Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Evaluation of oblique pullout resistance of reinforcements in soil wall

subjected to seismic loads
Yufeng Gao a, Shangchuan Yang a, *, Yongxin Wu a, Dayong Li b, Fei Zhang a
a
Key Laboratory of Ministry of Education for Geomechanics and Embankment Engineering, Hohai University, No. 1, Xikang Road, Nanjing 210098, China
b
College of Civil Engineering & Architecture, Shandong University of Science and Technology, No. 579, Qianwangang Rd., Huangdao, Qingdao, 266590,
China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Pullout resistance is one of the most important factors governing seismic stability of reinforced soil walls.
Received 3 October 2013 The previous studies on the seismic stability of reinforced soil walls have focused on the axial resistance
Received in revised form of the reinforcement against the pullout. However, the kinematics of failure causes the reinforcement to
6 July 2014
be subjected to the oblique pullout force and bending deformation. Considering the kinematics of failure
Accepted 27 July 2014
Available online 15 August 2014
and bending deformation of the reinforcement, this paper presents a pseudo-static seismic analysis for
evaluating the pullout resistance of reinforcements in soil wall subjected to oblique pullout forces. A
modified horizontal slice method (HSM) and Pasternak model are used to calculate the required force to
Keywords:
Geosynthetics
maintain the stability of the reinforced soil wall and shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements,
Reinforced soil wall respectively. In addition, this paper studies the effect of various parameters on the pullout resistance of
Horizontal slice method the reinforcements in soil wall subjected to seismic loads. Results of this study are compared with the
Pseudo-static seismic analysis published data and their differences are analyzed in detail.
Safety factor © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pullout resistance

1. Introduction
Reinforced soil structures meeting modern design standards
were found slightly damaged in violently shaken areas where
major seismic events happened recently, for example, in the 1994
Northridge earthquake (Sandri, 1997; White and Holtz, 1997), 1995
Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake (Tatsuoka et al., 1995), 1995
Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake (Tatsuoka et al., 1997; Koseki, 2012),
2004 Niigataken-chuetsu earthquake, 2007 Noto-hanto earth-
quake, 2007 Niigataken-chuetsu-oki earthquake, 2008 Iwate-
Miyagi-nairiku earthquake, 2011 Off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku
earthquake (Koseki, 2012). Besides having performed well during
strong earthquakes, reinforced soil structures have the advantage
of low cost (Koerner and Soong, 2001). Therefore reinforced soil
structures have been extensively used. Their seismic behavior has
been attracting more attention and studied recently by many
methods, such as laboratory tests (e.g. Huang, 2013; Srilatha et al.,
2013; Wang et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2011; Izawa and Kuwano,
2011; Nakajima et al., 2010), numerical simulations (e.g. Lee and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ86 25 83787287; fax: þ86 25 83713073.
E-mail addresses: yfgao66@163.com (Y. Gao), ysc4711@gmail.com (S. Yang),
yxwuhhu@163.com (Y. Wu), ldy@sdust.edu.cn (D. Li), jefferygsls@gmail.com
(F. Zhang).
Chang, 2012; Liu et al., 2011) and theoretical analyses (e.g.
Vahedifard et al., 2013; Mojallal et al., 2012; Basha and Babu, 2012).
Theoretical approaches for the seismic analysis of reinforced soil
walls mainly adopt the pseudo-static approach representing the
effect of earthquake by the static force. Analytical techniques
mainly include the limit analysis method and the limit equilibrium
method. Assuming different distribution modes of reinforcement
strength, Michalowski (1998) applied the kinematic upper bound
theorem of limit analysis to evaluate the required strength and
length of reinforcement to prevent slopes from collapsing. Ausilio
et al. (2000) calculated the reinforcement force necessary to pre-
vent failure and obtained the yield acceleration of slopes subjected
to earthquake loads within the framework of the pseudo-static
method using the kinematic theorem of limit analysis for
different modes of failure. Limit equilibrium method is also
extensively applied for the analysis. Ling et al. (1997) extended the
static equilibrium approach for the design of reinforced soil slopes
and walls (Leshchinsky et al., 1995) to the seismic case and pre-
sented the seismic stability analysis of reinforced soil slopes
considering the horizontal acceleration and a tolerable displace-
ment against sliding for different modes of failure. Ling and
Leshchinsky (1998) investigated the effect of vertical acceleration
on the seismic stability of reinforced soil structures. Based on the
MononobeeOkabe limit equilibrium method, Bathurst and Cai

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.07.011
0266-1144/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
516 Y. Gao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524

(1995) proposed the procedure to conduct the pseudo-static

seismic analysis of geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining
walls. Baker and Klein (2004a, 2004b) optimized the design of
reinforced soil retaining structures by the limit equilibrium tech-
nique. Using a pseudo-static method based on a ‘multi-wedge’
failure mechanism, Huang and Wang (2005) calculated seismic
displacements of the Tanata wall and investigated the effect of
vertical acceleration on its seismic displacements and stability.
They found that the contribution of the ratio of vertical to hori-
zontal accelerations of the Tanata wall is small.
Pullout resistance is one of the most important factors govern-
ing seismic stability of reinforced soil walls. The previous studies on
reinforced soil walls have focused on the axial resistance of the
reinforcement against the pullout (Rowe and Ho, 1993; Jewell,
1992; Sobhi and Wu, 1996). The experimental results and direct
observations, however, show that because of kinematics of failure,
the reinforcement is subjected to an oblique pullout force which
causes bending deformation of the reinforcement (Shewbridge and
Sitar, 1989; Bergado et al., 2000). Then this bending deformation
increases the pullout capacity of the reinforcement. Hence, it is
necessary to consider the kinematics of failure and the consequent
bending deformation of the reinforcement for the pullout resis-
tance evaluation of reinforced soil walls.
Considering the kinematics of failure, Reddy et al. (2008) Fig. 2. Schematic of model used in this study (a) Single sheet reinforcement subjected
analyzed the seismic stability of reinforced soil wall with inex- to oblique force, (adapted from Patra and Shahu, 2012), (b) deformed profile and forces
tensible sheet reinforcements. Taking into account the increase in acting on the reinforcement (adapted from Patra and Shahu, 2012), (c) Kinematics of
tension due to the transverse displacement of reinforcement, they failure of horizontal soil slice with reinforcement.

developed the model proposed by Madhav and Umashankar (2003)

to calculate the pullout resistance of reinforcements in the soil wall.
However, this model does not establish equilibrium equations for
the tolerable final bent deformed shape of the reinforcement
(Fig. 1(a, b)). Fig. 1(a) illustrates that the anchored portion of the ith
reinforcement embedded at depth hi is subjected to a transverse
force, Pi, at Point A due to transverse displacement wi,L. Fig. 1(b)
shows the deformed profile of the anchored portion of the ith
reinforcement and the forces acting on it. Pi results in a higher shear
resistance mobilized in the ith layer of the reinforcement. But when
the kinematics of failure occurs, reinforcement deforms due to the
oblique pullout force (Fig. 2(a)), and the forces acting on the
anchored portion of the deformed reinforcement are shown in
Fig. 2(b). Besides, they modified the HSM proposed by Shahgholi
et al. (2001) to calculate the required force to maintain the stabil-
ity of the reinforced soil wall under seismic loading (Fig. 1(c)). But
the force is not assumed to be oblique when the kinematics of
failure occurs (Fig. 2(c)).
In this study, the HSM proposed by Nouri et al. (2006) is
modified and Pasternak model (Patra and Shahu, 2012) is
employed. Based on the pseudo-static method, the pullout resis-
tance of inextensible sheet reinforcements in soil wall is analyzed
considering the kinematics of failure. In calculating the required
force to prevent the failure of reinforced soil wall subjected to
seismic loads using HSM, the orientation of the force is set to be
oblique considering the kinematics of failure. The corresponding
results are compared with both Reddy et al. (2008) and the results
that only consider the axial resistance of the reinforcement against
the pullout obtained in this study.

Fig. 1. Schematic of model used in Reddy et al. (2008) (a) Single sheet reinforcement
subjected to transverse force, (adapted from Madhav and Umashankar, 2003), (b)
deformed profile and forces acting on the reinforcement (adapted from Madhav and
Umashankar, 2003), (c) Kinematics of failure of horizontal soil slice with Fig. 3. Geometric and geotechnical characteristics of reinforced soil wall with planar
reinforcement. failure surface and horizontal slices.
 Y. Gao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524 517

2. Method of analysis the strength parameters and it should be selected according

to the relevant Code of Practice or engineering judgment
Fig. 3 shows a reinforced soil wall having a height of H, with n (Nouri et al., 2008).
layers of inextensible reinforcement of length, L. The other symbols (2) The reinforcement is inextensible.
and parameters are also demonstrated in Fig. 3. As shown in Fig. 3, (3) Backfill is rigid plastic and isotropic.
Stop
v and Sbottom
v are the distance between the first reinforcement
and the top of the wall and the distance between the lowest rein-
forcement and the bottom of the wall, respectively; Svi is the dis- 2.1. Shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements
tance between reinforcement layer i and i þ 1; hi and Lei are the
embedment depth of reinforcement layer i and the anchorage When the kinematics of failure occurs, the failure surface in-
length for reinforcement layer i, respectively; g and f are the unit tersects the reinforcement obliquely, which causes bending defor-
weight and the factored internal friction angle of backfill, respec- mation of the reinforcement, and then the shear resistance
tively; fr is the angle of interface friction between the reinforce- mobilized in the reinforcements varies. Based on the Pasternak
ment and the backfill. When the kinematics of failure occurs, model, Patra and Shahu (2012) presented an oblique pullout model
Fig. 2(c) shows the directions of shear resistance mobilized in the for the inextensible sheet reinforcement. The Pasternak model uses
ith layer of reinforcement (Ti) and required force to maintain the Winkler springs to represent the soil subgrade and considers the
stability (ti). effect of shear stiffness of the subgrade. In this model, equilibrium
A series of laboratory shaking table and centrifuge tests of equations can be applied to develop the tolerable final deformed
reinforced slopes testify that the most frequently observed failure shape of the reinforcement, which is assumed to be inextensible
surface during a seismic event is a Log-spiral slip surface, but this and mobilize the full shear resistance along the interface (rigid
surface becomes a planar surface for walls (Nouri et al., 2008). plastic behavior), considering the variation in normal and friction
Therefore in this present study, a planar failure surface is assumed stresses. Their results are compared with the direct observations
for the reinforced soil wall, inclined at an angle a with respect to the (Shewbridge and Sitar, 1989; Bergado et al., 2000) to demonstrate
horizontal, which is calculated by using the MononobeeOkabe the suitability of this method.
approach (Zarrabi-Kashani, 1979): In the present analysis, the model proposed by Patra and Shahu

 (2012) is developed to calculate the shear resistance mobilized in
tanðf  jÞ þ C1E
a ¼ f  j þ tan1 ; (1) every reinforcement (Ti, whose direction is tangential to the failure
C2E surface) under seismic loads.

where Ti ¼ 2ghi Lei tan fr Ti* ; (5)

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
C1E ¼ tanðfjÞ½tanðfjÞþcotðfjÞ½1þtanðdþjÞcotðfjÞ; where
(2)
Lei ¼ L  ðH  hi Þcot a from Fig: 1: (6)
C2E ¼ 1 þ tanðd þ jÞ½tanðf  jÞ þ cotðf  jÞ; (3)
Xz nh 
1
in which d is the wall friction angle and considered as equal to zero Ti* ¼ mi Wi;k Wi;L þ 2  z2 G*i Wi;L Wi;kþ1  2Wi;k
2z cos a
k¼1
to simplify the calculations in the present analysis (Ahmad and i o
Choudhury, 2012); j is the seismic inertia angle, and defined as þ Wi;k1 cos qi;ck ;

kh (7)
j ¼ tan1 ; (4)
1  kv
in which z is the number of elements into which the ith rein-
where kh and kv are the horizontal and vertical seismic coefficients, forcement sheet is divided. Local subgrade stiffness factor of
respectively. ith reinforcement layer is mi ¼ mLeiH/Lhi and local subgrade shear
Zarrabi-Kashani (1979) stated that this method is suitable for stiffness factor of ith reinforcement layer is G*i ¼ G* HL=hi Lei ·mi and
fj0 and kh < k*h (critical value of horizontal acceleration coef- G*i vary with the depth of reinforcement layer and are evaluated in
ficient for the soil wedge k*h ¼ ð1  kv Þtan f). Beyond these ranges, terms of the global subgrade stiffness factor m and the global sub-
“no real solution is possible” and “regardless of the nature of the grade shear stiffness factor G*. m and G* are both dimensionless and
retaining wall, equilibrium is impossible and MononobeeOkabe can be determined according to the previous studies (e.g. Patra and
equation is invalid”. Besides, if the backfill slope angle and the Shahu, 2012; Reddy et al., 2008). Wi,k and Wi,L are the normalized
seismic coefficient are larger, the applicability of MononobeeOkabe displacement at node k and the normalized displacement at failure
approach may be restricted since the failure plane angle ap- surface of ith reinforcement layer, respectively. For more details
proaches the backfill slope angle, producing an infinite sliding about the iteration and solution, please see Patra and Shahu (2012).
wedge (Anderson et al., 2008).
The procedure proposed in this study can be also used in the 2.2. Required force to maintain stability of reinforced soil wall
analysis of the reinforced slope, in which the inclination a for every
reinforcement layer is the angle between the horizontal and the The horizontal slice method (HSM) used to analyze the seismic
tangent to the Log-spiral slip surface. stability of reinforced soil structures was proposed by Shahgholi
The following assumptions are also made in the present study: et al. (2001). Recently, the concept of HSM has been accepted by
several researchers (e.g. Li et al., 2013; Ghanbari and Taheri, 2012;
(1) The factored soil internal friction angle f ¼ tan1(tan(fpeak)/ Sarbishei and Fakher, 2012; Ahmad and Choudhury, 2012;
F) is equal to or less than fresidual, where fpeak and fresidual are Ghanbari and Ahmadabadi, 2010; Ahmadabadi and Ghanbari,
the peak and residual values of internal friction angle of soil, 2009; Ahmad and Choudhury, 2008; Nouri et al., 2008). In this
respectively; F is the partial safety factor applied to reduce method, the mass of soil is divided into horizontal slices, and the
518 Y. Gao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524

Table 1
List of unknowns and equations in (4N) formulation.

Unknowns Number Equations Number

P
Normal force upon each slice (Nj) N F ¼ 0 (each slice) N
P x
Shear force upon each slice (Sj) N F ¼ 0 (each slice) N
P y
Horizontal interslice force (Hj) N1 Mo ¼ 0 (whole wedge) 1
Vertical interslcie force (Vj) N1 Sj ¼ (cbj þ Nj tanf)/FSsr (each slice) N
Morgenster and Price factor (l) 1 Hj ¼ lfj(y)Vj Morgenster and Price assumption N1
P
Total required force to maintain stability ( ni¼1 ti ) 1
sum 4N 4N

equilibrium equations are derived. Comparing with the conven- For the jth slice, the equation for the horizontal force equilib-
tional vertical slice method in the analysis of reinforced soil rium is
structures, the equilibrium equations are easier to be established  
X
and the analytical procedures can be simplified by using the HSM Fxj ¼ 0; for each slice
due to no intersections of reinforcements and slices (i.e. no addi-
tional unknowns).
i.e.,
The HSM proposed by Shahgholi et al. (2001) was improved and
developed by Nouri et al. (2006) to produce several different for-
sin aNj þ cos aSj  Hj þ Hjþ1 þ ti cos a  kh Wj ¼ 0; (9)
mulations for the HSM, including the (5N  1) formulation. The
(5N  1) formulation is a rigorous approach because the equilib-
where Wj is the weight of slice; a is the angle between the failure
rium of all of the vertical and horizontal (internal and external)
plane and the horizontal, ti is the force required in the ith reinforce-
forces and moments for each slice are satisfied. N  1 unknowns of
ment layer; kh are kv are the horizontal and vertical seismic co-
(5N  1) formulation are the locations of vertical interslice force
efficients respectively. The other symbols are demonstrated in Table 1.
(Xv,j). In the present analysis, for improving calculation efficiency,
In cohesionless soil, the shear and normal forces acing on the
the (5N  1) formulation is simplified to a formulation comprised of
base of the jth slice satisfies the following equilibrium equation:
(4N) equations and (4N) unknowns instead of finding the value of
Xv,j. Namely, the moment equilibrium is satisfied for the entire
Nj tan f  
wedge rather than for each slice. Details on the equations and Sj ¼ ; for each slice (10)
FSsr
unknowns of (4N) formulation are given in Table 1.
The sliding wedge of the reinforced soil wall is divided into N
where f is the factored internal friction angle of backfill; FSsr is the
horizontal slices with a layer of reinforcement at its middle. The
ratio of available shear resistance to the required shear resistance
forces acting on jth slice are shown in Fig. 4.
along the failure surface, and assumed to equal one for all slices.
The main difference between the (5N  1) and (4N) formula-
For the jth slice, the horizontal interslice force is determined as
tions is that the former satisfies the moment equilibrium for each
slice but the latter satisfies the moment equilibrium for the whole  
wedge. In this study, equilibrium equations are comprised of the Hj ¼ lfj y Vj ; (11)
following equations.
For the jth slice, the equation for the vertical force equilibrium is where fj(y) is taken as unity according to Nouri et al. (2006).
Assuming the normal force (Nj) acts at the mid-point of base of
X  
each slice, for the whole wedge, moment equilibrium is satisfied
Fyj ¼ 0; for each slice
with respect to the toe of wall (point O in Fig. 3):

i.e.,
H X N    X
N
H cot a X
N
2H
  N jþ0:5 Nj  1þkv Wj þkh Wj ¼ 0;
N sina 3 3
Nj cos a þ Sj sin a  Vj þ Vjþ1 þ ti sin a  1 þ kv Wj ¼ 0: (8) j¼1 j¼1 j¼1

 
for whole wedge

(12)
P
In the present analysis, the relationship between ti and ti is
linear, which was proposed by Ling et al. (1997). The trial and error
procedure adopted by Nouri et al. (2006) is also used for the

Table 2
Geometric and geotechnical characteristics of reinforced soil wall.

Height, H 5m
Number of reinforcement layers, n 5
Unit weight of backfill, g 18 kN/m3
Cohesion of backfill, c 0
Friction angle of backfill, f Varies 30 e45
Horizontal seismic coefficient, kh Varies 0e0.3
Vertical seismic coefficient, kv 0.5 kh

Note: The vertical spacing of reinforcement layers in the soil wall is 1 m, and the
distance between the first (or last) reinforcement and the top (or bottom) of the soil
Fig. 4. Forces acting on ith slice. wall is 0.5 m.
 Y. Gao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524 519

solution in the present research. l is optimized to obtain a redun-

dant equation as a verification equation (Eq. (13)). The solution is
checked using the criterion ε  106.
ε ¼ tn cos a þ SN cos a  NN sin a  kh WN  HN1 ; (13)
where tn is the force required in the lowest reinforcement.
Safety factor in Reddy et al. (2008) is defined as the ratio of shear
resistance mobilized in the reinforcements to the required force to
maintain the stability of the reinforced soil wall. Accordingly, the
factor of safety (FST) herein is defined as:
Pn Pn
T cos a Ti
FST ¼ Pni¼1 i ¼ Pi¼1
n : (14)
t
i¼1 i cos a i¼1 ti

3. Results and discussion

In this study, the same parameters of reinforced soil wall as

Fig. 5. Variation of safety factor FST with global subgrade shear stiffness factor G* and
effect of kh.
Reddy et al. (2008) are employed and detailed in Table 2. It should
be noted that the height of the reinforced soil wall H and the unit
weight of backfill g are not included in the calculation of Reddy
et al. (2008). Hence H and g shown in Table 2 are selected ac-
cording to other researches (e.g. Shahgholi et al., 2001; Nouri et al.,
2006, 2008). The horizontal seismic coefficient (kh) ranges from 0 to
0.3 according to the researches of Ling et al. (1997), Michalowski
(1998) and Ausilio et al. (2000).

Fig. 6. Variation of safety factors with global subgrade stiffness factor m, and effect of G* and kh.
520 Y. Gao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524

Table 3
P (1) The model employed in this study to calculate the shear
Comparison of shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements, Ti. resistance mobilized in the reinforcements is different
m 50 500 1000 1500 2000 from Reddy et al. (2008), and there are obvious differences
Horizontal component of 333.1 353.2 355.7 356.6 357.0
in both the consideration of tolerable final deformation
P of reinforcement and the applied equilibrium equations
Ti (Present study)a
P
Ti (Reddy et al., 2008)b 254.5 267.2 275.2 281.5 286.9 between these two models. Hence, for kh ¼ 0 and
P
Note: a For kh ¼ 0, G* ¼ 0; b
for kh ¼ 0, calculated using the approach presented by G* ¼ 0, the horizontal component of Ti obtained in the
P
Reddy et al. (2008). present analysis is larger than Ti in Reddy et al. (2008)
(Table 3).
The main parameters herein are G*, m, L/H, fr/f, f and kh. It can (2) Due to the consideration of tolerable final deformation of the
P
be noted that we take the global subgrade shear stiffness factor G* reinforcements, the horizontal component of ti calculated
P
into account whereas Reddy et al. (2008) did not. They also in this study is less than ti in Reddy et al. (2008), which is
considered a known value of normalized displacement WL as an more obvious for kh ¼ 0 (Table 4).
input parameter, but we do not. According to the previous studies
(Patra and Shahu, 2012; Reddy et al., 2008), G* and m range from 0 to
50 and 50 to 2000, respectively.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of G* on the factor of safety, FST, under
different seismic loads, for L/H ¼ 0.5, f ¼ 30 , fr/f ¼ 2/3 and
m ¼ 2000. Generally, FST decreases with increasing G*, and tends to
a stable state after a specific value of G* (i.e. the corner point). For
example, for kh ¼ 0, the curve reaches a stable state at G* ¼ 5,
beyond which the effect of G* on FST is marginal.
For a lower G*, FST decreases sharply with increasing G*. The
reason is as G* increases, the bending deformation of the rein-
forcement decreases; therefore, the shear resistance mobilized in
the reinforcements decreases. But for a higher G*, G* increases have
little effect on the shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements.
This is because that the local subgrade shear stiffness factor G*i is
bigger than the global factor G*. Hence, for a higher G*, the bending
deformations of reinforcements become negligible and decrease
marginally with rising G*, thereby, the shear resistance mobilized in
the reinforcements tends to be constant.
It is also shown in Fig. 5 that an increase in kh gives rise to a
decrease in FST. This is due to the fact that with the increase in kh,
the larger force is required to maintain stability and the angle of
failure surface with the horizontal, a, decreases, resulting in the
shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements decreases. Be-
sides, for a higher kh, the value of the aforementioned corner point
on the curve decreases. Before the corner point, for a lower kh, FST
falls sharply with the increase in G*; for a higher kh, the effect of G*
on FST becomes smaller (i.e. the curve tends to be relatively stable).
This is due to the larger a, for a lower kh, causing the shear resis-
tance mobilized in the reinforcements decreases rapidly as G* in-
creases. But for a higher kh and flatter a angle, the effect of G* on the
shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements tends to be slight,
even when G* is very small.
A comparison of the safety factor obtained in this study to that
presented by Reddy et al. (2008) is given in Fig. 6. As can be seen
from Fig. 6, for kh ¼ 0, safety factors obtained for G* ¼ 0 and G* ¼ 50
are respectively 162% and 85% larger than that in Reddy et al. (2008);
but for kh ¼ 0.2, safety factors obtained for G* ¼ 0 and G* ¼ 50 are
respectively 57% and 18% larger than that in Reddy et al. (2008).
For kh ¼ 0, the difference between FST obtained in this study and
that obtained by Reddy et al. (2008) is relatively large. The reasons
are as follows:

Table 4
P
Comparison of required force to maintain stability, ti.

kh 0 0.1 0.2 0.3

Horizontal component of 37.5 53.0 75.0 106.3

P
ti (Present study)
P
ti (Reddy et al., 2008) 75.0 89.0 106.0 127.0
Difference 50.0% 40.5% 29.3% 16.3%
Fig. 7. Variation of safety factors with horizontal seismic coefficient kh, and effect of G*
Note: For H ¼ 5 m, N ¼ 10, kv ¼ 0, g ¼ 18 kN/m3, c ¼ 0, f ¼ 30 . and fr/f.
 Y. Gao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524
For kh ¼ 0.2, FST obtained in this study and that presented by
Reddy et al. (2008) are relatively close. The reasons are as follows:
(1) For kh ¼ 0.2, the angle of failure surface with the horizontal,
a, is relatively small. The tolerable final deformation of re-
inforcements decreases for a smaller a, causing the shear
P
resistance mobilized in the reinforcements, Ti, decreases.
In addition, the model employed by Reddy et al. (2008) to
P
calculate Ti does not establish the equilibrium equations for
the tolerable final deformation of reinforcements. Hence, the
P P
horizontal component of Ti tends to be close to Ti
calculated by Reddy et al. (2008).
(2) In this study, for kh ¼ 0.2, due to the relatively small a, the
P
vertical component of ti tends to be slight, resulting in a
P
small difference between the horizontal component of ti
P
obtained in this research and ti presented by Reddy et al.
(2008) (refer to Table 4).
The variation of FST with global stiffness factor m, under different
seismic loads, for G* ¼ 0, 5, and 50, L/H ¼ 0.5, f ¼ 30 and fr/f ¼ 2/3,
is also shown in Fig. 6. The higher the global shear stiffness G* is, the
lesser is the shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements and,
therefore, for the same horizontal seismic coefficient kh, the mini-
mum value of FST is obtained for G* ¼ 50.
As can be seen from these figures, FST increases by a small to
negligible amount as m increases, for G* ¼ 0, and a lower kh and m. In
other conditions, the global stiffness factor m, has almost no effect
Fig. 8. Variation of safety factor FST with factored internal friction angle of backfill, f, and effect of G* and kh.
521
on FST. This phenomenon has two reasons as follows: (1) For a
higher G*, the bending deformation of the reinforcements becomes
marginal, causing the reduction in the effect of m on the shear
resistance mobilized in the reinforcements. (2) For a larger kh, the
angle of failure surface with the horizontal, a, decreases, and this
also causes the little effect of m.
Fig. 7 shows the variation of safety factors (FST and FSC) with
horizontal seismic coefficient kh, for G* ¼ 0, 5, and 50, L/H ¼ 0.5,
f ¼ 30 , m ¼ 2000, and different values of interface friction angle fr.
FSC is the safety factor considering only axial pullout of the rein-
forcement (Reddy et al., 2008).
As can be seen, a lower value of interface friction angle fr, re-
P
duces the shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements, Ti,
resulting in both safety factors (FST and FSC) decrease and FST de-
creases more rapidly (especially for G* ¼ 0).
With the increase in kh, both FST and FSC decrease. Moreover, for
G* ¼ 0, FST decreases most sharply. The reason is that for a higher kh,
the angle of failure surface with the horizontal, a, decreases,
resulting in the differences between FST calculated for different G*,
and the difference between FST and FSC decrease. More specifically,
an increasing kh causes larger force is required to maintain the
stability of the reinforced soil wall, the anchorage length for rein-
forcement layers decreases (these are also responsible for the
decrease in FSC), and the decreasing a angle which results in a less
shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements. In addition, FST
obtained for G* ¼ 0 is greatly affected by the variation of kh, namely
FST obtained for G* ¼ 0 is highly sensitive.
522 Y. Gao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524
Fig. 9. Variation of safety factor FST with horizontal seismic coefficient kh, and effect of G* and L/H.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of factored internal friction angle of
backfill, f, on FST under different seismic loads for G* ¼ 0, 5, and 50,
L/H ¼ 0.5, fr/f ¼ 2/3 and m ¼ 2000.
A higher factored internal friction angle f, causes higher shear
resistance mobilized in the reinforcements and lower required
force to maintain the stability of the reinforced soil wall, which give
rise to a high value of FST. Similarly, FST calculated for G* ¼ 0 in-
creases most rapidly. The difference between the values of FST ob-
tained for G* ¼ 0 and G* ¼ 50 increases with the increase in factored
internal friction angle. This is due to the fact that with the increase
in f, the shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements increases
more rapidly for G* ¼ 0. FST decreases with the increase in kh, and
FST obtained for G* ¼ 0 shows much variation.
The variation of FST with horizontal seismic coefficient kh, for
different lengths of reinforcement is presented in Fig. 9 for G* ¼ 0, 5,
and 50, f ¼ 30 , fr/f ¼ 2/3 and m ¼ 2000. FST decreases with the
decrease in length of reinforcement, L/H. The main reason is the
shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements falls with the
decrease in L/H. A higher kh reduces FST, and once again the value of
FST obtained for G* ¼ 0 declines most rapidly.
4. Conclusions
Based on the pseudo-static method, the pullout resistance of
reinforcements in soil wall subjected to seismic loads is analyzed
and the safety factor, FST, defined as the ratio of the shear resistance
mobilized in the reinforcements to the required force to maintain
stability, is evaluated considering the kinematics of failure and the
bending deformation of reinforcements. The directions of shear
resistance mobilized in the reinforcements and required force to
maintain the stability are considered along the failure surface and
calculated by Pasternak model and 4N formulation of the HSM,
respectively. The study shows that:
(1) The safety factor, FST, decreases with the increase in G* and
tends to a stable state after a specific value of G* (i.e. the
corner point). When the horizontal seismic coefficient, kh,
increases, the value of corner point decreases and the curve
tends to be more stable. In addition, the value of FST ob-
tained for G* ¼ 0 is sensitive to the variations of other
parameters.
(2) Other parameters except m (i.e. fr/f, f, L/H and kh) have
obvious influence on the safety factor, FST. The main reason is
that the reduction of fr/f, f and L/H causes the decrease in
shear resistance mobilized in the reinforcements; the in-
crease in kh and decrease in f result in the required force to
maintain the stability increases, while the anchorage length
for reinforcements and the shear resistance mobilized in the
reinforcements decrease due to a smaller angle of failure
surface with the horizontal, a.
(3) The safety factor, FST, obtained in this study is larger than
both that in Reddy et al. (2008) and that only considering
 Y. Gao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524
axial pullout, FSC. The corresponding differences decrease
with the increase in horizontal seismic coefficient kh.
Acknowledgment
This study was sponsored by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 51278382). The authors would like
to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments.
References
Ahmad, S.M., Choudhury, D., 2008. Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic design for
waterfront reinforced soil-wall. Geotext. Geomembr. 26, 291e301.
Ahmad, S.M., Choudhury, D., 2012. Seismic internal stability analysis of waterfront
reinforced-soil wall using pseudo-static approach. Ocean Eng. 52, 83e90.
Ahmadabadi, M., Ghanbari, A., 2009. New procedure for active earth pressure
calculation in retaining walls with reinforced cohesive-frictional backfill. Geo-
text. Geomembr. 27, 456e463.
Anderson, D.G., Martin, G.R., Lam, I., Wang, J.N., 2008. NCHRP Report 611_Seismic
Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Em-
bankments. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C.
Ausilio, E., Conte, E., Dente, G., 2000. Seismic stability analysis of reinforced slopes.
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 19, 159e172.
Baker, R., Klein, Y., 2004a. An integrated limiting equilibrium approach for design of
reinforced soil retaining structures: Part I e formulation. Geotext. Geomembr.
22, 119e150.
Baker, R., Klein, Y., 2004b. An integrated limiting equilibrium approach for design of
reinforced soil retaining structures: Part III e optimal design. Geotext. Geo-
membr. 22, 455e479.
Basha, B.M., Babu, G.L.S., 2012. Target reliability-based optimisation for internal
seismic stability of reinforced soil structures. Geotechnique 62, 55e68.
Bathurst, R., Cai, Z., 1995. Pseudo-static seismic analysis of geosynthetic reinforced
segmental retaining walls. Geosynth. Int. 2, 789e832.
Bergado, D.T., Teerawattanasuk, C., Long, P.V., 2000. Localized mobilization of
reinforcement force and its direction at the vicinity of failure surface. Geotext.
Geomembr. 18, 311e331.
Ghanbari, A., Ahmadabadi, M., 2010. New analytical procedure for seismic analysis
of reinforced retaining wall with cohesive-frictional backfill. Geosynth. Int. 17,
364e379.
Ghanbari, A., Taheri, M., 2012. An analytical method for calculating active earth
pressure in reinforced retaining walls subject to a line surcharge. Geotext.
Geomembr. 34, 1e10.
Huang, C.C., Horng, J.C., Chang, W.J., Chiou, J.S., Chen, C.H., 2011. Dynamic behavior
of reinforced walls e horizontal displacement response. Geotext. Geomembr.
29, 257e267.
Huang, C.C., 2013. Vertical acceleration response of horizontally excited reinforced
walls. Geosynth. Int. 20, 1e12.
Huang, C.C., Wang, W.C., 2005. Seismic displacement of a geosynthetic-reinforced
wall in the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nambu earthquake. Soils Found. 45, 1e10.
Izawa, J., Kuwano, J., 2011. Evaluation of extent of damage to geogrid reinforced soil
walls subjected to earthquakes. Soils Found. 51, 945e958.
Jewell, R.A., 1992. Keynote Lecture: links between the testing modeling and design
of reinforced soil. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth
Reinforcement Practice, Fukuoka Japan, vol. 2, pp. 755e772.
Koerner, R.M., Soong, T.Y., 2001. Geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls.
Geotext. Geomembr. 19, 359e386.
Koseki, J., 2012. Use of geosynthetics to improve seismic performance of earth
structures. Geotext. Geomembr. 34, 51e68.
Lee, K.Z.Z., Chang, N.Y., 2012. Predictive modeling on seismic performances of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geotext. Geomembr. 35, 25e40.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H., Hanks, G., 1995. Unified design approach to geosynthetic
reinforced slopes and segmental walls. Geosynth. Int. 2, 845e881.
Li, Y.-C., Pan, Q., Cleall, P.J., Chen, Y.-M., Ke, H., 2013. Stability analysis of slurry
trenches in similar layered soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139, 2104e2109.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., 1998. Effects of vertical acceleration on seismic design of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. Ge otechnique 48, 347e373.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., Perry, E.B., 1997. Seismic design and performance of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. Ge otechnique 47, 933e952.
Liu, H.B., Wang, X.Y., Song, E.X., 2011. Reinforcement load and deformation mode of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls subject to seismic loading during service life.
Geotext. Geomembr. 29, 1e16.
Madhav, M.R., Umashankar, B., 2003. Analysis of inextensible sheet reinforcement
subject to transverse displacement/force: linear subgrade response. Geotext.
Geomembr. 21, 69e84.
Michalowski, R.L., 1998. Soil reinforcement for seismic design of geotechnical
structures. Comput. Geotech. 23, 1e17.
Mojallal, M., Ghanbari, A., Askari, F., 2012. A new analytical method for calculating
seismic displacements in reinforced retaining walls. Geosynth. Int. 19, 212e231.
523
Nakajima, S., Koseki, J., Watanabe, K., Tateyama, M., 2010. Simplified procedure to
evaluate earthquake-induced residual displacement of geosynthetic reinforced
soil retaining walls. Soils Found. 50, 659e677.
Nouri, H., Fakher, A., Jones, C.J.F.P., 2006. Development of horizontal slice method
for seismic stability analysis of reinforced slopes and walls. Geotext. Geomembr.
24, 175e187.
Nouri, H., Fakher, A., Jones, C.J.F.P., 2008. Evaluating the effects of the magnitude and
amplification of pseudo-static acceleration on reinforced soil slopes and walls
using the limit equilibrium horizontal slices method. Geotext. Geomembr. 26,
263e278.
Patra, S., Shahu, J.T., 2012. Pasternak model for oblique pullout of inextensible
reinforcement. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138, 1503e1513.
Reddy, G.V.N., Madhav, M.R., Reddy, E.S., 2008. Pseudo-static seismic analysis of
reinforced soil wall e effect of oblique displacement. Geotext. Geomembr. 26,
393e403.
Rowe, R.K., Ho, S.K., 1993. Keynote lecture: a review of the behaviour of reinforced
soil walls. In: Ochiai, H., Hayashi, S., Otani, J. (Eds.), Earth Reinforcement Prac-
tice. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 801e830.
Sandri, D., 1997. A performance summery of reinforced soil structures in the greater
Los Angeles area after the Northridge earthquake. Geotext. Geomembr. 15,
235e253.
Sarbishei, S., Fakher, A., 2012. Energy-based horizontal slice method for pseudo-
static analysis of reinforced walls. Geosynth. Int. 19, 370e384.
Shahgholi, M., Fakher, A., Jones, C., 2001. Horizontal slice method of analysis.
Geotechnique 51, 881e885.
Shewbridge, S., Sitar, N., 1989. Deformation characteristics of reinforced sand in
direct shear. J. Geotech. Eng. 115, 1134e1147.
Sobhi, S., Wu, J.T.H., 1996. An interface pull out formula for extensible sheet rein-
forcement. Geosynth. Int. 3, 565e582.
Srilatha, N., Latha, G.M., Puttappa, C.G., 2013. Effect of frequency on seismic
response of reinforced soil slopes in shaking table tests. Geotext. Geomembr.
36, 27e32.
Tatsuoka, F., Koseki, J., Tatayama, M., 1997. Performance of reinforced soil structures
during the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake. In: Ochiai, H., Yasufuku, N.,
Omine, K. (Eds.), Earth Reinforcement. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 973e1008.
Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Koseki, J., Uchimura, T., 1995. Geotextile-reinforced soil
retaining wall and their seismic behavior. In: Special Lecture, Proceeding of the
10th Asian Regional Conference on S.M.F.E., Beijing, vol. 2, pp. 26e49.
Vahedifard, F., Meehan, C.L., Leshchinsky, D., 2013. Displacement-based internal
design of geosynthetic-reinforced earth structures subjected to seismic loading
conditions. Ge otechnique 63, 451e462.
Wang, L.P., Zhang, G., Zhang, J.M., 2011. Centrifuge model tests of geotextile-
reinforced soil embankments during an earthquake. Geotext. Geomembr. 29,
222e232.
White, D.M., Holtz, R.D., 1997. Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced slopes and
walls during the Northridge, California earthquake of January 17, 1994. In:
Ochiai, H., Yasufuku, N., Omine, K. (Eds.), Earth Reinforcement. Balkema, Rot-
terdam, pp. 965e972.
Zarrabi-Kashani, K., 1979. Sliding of Gravity Retaining Wall during Earthquakes
Considering Vertical Acceleration and Changing Inclination of Failure Surface.
S.M. thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Glossary
F: partial safety factor applied to reduce the strength parameters
FSC: factor of safety considering only axial pullout
FSsr: the ratio of available shear resistance to the required shear resistance along the
failure surface
FST: factor of safety considering kinematic failure
G*: global subgrade shear stiffness factor
G*i : local subgrade shear stiffness factor of ith reinforcement layer
H: height of reinforced soil wall (m)
hi: depth of embedment of reinforcement (m)
Hj: horizontal interslice force
kh: horizontal seismic coefficient
kv: vertical seismic coefficient
L: length of reinforcement (m)
Lei: anchorage length for reinforcement layer i (m)
n: number of reinforcement layers
N: number of horizontal slices
Nj: normal force upon each slice
Pi: transverse force in the ith layer of the reinforcement (kN)
Sj: shear force upon each slice
Svi: distance between reinforcement layer i and i þ 1 (m)
Stop
v ; Sv
bottom : distances (as described in text) (m)
Ti: shear resistance mobilized in the ith layer of reinforcement (kN)
ti: force required in the ith reinforcement layer (kN)
Vj: vertical interslice force
Wi,k: normalized displacement at node k
Wi,L: normalized displacement at failure surface of ith reinforcement layer
Wj: weight of each slice
wi,L: transverse displacement of ith reinforcement at failure surface (m)
524 Y. Gao et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 515e524

Xv,j: locations of the jth vertical interslice force mi: local subgrade stiffness factor of ith reinforcement layer
z: number of elements into which the ith reinforcement is divided f: factored internal friction angle of backfill (deg)
a: inclination of failure surface with the horizontal (deg) fpeak: peak values of internal friction angle of soil (deg)
g: unit weight of backfill (kN/m3) fr: angle of interface friction between reinforcement and backfill (deg)
d: wall friction angle (deg) fresidual: residual value of internal friction angle of soil (deg)
l: Morgenster and Price factor j: seismic inertia angle (deg)
m: global subgrade stiffness factor