, for the same specified factor of safety on strength, same
factor of safety on pullout, and same soil strength, the LE approach yield required reinforcement
strength which is about 53% of AASHTO’s value. The calculated ratio To-i/Tmax-i is significantly
smaller than the ratio of 1.0 required in AASHTO. Comparing Table 10-1 and Table 10-2, the
actual value of To is significantly larger in LE than in AASHTO at the top layer while it is
significantly lower for all layers below. See discussion regarding connection in Section 10.5. It
should be noted that for tall walls, different strengths of reinforcement could be selected along
the height of wall, using Tmax at proper elevations from AASHTO’s calculations. This may
result in a more economical structure relative to the singular strength value in Section 10.2.1.
However, in such a case LE analysis must be used to ascertain that weaker reinforcement in
upper layers will still provide a structure with sufficient margin of safety. That is, LE must be
used to ensure that a prescribed margin of safety is available locally considering strength limit
state.
Figure 10-2 compares the results presented in Table 10-1 and Table 10-2. It can be seen that
Tmax-i for LE is nearly uniform with depth while AASHTO’s values increase linearly with depth.
The connection load, To-i, from LE is substantially lower than AASHTO’s values for all layers
except the top one. Use of secondary reinforcement (Section 10.2.5) may further reduce the
69
connection load at the top layer. Traditional global LE approach or AASHTO cannot rationally
render the connection load as is produced by the LE framework.
Figure 10-2: Example 1: Graphical representation of Tables 10-1 & 10-2
Figure 10-3 through Figure 10-11 help in visualizing the framework methodology as applied to
this design example. Figure 10-3 shows the baseline Treq-i(x) rendered from the LE top-down
approach using Bishop’s circular arc approach. It is drawn to scale which can be determined by
using the Tmax-i values in Table 10-2. The displayed curves are based on involved numerical
process and approximations and therefore, are not smooth as one would expect.
70
Toe point y
Figure 10-3. Example 1: Baseline Treq-i(x) rendered by LE top-down approach
As can be seen, the upper 4 layers are affected by rear end pullout thus shedding loads to layers
below. Figure 10-4 and Figure 10-5 show Treq distribution for the upper two layers restricted by
the rear end pullout capacity of the embedded reinforcement for Fs-po=1.5. Note the increase in
the gradient of the pullout envelop as the embedment depth increases from the top layer to the
layer below.
71
Figure 10-4. Example 1: Treq for Layer 10 restricted by rear end pullout
Figure 10-5. Example 1: Treq for Layer 9 restricted by rear end pullout
72
Figure 10-6 shows Treq distribution for the top layer combined with front end pullout. The darker
bars represent the unadjusted available front end pullout resistance with Fs-po=1.5 while the
green bars show the vertically upwards shifted or translated pullout envelope enabling the
development of Treq obtained from Bishop. This translation is to a level where the shifted pullout
curve is tangent to the Treq curve, enabling the reinforcement to mobilize the resistance required
for limit state. The amount of vertical translation is the connection load To-10 (i.e., 439 lb/ft in
Table 10-2). Examining Figure 10-4 and Figure 10-6 one realizes that the top layer is controlled
by pullout on either end; i.e., its mobilized tensile resistance is limited by pullout on either end.
Figure 10-6. Example 1: Treq for Layer 10 restricted by rear and front end pullout
Figure 10-7 shows the distribution of the required or mobilized force in each layer needed to
render a state of LE anywhere within the mass. In the segments where the color bars imply zero,
the reinforcement is not needed considering Bishop’s analysis examining slip circles emerging
along the face; i.e., it is dormant in these zones. Figure 10-4 and Figure 10-7 imply that the locus
or line of Tmax-i passing through layers is not necessarily a singular slip surface as commonly
assumed in, say, AASHTO. To better illustrate this phenomenon, refer to Figure 10-8, which
shows the critical slip surface and its associated Fs as identified for the given problem. To
produce Figure 10-8, the LTDS of each layer was set to equal to the respective Tmax-i value given
in Table 10-2, which is based on the LE top-down approach with specified Fs=1.00. That is, the
conventional global LE methodology for reinforced slopes, as described in Chapter 3 where the
LTDS is as shown in Figure 3-1, was used. The factor of safety for this circle is 1.02, somewhat
73
larger than 1.00. While the critical circle approximately passes through all Tmax for layers 1
through 9 (these maximum values are within the red bars in Figure 10-7), its trace at the top is
slightly to the right of Tmax for layer 10. Similarly, it is to the left of Tmax for layer 1. That is, for
getting Fs=1.00 with a singular circle, the specified LTDS for the top and bottom layers needs to
be slightly less than the value used based on Tmax-1 and Tmax-10 from Table 10-2. This ‘excess’ in
LTDS, as well as the fact that the calculated Tmax for layers 1 through 9 is not exactly on a
singular circle, renders Fs=1.02>1.00. However, the values of Tmax are needed for ‘local
stability’ as it renders Fs=1.0 for a different circle emerging at the face. In summary, in ‘virtual
reality’ where the reinforcement LTDS is a variable in space, such as indicated in Figure 10-3
and Figure 10-7 [i.e., Treq(x)], Fs for any circle passing through the colored zone would be near
1.0. Hence, Treq(x) was termed baseline solution enabling the designer to rationally and
economically select reinforcement considering the layout of reinforcement and soil strata.
Figure 10-7. Example 1: Distribution of tensile resistance needed for LE
74
SCALE [ft.]
30 Fs=1.02
_ _ J
I._____ I
•
20
Toe point Y
10
X
0
Figure 10-8. Example 1: Critical circle using LTDS corresponding to Tmax-i in Table 10-2
As stated in Section 9.7, the results of LE top-down design must also be checked for global
stability to ensure that Fs≥1.3. In the computerized global stability analysis, the problem
specified used LTDS based on RFd=1.1, RFid=1.1, RFc=1.66, or RF=2.0 and Tult=2,124 lb/ft.
Subsequently, LTDS=2,124 /(2.0)≅1,065 lb/ft. In global stability, no factor of safety is applied
on the reinforcement strength as done on the results of the top-down approach where
Fs-strength=1.5 was used. Rather, safety is conveyed by a singular value Fs which is related to
the soil strength – see Eqns. 9.3a-c. That is, factor of safety, Fs, that is greater than unity (say,
equal 1.3) implies that the actual LTDS is larger than needed for stability in a limit state for the
actual backfill and hence, there is an implicit margin of safety on the allowable strength of the
reinforcement (see Chapter 9). The required long term connection capacity, meeting the values in
Table 10-2, needs to be adjusted to design values (see Section 10.5). However, for stability
analysis, each connection capacity in Table 10-2, To-i, was input to represent the lowest long term
capacity. All data (e.g., F* and α) were identical to those used in Example 1.
As can be seen in Figure 10-9, the actual LTDS in global stability is also dependent on pullout
resistance in the front and rear ends of the reinforcement; i.e., dark green color signifies the
segment along which pullout controls the available strength for stability analysis. Available
connection resistance (dark green at the face) is considered. For the bottom layer (Layer 1), the
LTDS of 1,065 lb/ft is predominant along the length of the reinforcement. Conversely, for Layer
10 pullout resistance controls the available strength anywhere along the reinforcement (i.e., the
full strength, LTDS, cannot mobilize). In global stability analysis, the location of intersection of
the analyzed slip surface and the reinforcement determines the available resistance to contribute
to stability.
75
Layer10
/
LayerB /
Layer 1 /
Figure 10-9. Global stability: Actual LTDS distribution along some reinforcement layers
Figure 10-10 displays the safety map produced by Bishop Analysis. As can be seen, the critical
slip circle intersects the bottom reinforcement layer having Fs=1.31, greater than the minimum
requirement of 1.30. The red zone here is ‘good’ as it shows the zone within which the factor of
safety is in a desired range between 1.31 and 1.50. Note that the factor of safety for any internal
and compound failures is in excess of 1.31 indicating that for rotational failure the reinforcement
is sufficiently strong and long. In fact, the more the reinforced zone is in ‘red’ the more efficient
is the design; the reinforcement layout and strength then is near practically optimal as Fs is
between 1.30 and 1.50. It is interesting to note that the foundation/deep-seated slip surface
resembles a ‘bearing capacity’ mode of failure. A factor of safety of 1.3 applied to soil strength
(i.e., LE) will typically render factor of safety in the traditional realm of conventional bearing
capacity greater than 2.0. Note that the factor of safety in traditional bearing capacity reflects the
value of ultimate bearing load divided by the actual load (i.e., it does not consider factor of safety
on the soil strength). In fact, for the given problem, AASHTO produces a Meyerhof bearing
76
capacity factor of safety (Section 10.2.1) of 4.18 versus the LE value of 1.31. For different
problems both factors of safety may change. LE global stability addresses indirectly the bearing
capacity aspect typical to AASHTO design. However, while AASHTO consider the reinforced
mass as a coherent block, LE considers ‘bearing capacity’ for potential failures going through the
reinforcement, the retained soil, and stratified foundation, possibly identifying more critical
conditions than the traditional bearing capacity approach used for MSE structures. In other
words, LE considers ‘bearing capacity’ as the stability of an earthen embankment, albeit
reinforced, resting over foundation soil whereas AASHTO idealize the reinforced soil mass as a
rigid shallow eccentric footing supported by a foundation soil. The versatility of LE analysis of
foundation failure by far exceeds that of traditional bearing capacity when dealing with design of
MSE structures. Leshchinsky et al. (2012) provides an in-depth review of bearing capacity
predictions produced by AASHTO versus values obtained from LE or LA stability analysis.
Figure 10-10. Safety map generated for the design example using Bishop analysis
Finally, refer to Figure 10-11. Here sliding along the foundation as well as along reinforcement
layers was assessed using the Spencer Method considering a 2-part wedge mechanism. The
presented safety map corresponds to surfaces that produce statically valid results. That is,
wedges yielding unacceptable results from statical standpoint (e.g., interslice thrust line outside
the sliding body) were excluded. Sliding along the full length of the reinforced mass has very
large factor of safety (i.e., in excess of 1.8). Two-part wedges within the reinforced soil zone
with the front wedge sliding along a base-interface having a weak friction angle of 𝜌𝜌 of 28◦ were
77
considered. Such surfaces yielded minimum Fs=1.36. The safety map indicates that the
reinforcement layout and strength exceed the minimum requirements considering translational
global stability. It is noted, however, that for stratified foundation soil, more complex failure
mechanisms should be considered.
Figure 10-11. Safety map generated using Spencer analysis considering 2-part wedge
10.2.3 Closely Spaced Reinforcement
To realize the impact of spacing on reinforcement and connection loads, the original spacing of
reinforcement is reduced from 2 ft to 1 ft while preserving the original length of 14 ft, which is
needed to resist global deep-seated failure. This increases the number of layers from 10 to 19.
Table 10-3 shows the results.
78
Table 10-3. Impact of decreased spacing of reinforcement layers
xi where
Height above Tmax-i Tmax-i To-i
1 1 355 0.8 206 0.58
2 2 355 1.5 199 0.56
3 3 355 2.2 164 0.46
4 4 355 2.9 164 0.46
5 5 355 3.6 164 0.46
6 6 355 4.1 130 0.37
7 7 355 4.6 130 0.37
8 8 355 5.0 116 0.33
9 9 355 5.5 89 0.25
10 10 355 5.9 89 0.25
11 11 355 6.3 41 0.12
12 12 355 6.6 48 0.14
13 13 355 6.9 48 0.14
14 14 355 7.0 Negligible Negligible
19 19 355 7.7 41 0.12
When comparing Table 10-2 and Table 10-3, increasing the number of layers from 10 to 19
results in approximately halving of max(Tmax); i.e., it dropped from 708 lb/ft to 355 lb/ft. This
corresponds to Tult = (1.5×2.0×355) = 1,065 lb/ft. whereas before it was 2,124 lb/ft. While this
reduction is not surprising, the connection load dropped dramatically. For many connections the
required capacity is small or even negligible. This is a consequence of the connection load being
affected mainly by slip circles that are close to the face; i.e., shallow surfaces (see the color
coded map Figure 10-13 as well the actual distribution of Treq(x) in Figure 10-14). Such surfaces
do not require much tensile resistance by the reinforcement for stabilization. The fact that the
upper layer is slightly mobilized is enough to render most surfaces considered in the top-down
approach, emerging at lower elevations, stable having Fs>1.0 (i.e., no reinforcement is needed at
some locations as the design criterion of Fs is exceeded). Stated differently, as the reinforcement
gets closer, the amplitude of the calculated Treq(x) is smaller while the front end pullout envelope
is unaffected. Consequently, the amount of shifting of the front end pullout envelope needed to
enable Treq(x) gets smaller resulting in diminishing value of connection load To-i. Comparing the
two tables shows that for 2 ft spacing the required connection capacity of the top layer is about
360 lb/ft whereas with 1 ft spacing it is about 40 lb/ft; i.e., about an order of magnitude lower
connection load in a zone where, for some systems, it would be difficult to get high connection.
Note that lower layers have modest connection load; this is a result of compound slip surface that
requires resistance by layers intersected near the connection. This non-intuitive drop in
connection load will diminish if shorter reinforcement is used. Conversely, lengthening the
79
reinforcement will decrease the connection load at the bottom as more layers will resist
compound failure.
Figure 10-12 compares the results presented in Table 10-2 and Table 10-3. Tmax-i appears to be
proportional to the spacing. When considering upper layer, To-i decreases dramatically as the
spacing gets closer.
Figure 10-12. Graphical representation of Tables 10-2 & 10-3
Finally, for reinforcement having LTDS = Tult/RF = 1,065/2 = 533 lb/ft (for the 2-ft spaced
reinforcement LTDS = 1,065 lb/ft was used), global stability indicates Fs=1.31 as illustrated in
Figure 10-15, corresponding to foundation failure, the same as in the previous problem (Figure
10-10). The critical slip circle passes through several layers of reinforcement. Internal and
compound circular arc failure surfaces have Fs well in excess of 1.4 thus producing satisfactory
design. In fact, the red zone is over a large area of the reinforced soil indicating an efficient
layout and strength of reinforcement. Note that the problem has two minima for the safety
factors. The absolute minimum is the circle for which Fs=1.31; however, within the reinforced
zone there is a local minimum (of about 1.4) as implied by the safety map and the gap in the
internal red zone.
80
Figure 10-13. Close reinforcement: Color coded map of distribution of tensile resistance
Figure 10-14. Close reinforcement: Computed Treq along each layer
81
Results of Bishop Analysis

RESULTS DISPLAY PLOT / PRINT CAPTURE SAFETY MAP
Color Code: Safety Factors

SCALE [ft.]
<
4
E
E3 6.00
30
.
E 20
7 5.00
E 4.00
~ 3.00 10
10
2.50
-
11
12 2.00
13 1.50 0
H 1.30
15
16
l7 Re~un ...
18
19
Hide Scale
Minimum factor of safety = 1. 31 X = N/A Right-dick to change Type

or Length of reinf. or soil
Radius = 26.49 ft. Y = N/A parameters. OK
Figure 10-15. Safety map generated for the closely spaced reinforcement
10.2.4 Seismicity and Closely Spaced Reinforcement
This section considers the effect of seismic loading of MSE walls with the closely spaced
reinforcement. The example problem considers a peak ground acceleration of PGA=0.3g.
Following common practice in slope stability analyses, the design value of the horizontal seismic
coefficient in a pseudostatic analysis is taken as Kh = (PGA/2)/g = 0.15. In fact, FHWA (Berg et
al., 2009) recommends the same fraction of PGA for a pseudostatic analysis of reinforced slopes.
Using large shaking table tests, Leshchinsky et al. (2009) demonstrated that for geosynthetic
reinforced slopes 0.33PGA to 0.4PGA can be used since seismic loads are not true static (i.e., not
sustained load over time). Bishop’s formulation, Eqn. 9.3a, can be modified to also include a
‘static’ force component, Kh×W, for each slice. Applying Kh of 0.15 results in Table 10-4.
Comparing Table 10-4 and Table 10-3, one sees a substantial increase in the required max(Tmax)
from 355 lb/ft to 590 lb/ft, an increase by a factor of 1.66. AASHTO does not consider creep as a
strength time-degradation phenomenon. Consequently, during a seismic event, creep strain
cannot practically evolve and the creep reduction factor is not applied on Tult (RFcr in Example 1
is 1.66). Therefore, Tult=1,065 lb/ft (established under static conditions) should be reduced only
by RFd and RFid (i.e., 1.1×1.1=1.21) to yield the design strength under seismic condition; i.e.,
1,065/1.21=880 lb/ft will be adequate for stability analysis under seismic excitation. The
required connection capacity (ignoring possible inertia of facings) is marginally affected as slip
surfaces under seismic conditions tend to be deeper and away from the face.
82
Table 10-4. Wall with closely spaced reinforcement subjected to PGA=0.3g
xi where
1 1 590 1.3 226 0.38
2 2 590 2.8 199 0.34
3 3 590 4.3 219 0.37
4 4 590 5.6 247 0.42
5 5 590 7.1 247 0.42
6 6 590 8.4 212 0.36
7 7 590 9.9 178 0.30
8 8 590 11.2 192 0.33
9 9 590 12.7 185 0.31
10 10 590 14.0 164 0.28
19 19 398 8.6 55 0.14
Figure 10-16 compares the results shown in Table 10-3 and Table 10-4. Tmax-i is not affected very
much. However, considering the given length of reinforcement, the rear end pullout prevails
with increased seismicity resulting in reinforcement layers that cannot mobilize their intrinsic
strength. Subsequently, lower layers compensate for the upper layers by carrying higher load.
The connection load in the upper layers is not affected much by seismicity as deeper slip surfaces
develop affecting very little the facing. Note that inertia of the facing is ignored.
83
20
~ Tmax
18
16
PGA=O ....To
...,._Tmax
. _To
14
.....,. 12
~
<I) 10
0
I-
<I) 8
>
0
.J:J
"' 6
.E
0)
·.; 4
PGA=0.3g
I
2
0
0 100 200 3)() 400 500 600 700
Tmax-i, To-i [lb/ft]
Figure 10-17 shows the computed distribution Treq along layers. Compared with the static
distribution in Figure 10-14 one realizes the shift of Tmax towards the rear of the reinforced zone
with magnitude restricted by rear end pullout. The color coded map in Figure 10-18, especially
when compared with the static case in Figure 10-13, provides another perspective of the impact
of seismicity. The peak zone signifies compound stability effects.
84
Figure 10-17. Computed Treq along each layer for PGA=0.30g
Figure 10-18. Color coded map of distribution of tensile resistance for PGA=0.30g
Under seismic conditions, the allowable design strength of the reinforcement (ignoring creep) is
880 lb/ft. Running global stability, one gets the safety maps shown in Figure 10-19 and Figure
10-20. Under pseudostatic limit state conditions, it is common to allow Fs of about 1.1 (Berg et
85
al., 2009). The safety map shows a potential problem with respect to foundation/deep-seated
failure where Fs=1.04 (Figure 10-19). This issue can be resolved by lengthening a few
reinforcement layers at the bottom. In the lower zone of the reinforced mass, low (but
acceptable) safety factors are between 1.1 and 1.3, signifying a compound mode of potential
failure. This compound type of potential failure is also implied by Figure 10-15 and Figure
10-17. In fact, seismic excitation larger than 0.3g will require lengthening the reinforcement
beyond the L/H value of 0.7 used in this problem. Indeed, high seismicity often results in
reinforcement that requires L/H of 1.0 or even more.
Figure 10-19. Safety map for PGA=0.3g running Bishop’s circular arc analysis
86
Results of Translational Analysis (Direct Sliding)

Click to display captured-critical

two-part wedge along each interface:
I Toe Elevation I
SCALE [ft.]
4 30
E
E
7
E3 20
E
~ 3.00 10
.WZ'.P'
10 2.50
11
12 2.00
0
13 1.50
-
H 1.30
15
1.10
16
l7 1.00
18
19
ReRun ...
Hide Scale X = N/A

Gridlines Fs minimum found in this run = 1. 10 Y = N/A
OK
Figure 10-20. Safety map for PGA=0.3g running Spencer 2-part wedge analysis
10.2.5 Secondary Reinforcement
In Section 10.2.3 the effect of decreasing the vertical distance between reinforcement layers was
examined; i.e., Sv was changed from 2 ft in 10.2.2 to 1 ft in 10.2.3 while keeping all other data
the same including uniform length of reinforcement of 14 ft. The decrease in spacing resulted in
a proportional decrease in the required max(Tmax) simultaneous with significant decrease in
connection load. Practically, while closer reinforcement increase the amount of reinforcement
used (in the current example almost doubled), it tends to result in better construction outcome as
compaction is facilitated, especially near the facing. It also facilitates the use of systems counting
on frictional connection. Furthermore, closely spaced reinforcement improves the seismic
performance of MSE structures (Ling et al. 2005). These results suggest that there may be
benefit to using secondary (or intermediate) reinforcement. Such short layers may shed some
load off the primary reinforcement layer making the front end of the structure more robust.
To assess the impact of secondary reinforcement, consider 5 ft long layers, located midway
between the primary layers in Section 10.2.2. The layout then is similar to that shown in Section
10.2.3 with alternating layers starting from 2 ft above the toe being 5 ft rather than 14 ft long.
87
Table 10-5. Impact of secondary reinforcement
xi where
1 1 483 1.3 281 0.59
2 2 483 2.4 260 0.54
3 3 483 3.4 212 0.44
4 4 483 4.3 212 0.44
5 5 483 5.1 178 0.37
6 6 483 5.0 164 0.34
7 7 483 6.5 130 0.27
8 8 419 5.6 137 0.33
9 9 483 7.6 110 0.23
10 10 366 5.8 103 0.28
11 11 483 8.6 48 0.10
12 12 323 6.1 89 0.28
13 13 483 9.3 34 0.07
14 14 291 6.3 14 0.05
19 19 462 10.3 41 0.09
Figure 10-21 compares the results presented in Table 10-3 and Table 10-5. For the same
spacing, secondary (short) reinforcement may have the same impact on connection load as long
reinforcement. The oscillating Tmax-i for upper secondary layers is a result of these layers being
too short, out of the locus of Tmax-i for the primary layers. Figure 10-22 illustrates this point.
88
20
18
.,..... ....-Tmax
-II-To
'
16 -a-Tmax
- .ro '
14
~ 12
~ '
<I)
'<::: ' ~
0
I- 10
.._
>
0
<I)
8
~ ' ~
.J:> ) ~
-"'
.c
0)
·.;
6
4
........
"i x.....
'
'
I
1......,_ l......_
2
1.
0 . . .
0 100 200 300 500 600
Table 10-5 shows the results for Tmax and To. Compared with Table 10-3 (i.e., results for closely
spaced reinforcement), the max(Tmax) for the secondary reinforcement case is 483/355 = 1.36
higher. That is, for secondary reinforcement the required strength would be 36% larger than for
the close full length reinforcement. However, compared with Table 10-2, which is for 2 ft
spacing, the required strength would be 483/708 = 0.68; i.e., the required strength drops by 32%
because of using the short secondary reinforcement. As to the connection load of the top layer,
for both closely spaced and secondary reinforcement the resulting value is the same: To-19 = 41
lb/ft. The bottom layer, however, would have connection load, To-1, of 206 and 281 lb/ft for the
closely spaced and secondary reinforcement layout, respectively. Hence, at the bottom, the
effectiveness of secondary reinforcement at the connection is not significant as at the top.
However, the bottom layer can carry substantial load as can be seen in Figure 10-22. It is noted
that for the original 2 ft spacing, Table 10-2 indicates that To is 439 and 368 lb/ft at the bottom
and top, respectively. Hence, the top-down LE analysis indicates that the impact of close
reinforcement/secondary reinforcement on the connection load in upper layers is significant.
89
Toe point y
Figure 10-22. Computed Treq(x) considering 5 ft long secondary reinforcement
Notice in Figure 10-22 that by virtue of being short, the mobilized resistance of the secondary
reinforcement is limited by its rear end pullout capacity. Clearly, bottom secondary layers loads
are as high as those for the primary reinforcement.
Figure 10-23 shows the color coded map of the distribution of required tensile resistance along
each layer. Comparing with Figure 10-13, one can see the impact of the secondary reinforcement
near its rear end while for full length close spacing the force mobilization is quite uniform with
height.
90
Tensile Resistance
Ra Color Code:
nge of T -required
I Values in [ lb / ft I
>•
0.00
I 40.00
>•
>
90.00
I 140.00
190.00 >
>•
>
240.00
290.00
340.00 >
390.00 >
>
>•
440.00
490.00
Figure 10-23. Color coded map of Treq(x) considering 5 ft long secondary reinforcement
Based on the LE computed max(Tmax) = 483 lb/ft, and using an overall reduction factor of
RF=2.0 and Fs-strength=1.5, the required ultimate strength would be Tult = 1,500 lb/ft. Hence,
for global stability of a system having LTDS =Tult/RF = 1,500/2 = 725 lb/ft the safety map in
Figure 10-24 is displayed. Note that the critical slip surface extends from the reinforced soil into
the retained soil (i.e., compound) rendering Fs=1.21. In fact, the entire red zone has Fs<1.30.
Compared with Figure 10-15, one sees that the full length, closely spaced reinforcement, albeit
weaker, rendered Fs>1.30 everywhere. Clearly, while secondary reinforcement may have an
important impact on connection loads, its contribution to global stability could be limited. The
safety map indicates that lengthening the lower secondary reinforcements will intercept the
critical slip surface, increasing the minimum safety factor for this problem. One may increase
LTDS of the lowest five primary reinforcement layers and thus increase the minimum factor of
safety in global stability to be greater than 1.30. Alternatively, a more laborious way is to run
the top-down approach using specified Fs that is slightly larger than 1.0 to ensure that in global
stability, as depicted in Figure 10-24, the factor of safety is larger than 1.30.
91
Results of Bishop Analysis ?


10.00 SCALE [ft.]
~
< 30
7.00
4 6.00
E 5.00
E 20
4.00
7
E 3.00
~ 2.50
10 10
2.00
-
11
12 1.50
13 1.30
H 0
1.00
15
16
l7 Re~un ...
18
19
Minimum factor of safety = 1.21 X = N/A Right-dick to change Type

or Length of reinf. or soil
Radius = 108.87 ft. Y = N/A parameters. OK
Figure 10-24. Safety map for the case of secondary reinforcement
10.3 Example 2: Simple Slope Problem
AASHTO and FHWA define MSE walls as reinforced structures having batter ≤20 o (slope
inclination ≥70 o) and reinforced slopes having batter >20 o (slope inclination <70 o). Different
design methods are used for ‘slopes’ and ‘walls,’ leading to significantly disjointed outcomes for
two similar geotechnical structures. Conversely, the LE framework suggests a unified approach
for any slope reinforced with geosynthetics. Consequently, it would be instructive to demonstrate
the LE approach for a 2:1 slope (inclination of 63.4 o) using the same basic data as in Example 1.
92
Table 10-6. Computed values for Example 2 produced by the LE framework
Tmax-i xi where Tmax-i To-i

Layer i Height above Toe [ft] [lb/ft] [ft] [lb/ft] To-i/Tmax-i
1 1 350 2.0 165 0.47
2 3 387 3.7 116 0.30
3 5 387 6.0 103 0.27
4 7 387 7.7 89 0.23
5 9 387 9.1 75 0.19
6 11 387 10.3 62 0.16
7 13 387 11.0 48 0.12
8 15 387 11.6 7 0.02
9 17 387 12.0 34 0.09
10 19 387 12.2 226 0.58
The numbers in Table 10-6 were generated by running the LE framework. Recall that in
Example 1 the wall had a batter of 8o. The framework yielded max(Tmax) = 708 lb/ft for that wall
whereas it yields max(Tmax) = 387 lb/ft for the slope. Considering a factor of safety on the
reinforcement strength of Fs-strength =1.5, and using the combined reduction factor RF=2.0, Tult
= (1.5×2.0×387) = 1,161 lb/ft compared with Tult =2,124 lb/ft for the wall. That is, the ultimate
strength of the reinforcement decreases by about 45% due to a change in slope inclination from
82o to 63.4o, a decrease in slope by about 19 o. Comparing Table 10-6 and Table 10-2, the actual
value of To has also dropped significantly for the slope. Figure 10-25 helps visualizing the
results presented in these two tables.
93
20
-+-Tmax
18
-II-To
16 -.-rmax
. _To
14
.....,. 12
~
<I)
0
10
I-
<I)
> 8
0
.J:J
"'
.E
6
0)
·.; 4
I
2
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Figure 10-26 shows the required distribution of tensile resistance, Treq(x), for Fs=1.0, as
generated by the framework. Figure 10-26 is drawn to scale which can be determined from the
Tmax-i values in Table 10-6. Note that none of the layers is affected by rear end pullout, indicating
full utilization of the reinforcement intrinsic resistance.
Figure 10-27, similar to Figure 10-7, signifies the level of mobilized force along each layer
rendering a state of LE nearly anywhere within the mass. In segments where the color bars are
not shown, the reinforcement is not needed based on Bishop’s analysis when examining slip
circles emerging along the face; i.e., it is dormant along these segments. The commentary
regarding Figure 10-7 is valid here as well.
94
Figure 10-26. Baseline Treq-i(x) for Example 2
95
Figure 10-27. Color coded map of distribution of tensile resistance for Example 2
Figure 10-28. Safety map generated for Example 2 using Bishop analysis
96
Based on the LE baseline solution, geosynthetics having Tult = 1,161 lb/ft combined with RFd,
RFid, and RFc, were specified for assessment of global stability. Running Bishop, the safety map
displayed in Figure 10-28 was obtained. The ‘red zone’ in this map indicates zones within which
safety factors are lower than 1.3. Unlike the case for Example 1, here there are two apparent
problems that need attention. First, the minimum safety factor of Fs=1.20 for foundation/deep
seated stability is unacceptable. Second, there is an internal narrow red zone within the
reinforced zone. While the factor there is less than 1.3, it is larger than 1.20; in fact, it is 1.28.
This internal red zone indicates that the reinforcement needs a minor strength adjustment to meet
an absolute minimum factor of 1.30. Consequently, Tult was increased from 1,161 lb/ft to 1,200
lb/ft, eliminating the internal red zone by increasing the ‘internal’ factor of safety to 1.30. Figure
10-29 shows the safety map for the adjusted strength.
Figure 10-29. Safety map for adjusted strength of reinforcement
While the adjusted strength eliminates the unsatisfactory internal global stability, the foundation
problem remains as the critical circle propagates mainly around the reinforcement. In such a case
some ground improvement can be helpful. However, one simple solution would be to lengthen
all four bottom layers intersecting the critical circle beyond the red zone. To check the
effectiveness of such a solution, these four layers were lengthened from 14 to 18 ft. For
simplicity, the reinforced soil mass was also increased to 18 ft. Figure 10-30 now shows a green
zone for which the safety factors are between 1.30 and 1.50. As can be seen, much of the mass is
‘green,’ indicating a nearly optimal design in terms of both length and strength of reinforcement.
97
Using LE analyses for local and global stability provided a rational method for developing an
effective design.
Figure 10-30. Safety map for adjusted length of reinforcement
It is interesting to compare Figure 10-10 and Figure 10-29. While the deep seated factor of safety
for the wall in Example 1 is 1.31, in Example 2 it is 1.20. In both cases the reinforcement layout
and the reinforced mass are identical. This might be counterintuitive as the reinforced mass in
Example 1 has the same footprint but is ‘heavier’ by virtue of having a batter of 8° whereas
Example 2 has a batter of nearly 27°. However, this phenomenon is related to the fact that
reinforced soil is not a ‘coherent mass’ or a footing, as commonly assumed to simplify the design
of MSE walls. It is an earthen embankment, albeit reinforced, placed on top of foundation soil.
Consequently, failures may occur through the reinforced mass. Furthermore, the stresses inside
the foundation soil which are induced by the reinforced mass are smaller under the slope for
Example 2 than for Example 1. Consequently, although the shear stress along a potential slip
surface increases in Example 1 due to the weight of the reinforced mass, the soil’s frictional
shear resistance increases as well. Hence, it is difficult to a priori state which increasing element,
shear resistance or destabilizing load, will have greater impact. Stability analysis for a specific
case should provide a clear answer, be it intuitive or not.
98
Additional stability analyses for other modes of failure, such as sliding, might be warranted in
the design of slopes as well.
10.4 Example 3: Tiered Reinforced System
Figure 10-31 presents the geometry of a tiered reinforced ‘system.’ The lower tier is a reinforced
‘wall’ (with batter of about 2.8°) while the upper tier is a reinforced ‘slope’ (with batter of 24° or
inclination of 66°). Hence the term reinforced ‘system’.
Figure 10-31. Design section for Example 3
The interaction parameters used in the framework are F* = 0.8tan(φ) and α = 0.8. The factor of
safety on pullout was specified as Fs-po =1.50. Note that the ‘retained’ soil is a sandstone that
has large cohesion value and therefore, does not need a retaining system to remain stable. The
system is subjected to live load (LL) of 250 psf acting over a 24-ft base, representing a two lane
highway. The LL does not contribute to pullout resistance; however, it affects Treq(x) and hence,
Tmax-i. Neither AASHTO nor FHWA provide explicit tools for designing similar ‘hybrid’
reinforced structures.
99
Table 10-7 shows the computed Tmax-i and To-i values. The layout of the reinforcement seems
efficient as all have similar values of Tmax. The connection load for the top layer is quite high as
it has larger ‘tributary’ area that is subjected also to a broken backslope. For the same reason,
layer 15, located at the top of the lower tier, is also subjected to a relatively higher connection
load.
Table 10-7. Computed Tmax and To for Example 3
xi where Tmax
Height above Tmax-i i To-i To-i/Tmax-i
Layer i Toe [ft] [lb/ft] [ft] [lb/ft]
1 1.00 703 0.9 240 0.34
2 2.33 703 2.1 75 0.11
3 3.67 703 3.3 55 0.08
4 5.00 703 4.3 27 0.04
5 6.33 703 5.4 14 0.02
6 7.67 703 6.4 14 0.02
7 9.00 703 7.4 14 0.02
8 10.33 703 8.3 21 0.03
9 11.67 703 9.3 27 0.04
10 13,00 703 10.2 62 0.09
11 14.33 703 11.1 89 0.13
12 15.67 703 11.8 41 0.06
13 17.00 703 12.7 55 0.08
14 18.34 703 13.5 14 0.02
15 19.67 703 14.1 130 0.18
16 21.00 703 14.9 55 0.08
17 23.00 703 15.9 110 0.16
18 25.00 703 16.8 89 0.13
19 27.00 703 17.7 315 0.45
20 29.00 697 17.4 486 0.70
Figure 10-32 displays the results presented in Table 10-7. The connection load for the top is
substantially higher than for lower layers. Note that it has large ‘tributary’ area, it is under a
backslope, and is subjected to live load, LL (i.e., possible increase in pullout resistance due to LL
is ignored; only the extra reinforcement load is considered).
100
3S
~ Tmax
3)
-
... -II-To
'
>
2S
20
~
0
<I)
I- 1S
~
<I)
>
0
.J:>
•
-"'
.c
0)
·.;
10
I s
0 -
0 100 200 soo 600 700 800
Figure 10-32. Graphical representation of results in Table 10-7
Figure 10-33 shows the baseline Treq-i(x) for Example 3. Clearly, the sandstone resists the
development of compound failures (i.e., restricts potential failure to the reinforced soil) and,
therefore, has a major impact on the mobilized force in the reinforcement. Pullout affects the top
layer as well as layer 15. Note the double peak in the mobilized force in layers 12 through 15.
This is a result of the setback between the two tiers combined with the impact of the upper tier.
While this phenomenon might be intuitive, the LE framework provides a tool to quantify it.
101
Toe point y
Figure 10-33. Baseline Treq-i(x) for Example 3
102
Tensile Resistance ?
Ra Color Code:
nge of T~equired
Values in [ lb / ft )
>•
0.00
>•
150.00
>
.HU,UU
360.00
410.00 >
460.00 >
510.00 >
560.00 >
6 10.00 >
>
>•
660.00
710.00
Close
Figure 10-34. Color coded map of distribution of tensile resistance for Example 3
The color coded map in Figure 10-34 complements Figure 10-34. It shows that the reinforcement
is highly mobilized between the two tiers next to the bench in the sandstone. The greenish zone
in the lower tier shows the area where the second (lower) peak of reinforcement force is
mobilized. It is located under the slope of the upper tier as well as under the inner edge setback.
Recall that in this computation, the soil strength is fully mobilized; i.e., the target Fs is 1.0. For a
complex case like Example 3, it is recommended to use the LE framework in ‘reverse’. That is,
check whether for reinforcement with LTDS which is equal to Tmax-i the resulted Fs is
approximately 1.0 (i.e., the same value based on which Treq was computed). Using Bishop
analysis, Figure 10-35 shows that for LTDS = 703 lb/ft, the actual Fs=1.00. Note that the
computed value is for assumed circular slip surfaces. In complex strata, multi-polygonal surfaces
could be more critical. It is recommended to check other possible surfaces to ascertain that for
the specified LTDS value indeed Fs=1.00 and not substantially lower. Commercially available
software which considers pullout resistance while enabling the use of general shaped slip surface
for reinforced soil can be used for this purpose.
103

RESULTS DISPLAY PLOT / PRINT CAPTURE SAFETY M A P
·-
Strip load
-
_l
_l_
SCALE [ft.]
30
--"-
_i
•
--"-
_i_ ,-- I I
-1.. 20 I I I
_i_ I I I
C I I I
--"- I I I
_jQ
-11. ,
10 ,
_.ll ,
,
-11 ,
_ll I
/
__.1§_ /
_.1§_ 0
/
Re~un y /
___E X3··>X4 Toe point /
~
I
....ll /
....ll /
~ A
4 @11>1Hide Scale I X
~~ I Gridlines I
~
~ Minimum factor of safety = 1.00 X = N/A Right-dick to change Type
l c lick to display distribution of or Length of reinf. or soil
available tensile resistance
Radius = 8 5. 77 ft. Y = N/A parameters. I OK
I
Figure 10-35. Conventional stability analysis: Critical circle and Fs for LTDS=703 lb/ft
Finally, max(Tmax) = 703 lb/ft (Table 10-7); selecting reduction factor of RF=2.0 (see Example 1)
which accounts for installation damage, durability and creep, and a factor of safety on strength
Fs-strength =1.5, the required minimum ultimate strength of the geosynthetic would be Tult =
703×2.0×1.5 = 2,109 lb/ft. This implies long term design strength in global stability calculations
of LTDS = 2,109/2 = 1,055 lb/ft. Using this long term design value in Bishop global stability
analysis while considering connection capacity and front and rear pullouts, one gets the safety
map shown in Figure 10-36. It can be seen that Fs = 1.36 (i.e., >1.30). The zone within which the
safety factor is between 1.36 and 1.50 is rather narrow, tending to be in the rear of the reinforced
zone in the upper half of the structure. In the lower portion of the wall, the reinforcement is
hardly mobilized in its back side (see also Figure 10-34).
104

·-
Strip load
-
_l
SCALE [ft.]
_l_
-"-
_i E3 3.00
30
-"-
_i_
•
-1..
2.00
1.50
20 IA
- -t-••••~•J
r•IJI,-;..
•
....
IJII
1.30 / J !
_i_
.'-'
-"-
_jQ
C
#j
}:
'
..
I
-11.
_.ll 10 . ..:;,.
..
-11
D ..
_ll
~- ..·~
__.1§_
_.1§_ ,'
~~
--
.•-~-
___E
_j§_
Re~un
X3-·>X4
0
Toe point
y
.•. ~
r
_ll ,. r
~ A .
4 @11>1Hide Scale I X
~~ I Gridlines I
~
~ Minimum factor of safety = 1. 36 X = N/A Right-dick to change Type
l c lick to display distribution of or Length of reinf. or soil
available tensile resistance
Radius = 40. 53 ft. Y = N/A parameters. I OK
I
Figure 10-36. Example 3: Safety map for the designed problem
While Figure 10-36 indicates that the reinforcement layout and strength is satisfactory, it is based
on rotational circular failures. One needs to ascertain that other failure mechanisms are not more
critical.
10.5 Commentary
As stated in Section 9.7 and demonstrated in this chapter, the LE-based design involves two
stages:
1. First, use the top-down framework to compute the baseline Treq(x) for each layer i and then
determine Tmax-i. This is done for a specified layout of reinforcement, utilizing the peak
design strength (e.g., φ) of the soil. Use of full (peak) strength is consistent with AASHTO
where φ is limited to maximum of 40°. The 40° limitation is an artifact of existing practice
where the calibrated semi-empirical method has been used. Such limitation in the context of
LE design is not needed thus enabling a geotechnical engineer to take full advantage of well
compacted good quality selected backfill. The process leads to the selection of (ductile or
extensible) geosynthetics for a ‘true’ limit state. That is, stability at this state is hinging on
the ultimate strength of the reinforcement,
105
Tult ≥ (Fs-strength ×Tmax-i) RFd×RFid×RFc (10.1)
Written differently,
LTDS = Tult /(RFd×RFid×RFc) ≥ (Fs-strength ×Tmax-i) (10.2)
Tult, and the reduction factors related to installation damage (RFid), durability (RFd), and
creep (RFc), are leading to the long term design strength, LTDS, of the reinforcement:
2. Second, check the preliminary design rendered by the baseline solution for global stability
using target Fs on the peak strength of the soil that is ≥1.3. This Fs is standard in
conventional LE analysis of reinforced or unreinforced slopes. In this analysis, LTDS is
considered. At the intersection of any slip surface with a reinforcement layer, either LTDS or
pullout resistance, whichever is smaller, is used (Figure 3-1) in the LE equations. Note that
the factor of safety on the reinforcement strength, Fs-strength, is not used in this stage; it is
used in the first stage. In the second stage, one global factor of safety, Fs≥1.3, applied to the
soil strength is used. If the actual Fs is less than the minimum required value (e.g., 1.3), the
designer needs to increase the strength and/or length of reinforcement until global stability is
adequate. As demonstrated in this chapter, the safety map may facilitate this process.
There is seemingly a conflict; i.e., no explicit factor of safety on the strength of reinforcement
used in the second stage. However, LTDS is utilized for soils having reduced shear strength by
Fs {i.e., φdesign = tan-1[tan(φ)/Fs] and cdesign = c/Fs}. Reduced soil strength results in required
longer and stronger reinforcement than for the baseline where the soil actual strength is fully
mobilized (i.e., Fs=1.0). Note that Tult contains Fs-strength and, when conducting the second
stage, the ultimate strength should not be smaller than the value selected in the first stage. This
means that if, due to unforeseen circumstances, φ is fully mobilized reaching the idealized LE
state in the first stage (i.e., an ‘active’ wedge is formed), Fs-strength would be ≥1.5. The first
stage design should ensure this Fs-strength. If the initially selected LTDS renders Fs≥1.3 in the
second stage, Fs-strength≥1.5 is assured in actual limit state condition. However, if the initial
LTDS must be increased and/or the reinforcement lengthened to meet the Fs≥1.3 requirement in
the second stage than a new ultimate or long term design strength must be selected,
Tult=(LTDS×RFd×RFid×RFc), and it should be larger than the original value produced in the first
stage. This requires a simple trial and error process that needs to satisfy global stability (e.g., see
discussion in Section 10.3). Alternatively, specifying Fs>1.0 can be done in the first stage. It is
noted that an increase in LTDS and/or length of reinforcement in the second stage could also be
due to foundation failure (see Section 10.3) and it is not directly related to the reinforced mass
itself. The top-down (first stage) approach does not consider directly the foundation effects (i.e.,
it assume a competent foundation) counting on the second stage (global stability assessment) to
rectify possible deep-seated instability. However, if warranted, the top-down approach can be
extended to include the impact of the foundation in the first stage.
Generally, the connection loads, To-i, produced by the LE framework at a limit state are small
relative to AASHTO’s design method. However, the connection load at the top layer could be
large, especially if the spacing or backslope is large. The following comments are made:
106
1. The LE methodology is for the complete structure. However, during construction, as layers
are placed sequentially, each layer will serve temporarily as a ‘top’ layer. Hence, the short
term connection strength for each layer below the final top layer could exceed the connection
load at the top, even if for the final structure the load at the lower connections decrease. Of
course, if the connection load of the lower layers is higher than that at the top, these loads
prevail. This construction perspective combined with flexible facing should not affect the
outcome of design.
2. To-i was obtained for limit state where some facing movement during construction is
acceptable. However, this may cause a serviceability issue in critical applications such as
bridge abutments or in cases where footings of buildings are located over the reinforced soil
zone. That is, when high surcharge is applied after construction is complete. In such cases
one may require that the connection capacity at each elevation to be equal to the limit state
maximum load in the respective reinforcement layer; i.e., (To-i)imposed=Tmax-i. Figure 10-37
schematically shows this requirement.
Figure 10-37. Link between LE results and possible design specification
3. Regardless of serviceability considerations mentioned in (2), firmly restraining the facing

through increased connection capacity (Figure 10-37) should result in the following:
– Enable better compaction next to the facing, an important element responsible for good
performance of earth structures.
107
– Provide better confinement at the facing. Such confinement stiffens the reinforced soil
mass as well as increase the soil strength, resulting in additional margin of safety for
stability.
– In lieu of firmly restraining the facing (i.e., use To for limit state rather than To=Tmax as in
Figure 10-37), closely spaced reinforcement combined with high quality compacted
backfill can be used. The restraining and confinement produced by such technique has a
proven record in numerous constructed GRS walls.
4. Most MSE structures are not sensitive to minor movement of the facing that develop during
construction. Furthermore, experience indicates that in many systems with moderate
connection capacity, existing construction techniques ensure acceptable overall performance.
Consequently, connection capacities, considered as long term values, generated by the LE
framework, are adequate provided that (1) above is satisfied.
5. As demonstrated in this chapter, if needed, the connection load can be reduced if closely
spaced reinforcement is used. Such reinforcement need not be through the entire structure nor
need it be full length; i.e., it could be installed as secondary reinforcement in locations where
needed.
108
11.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Current design of reinforced earth structures in the US distinguishes between slopes and walls
using the batter angle as a criterion. Batter ≤20° is defined as a reinforced wall and batter >20° is
defined as a reinforced slope. Different design-oriented analyses are used for walls and slopes,
generally leading to significantly different outcomes. Such distinction simplifies the design of
walls by virtue of using a synergy of simple analyses that are tangible and metaphorically, except
for global stability, can be done ‘on-the-back-of-the-envelope-calculations’. While the semi-
empirical approach to walls results in safe structures, it is not consistent with traditional and
well-established geotechnical design of similar structures; i.e., slopes. Reinforced slopes and
walls can be considered as a subset of slope stability problems where manmade reinforced soil
slopes are constructed over foundation soil. Slope inclination (or batter) is just a typical design
variable which is not an artifact of convenience of calculations. Using a unified approach in limit
state design of reinforced ‘walls’ and ‘slopes’ should diminish confusion. It should enable a
consistent approach to solving various geotechnical problems such as complex geometries and
non-uniform soil profiles.
Limit equilibrium (LE) analysis has been used successfully in the design of complex and critical
structures (e.g., tall dams) for many decades. The LE formulation requires some assumptions in
statics and/or geometry of failure. Hence, there are quite a few LE methods where each is based
on somewhat different assumptions. Generally, and in a practical perspective, the difference
introduced by properly using different assumptions is lesser than that associated with field
characterization of properties. Reliability and simplicity of LE analyses keep its use common in
the USA.
Limit state analysis, including LE, assumes that the design strength of the soil is mobilized. The
degree of mobilization (or utilization) signifies the margin or factor of safety. Reinforcement is
installed in slopes that otherwise are inherently unstable. Therefore, any procedure assumes that
at a limit state the design strength of the soil is fully mobilized (i.e. Fs=1.0) and stability now is
hinging upon the mobilized tensile resistance of the reinforcement. At that state, design should
ensure that the long term strength of the reinforcement would be available along the
reinforcement. A silent assumption in this concept is that the reinforcement will not rupture as
the soil deforms while mobilizing its strength. Often this phenomenon is referred to as
compatibility. Geosynthetic reinforcement is ductile (‘extensible’), capable of developing
substantial strain (typically >8%) before rupture. Such planar strains are much larger than those
needed for granular compacted backfill to mobilize its strength (i.e., to form an ‘active’ mass).
From this perspective, combined with experimental and numerical investigations reviewed in this
report, the limit state concept in general and LE in particular are suitable for design of
geosynthetic reinforced slopes/walls. This assertion is supported by the performance of
numerous reinforced slopes designed and constructed over the past three decades. However,
experimental and numerical confirmation of limit state of relatively brittle (i.e., ‘inextensible’)
reinforcement is scarce. Hence, the question of compatibility of inextensible reinforcement in the
context of limit state still remains. Consequently, at this stage the scope of this work is limited to
extensible reinforcement.
Presented herein is a LE framework which enables the designer to find the tensile force
distribution in each layer required at a limit state. This distribution is a function of the geometry
109
of the slope, the soils comprising the slope, the layout of the reinforcement, the parameters
characterizing the interaction of the reinforcement with the confining soil, seismicity, and other
relevant aspects. The tensile distribution is determined by assessing test bodies at many locations
while varying the mobilized force in the reinforcement, aiming to produce the same limit state at
each location (i.e., any point within the reinforced mass has Fs=1.0 and hence, the same margin
of safety as expressed by Fs). The end result of such analysis produces the maximum tensile
force mobilized in each layer as well as the connection load between the reinforcement and the
facing. The designer can then select geosynthetic (and facing) considering reduction factors for
installation damage, durability, creep, as well as an applied factor of safety on the long term
strength (i.e., standard procedure in selecting geosynthetic reinforcement with adequate ultimate
strength). However, while this stage of design ensures ‘local’ stability considering the
reinforcement force as a variable, it may not guarantee global stability where the soil strength
mobilized is limited by a prescribed minimum factor of safety (e.g., Fs≥1.3). Hence, after
selecting the reinforcement based on the first stage, in the second stage the designer needs to
conduct a conventional LE stability assessment using commercially available software.
Compound and foundation/deep seated failures need to be assessed while the reinforcement
strength is limited by its actual long term strength. This strength is not subjected to an additional
factor of safety (Fs-strength) since the target global factor of safety, Fs, de facto considers
‘weaker’ soil and therefore, results in stronger and longer reinforcement than needed for actual
limit state. This long term strength along the reinforcement is limited by pullout resistance at the
rear and front ends of each reinforcement layer. Connection capacity plays a role in assessing the
front end pullout capacity.
Three example problems are presented. For a case comparable with AASHTO, it is shown that
the reinforcement strength required using the LE framework is about half that computed using
the AASHTO method. It is also shown that the so-called bearing capacity mode of failure is
addressed through LE stability analysis considering foundation failure. While the discussion on
traditional bearing capacity of MSE structures, such as AASHTO, versus LE stability analysis of
the foundation is limited, in-depth review of the subject is presented in Leshchinsky et al. (2012).
Sliding is assessed through two-part wedge LE analysis. The design aspects of eccentricity
considered in AASHTO, cannot be conducted using LE in a straightforward manner. However,
while eccentricity is a valid consideration in footing design, it has little relevance to earthen fill
over foundation soil. That is, eccentricity and ‘overturning’ are typically assessed in rigid gravity
wall analyses. Indeed overturning is a common mode of failure of gravity walls; however, there
is little evidence of such mode of failure when dealing with reinforced walls/slopes. Besides, this
issue can and should be dealt with in serviceability assessment where differential settlement of
the foundation soil is assessed. This example also shows the impact of closely spaced
reinforcement, secondary reinforcement, and seismicity. Closely spaced reinforcement reduces
the required strength of reinforcement as well as the connection load. Secondary reinforcement
has intermediate effects between large spacing and close spacing of reinforcement; i.e., it reduces
the required strength of geosynthetics while significantly reducing the connection loads at some
zones. Seismicity increases the required short term strength of the reinforcement with little effect
on connection load if inertia of facing is ignored. The locus of maximum load in the
reinforcement is pushed backwards as seismicity increases. This may result in increased length
of reinforcement compared with the static case.
110
The second example is similar to the first one but has a batter that classifies it as a ‘slope’. The
mobilized force in the reinforcement and connection drops relative to the first example.
However, foundation instability could be an issue. It is shown that lengthening a few lower
layers could resolve this problem. More importantly, a ‘slope’ and a ‘wall’ can be compared
using the same design tool. This may lead to more objective decisions which relate to the
economics of the alternatives.
The third example is for a complex wall/slope geometry consisting of a two-tiered system where
the upper tier is defined by AASHTO as a ‘slope’, and the lower one is defined as a ‘wall’. Each
tier has its own backfill. The ‘retained’ material is a sandstone with large cohesion. The cut in
the sandstone does not require a retaining wall to support it. The LE framework provides the
required strength of reinforcement and connection without resorting to assumptions beyond those
used for any other problem (such as in the first two examples).
To use AASHTO terminology, the LE approach is restricted to Allowable Stress Design (ASD).
Modifying it to Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) is a challenge. Simply, the concept
of LRFD requires complete separation between load and resistance. In limit analysis of soil
(including LE), such separation is not straightforward; e.g., increase in weight of a sliding mass
increases the destabilizing load while simultaneously increases the resistance of the frictional
material. In lieu of LRFD, it is suggested that a future development would be a modification of
the proposed approach to include stochastic (probabilistic) LE analysis. This is consistent with
soil behavior and geotechnical practice.
Finally, the top-down approach is applicable to slopes that do not possess sufficient stability as
prescribed by a required minimum factor of safety and where extensible reinforcement may be
used as a remedy. It is also applicable to embankment over soft soil where failures through the
foundation can be controlled by base reinforcement. However, in such problems the top-down
approach needs to consider slip surfaces emerging away from the toe; i.e., foundation/deep
seated failures. Such problems are beyond the scope of this work.
111
12.0 REFERENCES
AASHTO, Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th ed., AASHTO, Washington, DC,
2002.
AASHTO, LRFD bridge design specifications, 4th ed., AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2007.
Allen, T.M., and Bathurst, R.J., “Prediction of soil reinforcement loads in mechanically
stabilized earth (MSE) walls.” Rep. No. WARD-522.1, Washington State Department of
Transportation, Seattle, 2001.
Allen, T.M., and Bathurst, R.J., "Prediction of reinforcement loads in reinforced soil walls," Rep.
No. WARD-522.2, Washington State Transportation Center, 2003.
Anderson, P., Gladstone, R., and Sankey, J., “State of the Practice of MSE Wall Design for
Highway Structures,” Proc. of GeoCongress 2012, ASCE, GSP 2012, 443-463.
Baker, R., and Leshchinsky, D., “Spatial distributions of safety factors,” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, 127(2), 2001, 135–145.
Bathurst, R. J., Vlachopoulos N., Walters, D. L., Burgess, P. G., and Allen, T. M., “The
influence of facing stiffness on the performance of two geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining
walls,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 43(12), 2006, 1225-1237.
Berg, R., Christopher, B.R., and Samtani, N., Design of mechanically stabilized earth walls and
reinforced soil slopes, Vols. I and II, Reports No. FHWA-NHI-10-024/025, Federal Highway
Administration, 2009. 684 pp.
Bishop, A. W., “The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes,” Géotechnique, 5(1),
1955, 7-17.
Bolton, M.D., “The strength and dilatency of sands,” Geotechnique, 1986, 36(1), 65-78.
BS 8006, 2010. Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills.
British Standard Institution, ISBN 978 0 580 53842 1, ICS 93.020, 260 p.
Cheng, Y.M., Lansivaara, T., and Wei, W.B., “Two-dimensional slope stability analysis by limit
equilibrium and strength reduction methods,” Computers and Geotechnics, 34, 2007, 137-150.
Damians, I.P., Bathurst, R.J., Josa, A., and Lloret, A., “Numerical Analysis of an Instrumented
Steel-Reinforced Soil Wall,” Int. Journal of Geomechanics, 15, 2015, 1-15.
Damians, I.P., Bathurst, R.J., Josa, A., Lloret, A., and Albuquerque, P.J.R., “Vertical-Facing
Loads in Steel-Reinforced Soil Walls,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng.,
139(9), 2013, 1419-1432.
112
Design Standard for Railway Earth Structures, 2013, Railway Technical Research Institute.
Maruzen, pp. 56-57 (in Japanese).
Duncan, J.M., “State of the art: Limit equilibrium and finite-element analysis of slopes,” Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, 122(7), 1996, 577-596.
Duncan, J.M., and Wright, S.G., Soil Strength and Slope Stability, 2005, John Wiley & Sons, 297
pp
EBGEO, 2011. Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth Structures Using
Geosynthetic Reinforcement. German Geotechnical Society, Ernst & Sohn, GmbH & Co. KG
(Chapter 7).
Ehrlich, M., and Becker, L. D. B., “Reinforced soil wall measurements and predictions.” Proc.,
9th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics: Geosynthetics for a challenging world, E. M. Palmeira, D. M.
Vidal, A. S. J. F. Sayao, and M. Ehrlich, eds., Vol. 1, IGS Brasil and ABMS, Brazil, 2010, 547–
559.
Eurocode 7, 2004. Geotechnical design—Part 1: General rules, CEN—European committee for

standardization, Brussels.
Fannin, R. J., and Hermann, S., “Performance data for a sloped reinforced soil wall,” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 27(5), 1990, 676–686.
Fannin, R.J., 2001, “Long-Term Variations of Force and Strain in a Steep

Geogrid-Reinforced Soil Slope”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 81-96.
Han, J. and Leshchinsky, D., “General Analytical Framework for Design of Flexible Reinforced
Earth Structures,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., 132(11), 2006, 1427–
1435.
Han, J., and Leshchinsky, D., “Stability Analysis of Back–to–Back MSE Walls,” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28(3), 2010, 262-267
Huang, B., Bathurst, R. J., Hatami, K., and Allen, T. M., “Influence of toe restraint on reinforced
soil segmental walls,” Canadian Geotechnical J., 47(8), 2010, 885–904.
Jacobsz, S.W., “Centrifuge modelling of a soil nail retaining wall,” J. of the South Africa
Institute of Civil Engineering, 55(1), 2013, 85-93.
Kim, W.S., and Borden, R.H., “Numerical simulation of MSE wall behavior induced by surface
water infiltration,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, 139(12), 2013,
2110-2124.
Koerner, R. M. and Koerner G. R., “A data base, statistics and recommendations regarding 171
failed geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls,” Geotextile and
Geomembranes, 2013, Vol. 40, 20-27.
113
Lee, K.L. and Seed, H.B., “Drained Strength Characteristics of Sands,” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1967, 93(6), 117-141.
Leshchinsky, D., "Design Procedure for Geosynthetic Reinforced Steep Slopes," Geotechnical
Laboratory, US Army Corps of Eng., Waterways Experiment Station, Report REMR-GT-23,
1997, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Leshchinsky, D., “The Power of Software in Reinforcement Applications: Part I, Part II, Part III,
Part IV,” Geotechnical Fabrics Report, 23, 2005, Numbers 5, 6, 7, 8.
Leshchinsky, D., “On global equilibrium in design of geosynthetic reinforced walls,” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 135(3), 2009, 309-315.
Leshchinsky, D., “Topics in Geosynthetic Reinforced Earth Structures,” Keynote Paper, Proc.,
Conferenze Di Geotechnica Di Torino, XXIII Cicloe: Earth Retaining Structures and Slope
Stabilization: Theory, Design, and Application, 2011
Leshchinsky, D., and Han, J., “Geosynthetic reinforced multitiered walls.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, 130(12), 2004, 1225–1235.
Leshchinsky, D., Hu, Y, and Han, J., “Limited Reinforced Space in Segmental Retaining Walls,”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 22(6), 2004, 543-553.
Leshchinsky, D., Imamoglu, B. and Meehan, C.L., “Exhumed Geogrid-Reinforced Retaining

Wall,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2010a, 136(10),
1311-1323
Leshchinsky, D., Kang, B.J., Han, J., and Ling, H.I., “Framework for Limit State Design of
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Walls and Slopes,” Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology,
Springer, 1(2), 2014, 129-164
Leshchinsky, D. and Lambert, G., "Failure of Cohesionless Model Slopes Reinforced with
Flexible and Extensible Inclusions," Transportation Research Record, No. 1330, 1991, 54-63.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H. I., and Hanks, G., “Unified design approach to geosynthetic reinforced
slopes and segmental walls.” Geosynthetic International, 2(4), 1995, 845–881.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H.I., Wang, J-P, Rosen, A., Mohri, Y., “Equivalent seismic coefficient in
geocell retention systems,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(1) 2009, 9-18.
Leshchinsky, D. and Tatsuoka, F., “Geosynthetic reinforced walls in the public sector:
Performance, design, and redundancy” Geosynthetics Magazine, 31(3), 2013, 12-21.
Leshchinsky, D. and Vahedifard, F., "Impact of Toe Resistance in Reinforced Masonry Block
Walls: Design Dilemma," Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
138(2), 2012, 236-240.
114
Leshchinsky, D., Vahedifard, F., and Leshchinsky, B.A., “Revisiting bearing capacity analysis of
MSE walls,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 34, 2012, 100-107.
Leshchinsky, D., Zhu F., and Meehan, C.L., “Required Unfactored Strength of Geosynthetic in
Reinforced Earth Structures,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
2010b, 136(2), 281-289.
Ling, H.I., Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K. and Liu, H., “Large-Scale
Shaking Table Tests on Modular-Block Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall,” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2005,131(4), 465-476.
Ling, H.I., Wu, M.-H., Leshchinsky, D., Leshchinsky, B. A., “Centrifuge Modeling of Slope
Instability,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2009, 135(6),
758-767.
Mohamed, S.B.A., Yang, K-H, Hung, W-Y, “Limit equilibrium analyses of geosynthetic
reinforced two-tiered walls: Calibration from centrifuge tests,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
41, 2013, 1-16.
Mohamed, S.B.A., Yang, K-H, Hung, W-Y, “Finite element analyses of two-tier geosynthetic
reinforced soil walls: Comparison involving centrifuge tests and limit equilibrium results,”
Computers and Geotechnics, 61, 2014, 67-84.
Quinteros, V. S., 2014, “Observations on the mobilization of strength in reinforced soil

structures,” Master of Applied Science Thesis in the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral
Studies (Civil Engineering), The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Shukha R, Baker, R., “Mesh geometry effects on slope stability calculation by FLAC strength
reduction method—linear and nonlinear failure criteria,” 3rd International Conference on FLAC
and numerical modeling in geomechanics, Ontario, Canada, 2003, 109–116.
Tatsuoka, F., Koseki, J. and Tateyama, M., “Introduction to Japanese codes for reinforced soil
design,” Panel Discussion on Reinforced Soil Design Standards, Proc. 9th International
Conference on Geosynthetics, Brazil, 2010, pp. 245-255.
Valentine, R.J., “An Assessment of the Factors that Contribute to the Poor Performance of
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Earth Retaining Walls,” Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Design and Practice of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures, 14-16 October, 2013,
Bologna, Italy, DEStech Publications, 751 pp. pp. 318-330
Yang, K-H, Gupta, R., and Zornberg, J.G., “Location of Failure Plane within Narrow GRS Wall
Systems,” Proc. Geosynthetics 2009, Salt Lake City, Utah, 329-339.
Yang, K-H, Utomo, P., and Liu, T-L, “Evaluation of force-equilibrium and deformation-based
design approaches for predicting reinforcement loads within geosynthetic reinforced soil
structures,” Journal of GeoEngineering, 8(2), 2013, 41-54.
115
Yoo, C., “Effect of rainfall on performance of geosynthetic reinforced soil wall using stress-pore
pressure coupled analysis,” Proc. of Geo-Congress 2013, ASCE, 566-573.
Yoo, C. and Jung, H.Y., "Case History of Geosynthetics Reinforced Segmental Retaining Wall
Failure", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 132(12), 2007,
1538-1548.
Zhang, F., Leshchinsky, D., Gao, Y., and Leshchinsky, B. A., “Required Unfactored Strength of
Geosynthetics in Reinforced 3D Slopes,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier, 42(6),
November 2014, 576-585.
Zienkiewicz, O. C., Humpheson, C., and Lewis, R. W., “Associated and nonassociated
viscoplasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics,” Géotechnique, 25(4), 1975, 671–689.
Zornberg, J. G., Sitar, N., and Mitchell, J. K., “Limit equilibrium as basis for design of
geosynthetic reinforced slopes,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE,
124(8), 1998, 684–694.
116
13.0 SOFTWARE REFERENCES
A few computer programs are referenced in the report. Most of these programs were used by the
individuals cited in the report. The details of software used can be found in the cited papers.
Below is a list of the referenced programs and their availability:
Flac, Itasca Consulting Group, http://www.itascacg.com/software/flac
MSEW, ADAMA Engineering, www.MSEW.com
Plaxis, Plaxis BV, www.plaxis.nl
ReSlope, ADAMA Engineering, www.GeoPrograms.com
ReSSA, ADAMA Engineering, www.GeoPrograms.com
Slide, Rocscience, https://www.rocscience.com/rocscience/products/slide
Slope/W, GeoSlope International, http://www.geo-slope.com/
STEDwin, Annapolis Engineering Software, www.stedwin.com
UTEXAS4, Ensoft Inc., http://ensoftinc.com/
117
APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF BISHOP EQUATION FOR REINFORCED SOIL
Eqn. 9.3 shows Bishop Equation for a safety factor corresponding to a soil mass defined by a
circular arc as shown in Figure 9-2. This mass intersects reinforcement layers, all assumed to
mobilize force in the horizontal direction. Many test bodies are examined in the optimization
process until the one rending the lowest safety factor, Fs, is identified.
In deriving Bishop equation, the original methodology presented by Bishop (1955) is preserved.
Consider slice i as shown in Figure A-1. Notice typical forces acting on it; for simplicity forces
due to external loading, water, and seismicity are not shown. A single reinforcement layer
intersects this slice producing a certain force, Ti. The reinforcement force (perhaps at different
magnitude) needs to be shown on the left side of the slice. However, this is an internal force
that eventually cancels out. At the base of the slice, Ti is inclined at angle θ to the horizontal.
Eqn. 9.3 takes θ=0; however, the derivation here allows for this force to be inclined.
Figure A-1. Forces acting on slice i
Taking moments about the center of a test circle having radius R and requiring limit state
equilibrium ΣMo=0, result in elimination of the normal force Ni:
Wi R sinαi – Si R + Ex+Δx (R cosαi - bx+Dx) – Ex (R cosαi – bx) +
(T x+Δx – Tx) R sinαi – Ti R cos(αi -θ) = 0 (A.1)
118
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with the safety factor applied on soil strength:
Si = (ci Δxi /cosαi + Ni tan φi) / SF (A.2)
Substituting Eqn. A.2 into A.1 and dividing through by R gives us the forces on a slice in terms
of the safety factor SF:
Wi sinαi – (ci Δxi /cosαi + Ni tanφi) / SF + Ex+Δx ( cosαi - bx+Δx/SF) –
Ex (cosαi – bx/R) + (Tx+Δx – Tx) sinαi – Ti cos(αi - θ) = 0 (A.3)
The definition of SF (taken as a constant along the circular surface) will not change if Eqn. A.3 is
summed over all n slices. However, the moments due to interslice forces, E and T as well as
internal reinforcement force (not shown in Figure A-1), will be cancelled by the moments of the
same internal forces acting in opposite direct on the adjacent slice. Consequently, SF can be
extracted from Eqn. A.3:
SF = {Σ(ciΔxi /cosαi + Ni tanφi) } / { Σ[Wi sinαi - Ti cos(αi - θ)] } (A.4)
To determine Ni, forces in the vertical direction are summed for slice i requiring equilibrium
ΣNi=0:
Wi – Ni cosαi – Si sinαi + Tx+Δx – Tx – Ti sin θ = 0 (A.5)
Substituting Eqn. A.2 into A.5 and rearranging the terms, one gets the normal force as:
Ni = {Wi – (ciΔxi tanαi)/SF + Tx – Tx+Δx – Ti sinθ} / {cosαi + (sinαi tanφi)/SF} (A.6)
Use the following notation:
mαi= cos αi + (sin αi tan φi)/SF
Substitute Eqn. A.6 into A.4 and rearrange the terms using the notation of mαi:
SF = Σ{ciΔxi / mαi + [(Wi – Ti sinθ) + (Tx – Tx+Δx)] tanφi / mαi } /
{ Σ [ Wi sinαi -Ti cos(αi - θ)]} (A.7)
This expression can be solved for SF provided that Tx and Tx+ Δx are known. The result then is
rigorous (for a circular sliding surface). However, the values of Tx and Tx+ Δx are not
known. From statics, recognizing that force equilibrium over all internal forces requires:
Σ(Tx – Tx+Δx) = 0
119
To make the problem solvable, Bishop assumed that the following exists:
Σ{(Tx – Tx+Δx) tanφi / mαi} = 0 (A.8)
Using the assumption in Eqn. A.8, Eqn. A.7 degenerates to a single unknown F:
ൣ𝑐𝑐 ∆𝑥𝑥 +൫𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 + 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 sin 𝜃𝜃 ൯൧ tan 𝜙𝜙𝑖𝑖

∑ ൜ 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 ൠ
𝑚𝑚 𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖
𝑆𝑆𝐹𝐹 = ∑[𝑊𝑊𝑖𝑖 sin 𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖 − 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 cos(𝛼𝛼𝑖𝑖 −𝜃𝜃)]
(A.9)
where mαi= cos αi + (sin αi tan φi)/SF
This equation is Bishop Equation modified to include reinforcement force acting at the base of
slice i and inclined at angle θ to the horizontal. Eqn. 9.3 is a representation of Eqn. A.9 taking
θ=0. Note that Eqn. A.9 is essentially a ratio of moments (commonly termed as resisting over
driving moments) where the leverage arm R cancels by virtue of being a multiplier in both
denominator and numerator. This fact is noted since one looking at Eqn. A.9 might conclude that
it is a ratio of scalar summation of force vectors (it is not). The impact of other forces acting on
slices can be integrated into this moment equation following the presented derivation. Consistent
derivation eliminates the frequently stated dilemma whether the moment contribution by Ti
should be in the denominator or numerator. It is not an arbitrary decision but rather a result of
proper formulation in statics.
120

Fhwa Hif 17 004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fhwa Hif 17 004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fhwa Hif 17 004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document discussing?

What is the document discussing?

What is the Bishop equation and how is it derived?

What is the Bishop equation and how is it derived?

Notice

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

Quality Assurance Statement

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

FHWA COR – Silas Nichols, P.E.

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 120

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

1.1 MSE Structures: Limit Equilibrium Concept in a Nutshell ........................................ 4

1.2 Overall Organization of Report and Rationale ........................................................... 6

2.0 COMMON METHODS OF ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 8

3.0 LE APPROACH INCLUDING THE SAFETY MAP TOOL .................................... 10

4.0 COMPARISON OF LE PREDICTIONS WITH PHYSICAL MODEL TESTS...... 18

4.1 Extensible Reinforcement ......................................................................................... 18

4.1.1 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 28

4.2 Inextensible Reinforcement ...................................................................................... 29

5.0 COMPARISON OF LE PREDICTIONS WITH FE/FD RESULTS ......................... 30

5.1 Extensible Reinforcement ......................................................................................... 30

5.1.1 Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................. 38

5.2 Inextensible Reinforcement ...................................................................................... 39

6.0 LE AND LRFD ................................................................................................................ 40

7.0 USE OF LE IN DESIGN OF MSE WALLS ................................................................ 42

7.1 General ...................................................................................................................... 42

7.2 The European Standard: Eurocode 7—Geotechnical Design ................................... 42

7.3 The German Approach: EBGEO .............................................................................. 43

7.4 The British Standard: BS 8006 ................................................................................. 44

7.5 The Japan Rail Approach .......................................................................................... 45

8.0 RETROSPECTIVE: LIMIT STATE ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED WALLS .... 47

9.0 FRAMEWORK FOR LE ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 49

9.1 Basics of Soil Reinforcing ........................................................................................ 49

9.2 Bishop LE Formulation............................................................................................. 51

9.3 Overview of the Modified LE Procedure.................................................................. 54

9.4 Concept of Rupture and Pullout in LE Analysis ....................................................... 56

9.5 Top-down Approach Yielding the Baseline Solution ............................................... 58

9.6 Facing Effects on Calculated Reinforcement Load at Limit State ........................... 60

10.0 INSTRUCTIVE DESIGN EXAMPLES ....................................................................... 65

10.1 Overview of Top-down Procedure............................................................................ 65

10.2 Example 1: Simple Wall Problem Compared with AASHTO 2002......................... 67

10.2.1 AASHTO Approach.............................................................................................. 67

10.2.2 LE Framework ...................................................................................................... 69

10.2.3 Closely Spaced Reinforcement ............................................................................. 78

10.2.4 Seismicity and Closely Spaced Reinforcement .................................................... 82

10.2.5 Secondary Reinforcement ..................................................................................... 87

10.3 Example 2: Simple Slope Problem ........................................................................... 92

10.5 Commentary............................................................................................................ 105

11.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS ....................................................................................... 109

12.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 112

13.0 SOFTWARE REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 117

APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF BISHOP EQUATION FOR REINFORCED SOIL .. 118

Mexico, Hurricane Alex] ..............................................................................................3

Cusseta, Alabama; photo taken February 2007] ..........................................................3

WV, March 2015].........................................................................................................4

Figure 3-2. The basic problem of multi-tiered slope/wall .............................................................12

Figure 3-6. Safety map using three-part wedge surfaces ...............................................................16

soil strength and offset ...............................................................................................20

function of φ and reinforcement length in upper tier .................................................22