Final Review - Oct. 2018 - Kenya GMSEW Design Guideline DG-3 2018 With Seismic Design - Vol. I PDF

2
Geosynthetics
Mechanically
Stabilized
Earth Walls
Design Guidelines
2018 DG-3 Volume I
Chief Engineer
MT&RD
10/8/2018
MOTIHUD-SDI-MTRD | 0
G-MSE-W DESIGN GUIDELINE DG-3 2018
BLANK
FOREWORD
Definitions
D-1. General
The basic definitions presented in Section 1.3 of Chapter 1 of the Kenya Roads
Design Manual (KRDM) are referred to and applicable in this Design Guidelines.
In addition to the definitions stipulated in the KRDM, the following are additional
definitions.
D-1.1 Resilient Modulus
A measure of the geomaterial stiffness within the perfectly linear elastic
recoverable limit (range) when subjected to cyclic-dynamic loading
D-1.2 Resilient Strain
A measure of the geomaterials’ compressive strain exhibited within the perfectly
linear elastic recoverable limit (range) when subjected to cyclic-dynamic loading
D-1.3 Lateral Strain
A measure of the geomaterials’ deformation in the horizontal direction as one of
the parameters to define the degree of interaction for geosynthetics reinforced
materials
D-1.4 Deformation Resistance
A material of the geomaterials’ ability to resist deformation under loading and/or
other external forces or factors
D-1.5 Cyclic Prestraining
Persistent straining under constant cyclic load over a period of time. The response
of a geosynthetics reinforced (improved) geomaterial under cyclic prestraining can
be extended in characterizing the geomaterial-geosynthetics interface layer and
quantifying the magnitude of enhancement and reduction factors
D-1.6 Kinematic Hardening
A concept of considering multi-yield surfaces to better describe the elasto-visco-
plastic behavior observed within the larger scale yield surface. This is an important
concept that can be applied in geo-scientifically analyzing the contribution of
geosynthetics reinforcement within the multiple yield surfaces
D-1.7 Environmental Factors
Geo-scientifically derived factors mainly due to climatic, seasonal and geographic
changes
D-1.8 Seasonal Effects
Impact caused by annual changes in seasons
D-1.9 Moisture ~ suction Variation
Changes in the degree of moisture content of a geomaterial
D-1.10 Soil Model Expressions
Correlation of basic geomaterial property indices to its’ mechanical properties
D-1.11 Inferior Material Ingression

Migration of undesirable Geomaterial into superior subbase and base course
materials thereby reducing their bearing and structural capacities, strength and
deformation resistance
D-1.12 Geo-structures
Civil engineering structures that are mainly constructed of geomaterials
D-1.13 Permanent Deformation
Deformation that occurs post the initial and secondary (elastic and visco-elastic)
yield surfaces
D-1.14 Bound Materials
Geomaterials that are bound together predominantly through agglomeration as a
result of the addition of a cementing or binding agent
D-1.15 Unbound Materials
Geomaterials that have not been subjected to any form of cementing or binding
agents
D-1.16 Stability Analysis
Geotechnical engineering analysis undertaken to establish the stability of a
retaining structure
D-1.17 Bearing Capacity Analysis
Geotechnical engineering analysis undertaken to establish the bearing capacity of
a retaining structure foundation ground
D-1.18 Structural Benefits
An indicator of enhanced performance of geo-structures as a result of
geosynthetics application
D-1.19 Value Engineering Benefits
Economic benefits that accrue as a result of geosynthetics application
D-2 Geosynthetics Related Terminology

D-2.1 Geosynthetics
A planar product manufactured from polymeric material used within geomaterials
to enhance geotechnical engineering/geo-structural properties through
reinforcement and/or improvement.
D-2.2 Geosynthetics Index Properties
Primary properties that define the engineering characteristics of a geosynthetic
material
D-2.3 Geogrid
A geosynthetic formed by a regular network of tensile elements and apertures,
typically used for reinforcement purposes
D-2.4 Geotextile
A permeable geosynthetic comprised solely of textiles
D-2.5 Geonet
Geonets are made of stacked, criss-crossing polymer strands that provide in-plane
drainage.
D-2.6 Geocomposite
These are products manufactured by combining the superior features of various
types of geosynthetics.
D-2.7 Geocell
A three-dimensional comb-like structure to be filled with geomaterial.
D-2.8 Geomembrane
An essentially impermeable geosynthetic, typically used to control fluid migration
D-2.9 Geosynthetic Clay Barrier [GCB]
Geosynthetic clay barriers (GCBs) include a thin layer of finely-ground bentonite
clay. When wetted, the clay swells and becomes a very effective hydraulic barrier.
D-2.10 Geomats
Geomat is a three-dimensional erosion control mat consisting of a UV-stabilized
labyrinth-like extruded polymer core mounted on a warp knitted mesh
D-2.11 Geopipes
These are geosynthetic composites modified plastic pipe used in drainage
applications.
D-2.12 Geofoams
Geofoam is manufactured into large blocks mostly of polystyrene which are
stacked to form a lightweight, thermally insulating mass buried within a soil or
pavement structure.
D-2.13 Minimum Average Roll Value (MARV)
A quality control tool used by geosynthetic manufacturers to establish and publish
minimum or maximum property values
Property value calculated as typical minus two standard deviations. Statistically,
it yields a 97.7 percent degree of confidence that any sample taken during quality
assurance testing will exceed value reported.
D-2.13.2 Maximum Average Roll Value (MaxARV):
Property value calculated as typical plus two standard deviations. Statistically, it
yields a 97.7 percent degree of confidence that any sample taken during quality
assurance testing will be below the value reported.
D-2.13.3 Typical Roll Value:
Property value calculated from average or mean obtained from test data.
D-2.14 Machine Direction
The direction in the plane of the geosynthetic parallel to the direction of
manufacture
D-2.15 Cross- Machine Direction
The direction in the plane of the geosynthetic perpendicular to the direction of
manufacture
D-2.16 Interlock
One of the mechanism by which geosynthetics and geomaterial particles interact
under an applied load
D-2.17 Interaction
One of the mechanism by which geosynthetics and geomaterial particles interact
under an applied load mostly through friction-adhesion, friction-friction and
friction-cohesion.
D-2.18 Index Test
A test procedure which may contain a known bias but which may be used to
establish an order for a set of specimens with respect to the property of interest
D-2.19 Degree of Interlocking
The magnitude of interlock that can be achieved depending on the type of
geosynthetic that is applied
D-2.20 Confinement
The effect of friction and interlock mechanisms by which the structure of the
geosynthetic restrains the geomaterial particles
D-2.21 Geosynthetics Reinforcement
Application of geosynthetics such as geogrids for reinforcement of granular
materials
D-2.22 Geosynthetics Improvement
Application of geosynthetics such as geomats and geotextiles for enhancing the
properties of problematic soils
D-2.23 Aperture Stability (Torsional Rigidity)
The terms secant aperture stability modulus, torsional rigidity modulus, in-plane
shear modulus, and torsional stiffness modulus have been used in the literature to
describe this same property where it is the measure of the in-plane stability of a
geogrid achieved by clamping a center node and measuring the stiffness over an
area of the geogrid.
D-2.24 Tensile Strength
Tensile Strength is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being
loaded before failing or breaking
D-2.25 Aperture Size
The distance between two perpendicular/parallel sets of ribs of a geogrid
D-2.26 Radial Stiffness
The quotient of strength divided by strain, measured at low strain values in defined
radial directions
D-2.27 Location of Geosynthetic Embedment
The position in a pavement or embankment layer where the geosynthetic is
installed measured vertically within the thickness of the pavement structure
D-2.28 Interface Shear Layer
The immediate layer on either side within which the geosynthetic is embedded
D-2.29 Interface Shear Layer Thickness

The thickness of the interface layer under shearing conditions
D-2.30 Transition Zone
This represents the zone that connects the interface layer to the non-confinement
zone
D-2.31 Zone of Quasi-full confinement
This represents the zone that includes the interface layer where the magnitude of
the degree of interaction is at its highest on the average
D-2.32 Vertical Spacing Layer Thickness
Size of spacing between two geosynthetics measured in a vertical direction in
cases of multiple application
D-2.33 Apparent Opening Size (AOS)
A property which indicates the approximate largest particle that would effectively
pass through a geotextile
D-2.34 Blinding
The condition whereby soil particles block the surface openings of a geotextile,
thereby reducing the hydraulic conductivity
D-2.35 Clogging
The condition where soil particles move into, and are retained in the openings of
a geotextile, thereby reducing the hydraulic conductivity
D-2.36 Filtration
The process of retaining soils while allowing passage of water (fluid)
D-2.37 Permeability
The rate of flow of a liquid under a differential pressure through a geomaterial
D-2.38 Permittivity
The volumetric flow rate of water (fluid) per unit cross-sectional area per unit head
under laminar flow conditions, in the normal direction through a geotextile
D-2.39 Transmissivity
Transmissivity is the product of the permeability of the geotextile in plane water
flow and the thickness of the geotextile.
AGEF: Asphalt Geosynthetics Effectiveness factor

𝑠⁄
𝑊18𝑟
𝐴𝐺𝐸𝐹 = 𝑢
𝑊18
[To determine AGEF in Model Testing using the Vibrating Hammer
(VH)]
Where
𝑠⁄
𝑊18 𝑟 = Number of Load Cycles to cause failure in the Geosynthetics Reinforced
(Improved) layers or the Asphalt Reinforced Interlayer (ARI) [DBM/AC]
𝑠⁄
𝑊18 𝑟 = Number of Load Cycles to cause failure in the Unreinforced (non-ARI)
Layers
Aggregate Interlocking Factor (AIF) – A quantitative geo-mathematical method of

determining the AIF has yet to be developed (To correlate AIF to Mechanical
Stability Factor [MSF]).
Load Transfer Efficiency Factor (LTEF) – The LTEF is considered to be related to the
AIF. The LTEF is the ratio of deflection on the unloaded side of a crack to the
deflection of the loaded side of the same crack.
Lateral Constraint Efficiency Factor (LCEF) – This factor related to lateral straining,
𝛽𝑓 = (𝜀𝑎 )𝑈 ⁄(𝜀𝑎 )𝑅 ; is introduced as the criteria for gauging the performance of
geosynthetics in terms of lateral constraint prompted by the interlocking
mechanism (refer to Section 5.9).
Include definitions for:
𝐾𝑎
𝐾𝑜
𝜙𝑠′
𝜙𝑏′
𝜙𝑟′
D-3 Abbreviations/Nomenclature
The abbreviations presented in sub-Section 1.3.5 of Chapter 1 of the Kenya Roads
Design Manual (RDM – Part III) are referred to and applicable in these Design
Guidelines.
In addition to the abbreviations stipulated in the RDM, the following are additional
abbreviations.
Abbreviations
CE - European Conformity
BS – British Standards
EN – European Standards
PA – Poly Amide
PVA – Polyvinyl Acetate
PVC – Polyvinyl Chloride
ISO – International Standards Organization
DIN – German Institute for Standardization (Deutsche Institute Normung)
EPD – Environmental Product Declaration
QCA – Quality Control and Assurance
DG – Design Guidelines
GMSEW Mechanically Stablized Earth Wall

LTDS - Long-Term Design Strength
ESAL – Equivalent Standard Axle Load
ND – Non Destructive
GMSEW – Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
GRS – Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil
RWs – Retaining Walls
RSS – Reinforced Soil Systems
GMSEWS – Geosynthetics Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
RDM – Road Design Manual
MTRD - Materials Testing and Research Division
MoTI – Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure
MOTIHUD – Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure, Housing & Urban Development
VE – Value Engineering
VETs – Value Engineering Technologies
NCHRP - National Cooperative Research Programme
FHR - Full-Height Rigid
RDM – Kenya Road Design Manual
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ASD Allowable Stress Design
CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation
CIS Compaction Induced Stresses
CMU Concrete Masonry Unit
DACSAR Deformation Analysis Considering Stress Anisotropy and Reorientation
FEM Finite Element Model
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GGMSE Geosynthetic Mechanically Stabilized Earth
GRS Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
IBS Integrated Bridge System
LRFD Load and Resistance Factor Design
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NCMA National Concrete Masonry Association
NGI Norwegian Geotechnical Institute
NHI National Highway Institute
PWRI Public Works Research Institute (Japan)
RRR Reinforced Railroad/Road with Rigid facing
SGIP Soil-Geosynthetic Interactive Performance

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Contents
Section 1: General .................................................................................................................................. 17
1.1 Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 17
1.2 Brief Historical Background ....................................................................................................... 18
1.3 Source Documents..................................................................................................................... 20
1.4 Salient Terms and definitions .................................................................................................... 21
1.5 Main Purpose of GMSEW Guideline .......................................................................................... 22
1.6 Brief Background of GMSE-GRS Walls ....................................................................................... 23
1.7 Introduction to Geosynthetics Products ................................................................................... 24
1.8 K-Stiffness (Working Stress) Method of Design......................................................................... 25
Section 2: Design Criteria, Philosophy and fundamental principles ...................................................... 27
2.1 Main Applications ...................................................................................................................... 27
2.2 Advantages and Potential Disadvantages ................................................................................. 29
2.2.1 Major Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 29
2.2.2 Potential Disadvantages ............................................................................................................... 30
2.3 Relative Costs and Method of Costing ...................................................................................... 30
2.3.1 Relative Costs ............................................................................................................................... 30
2.3.2 Method of costing ........................................................................................................................ 32
2.4 Basic Description of MSE Systems ............................................................................................. 32
2.4.1 Systems Differentiation ................................................................................................................ 32
2.4.2 Types of MSE Systems .................................................................................................................. 33
2.4.3 Facing Systems.............................................................................................................................. 33
2.5 Systematic Method of Construction and Monitoring of Construction Progress ....................... 35
2.5.1 Systematic Method of Construction............................................................................................. 35
2.5.2 Method of Monitoring Construction Progress ............................................................................. 39
2.6 Evaluation of Project Attributes ................................................................................................ 42
2.7 Establishment of Project Criteria............................................................................................... 44
2.8 Design Philosophies for GMSE Walls ......................................................................................... 45
2.9 Structural Facing Considerations and Performance (Limit State Serviceability) Criteria .......... 49
2.9.1 Structural Facing Considerations ....................................................................................... 49
2.9.2 Performance (Limit State Serviceability) Criteria .............................................................. 51
2.10 Earth Reinforcement Principles and System Design Properties ................................................ 58
2.11 Load and Resistance Factors ..................................................................................................... 65
2.11.1 Load Combinations and Factors ........................................................................................ 66
2.11.2 Load Factors for Permanent Loads .................................................................................... 66
2.11.3 Resistance Factors for Permanent Retaining Walls ........................................................... 67
2.12 Stability Considerations ............................................................................................................. 68

2.12.1 Considerations with regard to potential failure modes .................................................... 68
2.12.2 External Stability ................................................................................................................ 69
2.12.3 Internal Stability ................................................................................................................ 71
2.12.4 Local Stability ..................................................................................................................... 73
2.12.5 Global Stability ................................................................................................................... 74
2.13 Basic Design Information ........................................................................................................... 74
2.13.1 Ground investigation ......................................................................................................... 75
2.13.2 Environmental Consideration ............................................................................................ 75
2.14 Summary of Structural and Value Engineering Benefits ........................................................... 76
Section 3: Geotechnical Investigations and Materials Characterization ................................................ 77
3.1 Purpose for Undertaking GI ....................................................................................................... 77
3.2 Basic GI Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 77
3.3 Basic GI Requirements ............................................................................................................... 78
3.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 78
3.5 Overall GI Review Checklists...................................................................................................... 82
3.6 Summary of Geotechnical Investigations Data and Factual Report ................................................ 90
3.7 Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) .......................................................................................... 91
3.8 Fundamental Criteria for Application of Geotechnical Results ....................................................... 92
3.9 Criteria for Choice of Analytical Models in Reference to Method of Testing ................................. 93
3.10 Application of Geotechnical Results in GMSE Wall Design ........................................................... 94
3.11 Materials Properties/ Characterization ............................................................................................. 96
Part II: Materials Properties & Characterization; Basic Parameters, Specifications & Testing ................. 96
3.11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 96
3.11.2 Fill Geomaterials ......................................................................................................................... 96
Section 4: Structural Analysis and Design ............................................................................................ 105
4.1 Fundamental Considerations and Design/Stability Analysis Procedure.................................. 105
4.1.1 Fundamental Considerations............................................................................................... 105
4.1.2 Systematic Design and Stability Analysis Procedure ........................................................... 108
4.2 Introduction to the K-Stiffness Method .................................................................................. 108
4.2.1 Criteria, Accuracy and Applicability of the K-Stiffness Method ................................................. 108
4.2.2 Principal Models of the K-Stiffness Method ............................................................................... 112
4.3 Design Methodology ............................................................................................................... 123
4.4 Design Details for GMSE Wall Elements and Drainage ................................................................. 160
4.4.1 Overview..................................................................................................................................... 160
4.4.2 Internal Drainage ........................................................................................................................ 161
4.5 Seismic Design for GMSE Walls ..................................................................................................... 164

4.5.1 Seismic Design Responsibility and Policy................................................................................ 164
4.5.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations ......................................................................... 166
4.5.3 Seismic Hazard and Site Ground Motion Response Requirements........................................ 174
4.5.4 Seismic Design Methodology ................................................................................................. 182
4.6 GMSE Walls Computer Aided Design (CAD) .................................................................................. 200
Section 5: Monitoring and Evaluation (ME) ......................................................................................... 201
5.1 Criteria for Performance Evaluation........................................................................................ 201
5.2 Comprehensive Measurements .............................................................................................. 201
5.3 Limited Measurements............................................................................................................ 202
5.4 Comprehensive Procedure/Program....................................................................................... 203
5.5 Main Aspects Considered for Effective Performance Evaluation............................................ 205
5.6 Evaluation of Design Adopted ................................................................................................. 205
5.7 Performance Evaluation Based on Conditions Surveys ........................................................... 205
5.7.1 Basic Methodology Adopted .................................................................................................. 205
5.7.2 Measurements........................................................................................................................ 205
5.8 Programme Implementation ................................................................................................... 209
5.9 Data Interpretation.................................................................................................................. 211
Volume II: Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 213
LISTs
[ Blank Transition Page]
Section 1: General
1.1 Scope
The design, construction and monitoring techniques for the Geosynthetics
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (GMSE) Retaining Wall (RW) structures have evolved
over the last three decades as a result of efforts by researchers, material suppliers
and government agencies to improve some single aspect of the technology or the
materials used. This Guideline is a comprehensive document that integrates all
design, construction, materials, contracting, and monitoring aspects required for
successful project implementation.
The main purpose of developing the structural design, stability analysis and
performance evaluation guidelines for Geosynthetics Mechanically Stabilized
Earth (GMSE) Walls is to ensure proper and appropriate application of
geosynthetics products in order to realize optimal performance and value-added
returns in terms of structural and Value Engineering (VE) benefits.
This document is primarily focused on providing essential technical guidelines to
enable appreciable understanding of the geosynthetics reinforcement concepts
and mechanisms for the appropriate application in the design of GMSE Walls.
This code of practice embodies the experience of engineers successfully engaged
on the design and construction of the particular class of works. It has been
assumed in the drafting of this DG-3: 2018 GMSEW Kenyan Standard that the
execution of its provisions is entrusted to appropriately qualified and experienced
people
A code of practice represents good practice at the time it is written and, inevitably,
technical developments will render parts of it obsolescent in time. It is the
responsibility of engineers concerned with the design and construction of works
to remain conversant with developments in good practice, which have taken place
since publication of the code.
As a code of practice, this part of DG-3: 2018 takes the form of guidance and
recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and
particular care should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not
misleading.
Any user claiming compliance with this part of DG-3: 2018is expected to be able
to justify any course of action that deviates from its recommendations.
Contractual and legal considerations
This publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions of a
contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.
Compliance with this DG-3: 2018 cannot confer immunity from all contractual or
any legal obligations.
The scope is sufficiently broad to be of value for specifications specialists,
contracting personnel responsible for construction inspection, development of
material specifications and contracting methods. With the aid of this text, the
engineer should be able to properly select, design, specify, monitor and contract
for the construction of GMSE walls.
Essentially, the DG-3 Guideline addresses, in a comprehensive manner, the
following areas:
 Overview of GMSE development and the cost, advantages, and
disadvantages of using GMSE structures
 Available GMSE systems and applications to transportation facilities.
 Basic soil-reinforcement interaction.
 Design of routine of GMSE walls.
 Design of GMSE walls for extreme events (Seismic Design).
 Design detailing of GMSE walls (Appendix A8 in Volume II).
 Introduction to Vendor and Standard Designs (Appendix A9 in Volume II).
 Specifications and contracting approaches for GMSE walls (Appendix A10 in
Volume II)
 Construction monitoring and inspection (Chapter 5 and Appendix A11 in
Volume).
 Design examples (Appendix A2 in Volume II).
It is vital to reiterate the fact that GMSEW geo-structures are to be erected in strict
compliance with the geotechnical, structural and aesthetic requirements of the
plans, specifications, and contract documents. The desired results can generally
be achieved through the use of quality materials, correct construction/erection
procedures, and proper inspection. However, there may be occasions when
dimensional tolerances and/or aesthetic limits are exceeded. Corrective measures
should quickly be taken to bring the work within acceptable limits. Several out-of-
tolerance conditions and their possible causes are provided Appendix A11, which
is included in Volume II of this DG-3 Guideline.
1.2 Brief Historical Background

Historical Development of MSE Retaining Structures: Retaining structures are
essential elements of every highway design. Retaining structures are used not only
for bridge abutments and wing walls but also for slope stabilization and to
minimize right-of-way for embankments. For many years, retaining structures
were almost exclusively made of reinforced concrete and were designed as gravity
or cantilever walls which are essentially rigid structures and cannot accommodate
significant differential settlements unless founded on deep foundations. With
increasing height of soil to be retained and poor subsoil conditions, the cost of
reinforced concrete retaining walls increases rapidly.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSEWs) and Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSSs) are
cost effective soil-retaining structures that can tolerate much larger settlements
than reinforced concrete walls. By placing tensile reinforcing elements (inclusions)
in the soil, the strength of the soil can be improved significantly. Use of a facing
system to prevent soil raveling between the reinforcing elements allows very
steep slopes and vertical walls to be constructed safely.
The modern methods of soil reinforcement for retaining wall construction were
pioneered by the French architect and engineer Henri Vidal in the early 1960s. His
research led to the invention and development of Reinforced Earth®, a system in
which steel strip reinforcement is used. The first wall to use this technology in the
United States was built in 1972 on California State Highway 39, northeast of Los
Angeles. Today, MSE walls are the wall of choice in most fill situations, and MSE
walls are used extensively in the U.S. and worldwide. The highest permanent wall
constructed in the United States is on the order of 46 m with an exposed height
of approximately 41 m.
Since the introduction of Reinforced Earth®, several other proprietary and
nonproprietary systems have been developed and used. Table 1-1 provides a
partial summary of some of the current systems by proprietary name,
reinforcement type, and facing system.
There are many available systems, as well as new systems that continue to be
introduced into the market. Components, engineering details, system quality
controls, etc. vary with each system. States, therefore, need a process to sort and
evaluate MSE wall systems for potential pre-approval for use on their projects. The
Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC) provides review and
evaluation of MSE walls. HITEC was established in 1994 within the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) organization. HITEC’s purpose is to accelerate the
introduction of technological advances in products, systems, services, materials,
and equipment to the highway and bridge markets. The evaluation of new and
more cost-effective retaining wall systems is performed through HITEC’s
nationally-focused, earth retaining system (ERS) group evaluation program. The
published reports provide reviews of design, construction, performance, and
quality assurance information provided by the wall system suppliers with respect
to conformance with the state-of-practice criteria as outlined in the HITEC
Protocol. Wall system suppliers are encouraged to conduct an independent
review of newly developed components and/or systems related to materials,
design, construction, performance, and quality assurance. Some public agencies,
especially state DOTs, require HITEC evaluations or independent evaluations of
wall components or wall systems, and obtaining such reviews has proven
beneficial to wall system suppliers in securing acceptance of their system.
Currently, most process patents covering soil-reinforced system construction or

components have expired, leading to a proliferation of available systems or
components that can be separately purchased and assembled by the erecting
contractor. The combination of components needs to be evaluated to assure
compatibility with respect to longevity, constructability, and connection strength.
The remaining patents in force generally cover only the method of connection
between the reinforcement and the facing.
In the United States, a segmental precast facing unit 2 to 2.25 m2 generally square
in shape is the facing unit of choice. More recently, larger precast units of up to
4.6 m2 have been used and are becoming more commonplace. Additionally,
smaller drycast concrete masonry units are being used, generally in conjunction
with geosynthetic reinforcements.
The use of geotextiles in MSE walls and RSS started after the beneficial effect of
reinforcement with geotextiles was noticed in highway embankments constructed
over weak subgrades. The first geotextile-reinforced wall was constructed in
France in 1971, and the first structure of this type in the United States was
constructed in 1974. Geogrids for soil reinforcement were developed around
1980. The first use of geogrid in earth reinforcement was in 1981. Extensive use
of geogrid products in the United States started in about 1983, and they now
comprise a growing portion of the market. Since the early 1980s, the use of
geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures has increased significantly.
Current Usage: It is believed that MSEWs have been constructed in every state in
the United States. Major users include transportation agencies in Georgia, Florida,
Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and California, which rank among the largest road
building states.
It is estimated that more than 𝟖𝟓𝟎, 𝟎𝟎𝟎𝒎𝟐 of MSE retaining walls with precast
facing are constructed on average every year in the United States, which may
represent more than half of all retaining wall usage for transportation applications.
The majority of the MSEWs for permanent applications either constructed to date
or presently planned use a segmental precast concrete facing and galvanized steel
reinforcements. The use of geotextile faced MSEWs in permanent construction
has been limited to date. They are quite useful for temporary construction, where
more extensive use has been made.
Recently, modular block dry cast facing units have gained acceptance due to their
lower cost and nationwide availability. These small concrete units are generally
mated with grid reinforcement, and the wall system is referred to as modular block
wall (MBW). It is estimated that more than 280,000𝑚2 of MBW walls have been
constructed yearly in the United States when considering all types of
transportation related applications. The current yearly usage for transportation-
related applications is estimated at about 100 projects per year.
1.3 Source Documents

This Design Guideline has been prepared on the basis of the findings reported in
the Final Study Report on “Performance Evaluation of Geosynthetic-Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls (GMSEWs) – Analysis and Evaluation of Structural
Performance” A Comprehensive Engineering Report.
In developing these guidelines, a wide range of international publications,
research reports, design guideline/manuals and manufacturers’ reports that are
pertinent to geosynthetics applications have been referenced, details of which are
provided in the Engineering Report.
The Research and Development (R&D) of these guidelines was undertaken by the
Materials Testing and Research Division of the Ministry of Transport,
Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development (MOTIHUD).
The main referenced documents during the compilation stage of these guidelines
include:
i) AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications:2012,6th Edition.
ii) Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT): Geotechnical

Design Manual, M46-03.01: 2010.
iii) Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT): Prediction of
Reinforced Soil Walls, Research Report No. WA-RD 522.2, December 2003.
iv) United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration
(US DOT-FHWA) US-FHWA-HRT- 11-026, June 2012: Geosynthetics Reinforced
Soil Integrated Bridge System (GRS IBS) Interim Implementation
Guide/Synthesis Report
v) US DOT-FHWA: National Highway Institute (NHI) Publication No. FHWA-NHI-
10-024, November 2009: Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized
Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume I;
vi) US DOT-FHWA: National Highway Institute (NHI) Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-
024, November 2009: Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume II;
vii) US DOT-FHWA-HRT-14-094, February 2015: Synthesis of GRS Design Topics;
viii) British Standard; BS 8006-1: 2010 Code of Practice: Strengthened/Reinforced
Soils and other Fills;
ix) US DOT-FHWA-HRT-13-066, August, 2013: Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
Performance Testing – Axial Load Deformation Relationships.
x) US DOT-FHWA-HRT-10-077, July, 2013: Composite Behavior of Reinforced Soil
Mass.
xi) Winsconsin Department of Transportation (WDOT), January 2002: Internal
Stability Analyses of Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls;
xii) Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT)/US-FHWA, October 2002:
Effect of Geosynthetic Reinforcement Spacing on the Performance of
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls;
xiii) Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls (GRS RWs) as Important
Permanent Structures
xiv) State of the Practice of GMSE Wall Design for Highway Structures.
xv) US DOT-FHWA: Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports
and Preliminary Plans and Specifications: Publication No. FHWA ED-88-053 of
February, 2003.
xvi) US-DOT FHWA-HIF-17-004, October, 2016: Limit Equilibrium Design Framework
for MSE Structures with Extensible Reinforcement.
xvii) New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) Geotechnical
Engineering Manual (GEM) Revision No.3 of August 2015: Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Systems Inspection Manual.
1.4 Salient Terms and definitions
Certain interchangeable terms will be used throughout this Guideline. For clarity, they
are defined as presented in the subsequent narratives.
Inclusion is a generic term that encompasses all man-made elements incorporated in the
soil to improve its behavior. Examples of inclusions are steel strips, geotextile sheets,
steel or polymeric grids, steel nails, and steel tendons between anchorage elements. The
term reinforcement is used only for those inclusions where soil-inclusion stress transfer
occurs continuously along the inclusion.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSE wall or MSEW) is a generic term that includes
reinforced soil (a term used when multiple layers of inclusions act as reinforcement in
soils placed as fill). Reinforced Earth® is a trademark for a specific reinforced soil system.
Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS) are a form of reinforced soil that incorporate planar
reinforcing elements in constructed earth-sloped structures with face inclinations of less
than 70 degrees.
Geosynthetics is a generic term that encompasses flexible polymeric materials used in

geotechnical engineering such as geotextiles, geomembranes, geonets, and geogrids.
Facing is a component of the reinforced soil system used to prevent the soil from raveling
out between the rows of reinforcement. Common facings include precast concrete
panels, dry cast modular blocks, gabions, welded wire mesh, shotcrete, timber lagging
and panels, polymeric cellular confinement systems, and wrapped sheets of
geosynthetics. The facing also plays a minor structural role in the stability of the
structure. For RSS structures it usually consists of welded wire mesh, geosynthetic wrap-
around, and/or some type of erosion control material.
Retained backfill is the fill material located behind the mechanically stabilized soil zone.
Reinforced fill is the fill material in which the reinforcements are placed.
Generic cross sections of MSE structures are shown in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1 Generic cross sections of GMSE structures
1.5 Main Purpose of GMSEW Guideline

The main purpose of developing the structural design, stability analysis and
performance evaluation guidelines for GMSE Walls is to ensure proper and
appropriate application of geosynthetics products in order to realize optimal
performance and value added returns in terms of structural and Value Engineering
(VE) benefits.
This document is primarily focused on providing essential technical guidelines to
enable appreciable understanding of the geosynthetics reinforcement concepts
and mechanisms for the appropriate application in the design of GMSE Walls.
This code of practice embodies the experience of engineers successfully engaged

on the design and construction of the particular class of works. It has been
assumed in the drafting of this DG-3: 2018 GMSEW Kenyan Standard that the
execution of its provisions is entrusted to appropriately qualified and experienced
people.
In using this guideline it must be interpreted that a code of practice represents

good practice at the time it is written and, inevitably, technical developments will
render parts of it obsolescent in time. It is the responsibility of engineers
concerned with the design and construction of works to remain conversant with
developments in good practice, which have taken place since publication of the
code.
As a code of practice, this part of DG-3: 2018 takes the form of guidance and
recommendations. It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and
particular care should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not
misleading.
Any user claiming compliance with this part of DG-3: 2018 is expected to be able
to justify any course of action that deviates from its recommendations.
Contractual and legal considerations.
This publication does not purport to include all the necessary provisions of a
contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.
Compliance with this DG-3: 2018 cannot therefore confer immunity from all
contractual or any legal obligations.
The scope is sufficiently broad to be of value for specifications specialists,

contracting personnel responsible for construction inspection, development of
material specifications and contracting methods. With the aid of this text, the
engineer should be able to properly select, design, specify, monitor and contract
for the construction of GMSE walls.
1.6 Brief Background of GMSE-GRS Walls

Mechanically stabilized Geosynthetics Reinforced Earth (GMSE)-Walls are
retaining walls that rely on internal reinforcement embedded in the backfill for
stability. These structures have structural, Value Engineering (VE) and
environmental benefits as compared to the conventional structures such as gravity
retaining walls.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (GMSEWs) are an important class of
infrastructure assets whose long-term performance depends on various factors.
As with most of all other classes of assets, GMSEWs-Walls need periodic inspection
and assessment of performance. To date, some agencies in the United States, for
example, have established Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (GMSEWs)

monitoring programs, whereas others are looking for guidance, tools, and funding
to establish their own performance evaluation and monitoring programs.
Due to the importance of establishing effective monitoring and evaluation
programmes, the National Cooperative Research Programme (NCHRP) of the
United States initiated a study under the topic “Assessing the Long-Term
Performance of GMSE Walls. The results were disseminated in a Synthesis Report
No. 437. The objective of the synthesis project was to determine how
transportation agencies monitor, assess, and predict the long-term performance
of GMSE walls.
In Japan, Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls (GRS RWs) incorporating
Full-Height Rigid (FHR) facings became popular more than 20 years ago for railways
and highways including super high speed trains. Since then, a total wall length of
more than 120km at 59 locations spread across the country have been successfully
designed and constructed. Furthermore, the traditional gravity retaining walls that
failed as a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and typhoons
have been replaced with GRS RWs with FHR facings in practically all cases, which
have excelled in performance, in a country that is frequently exposed to extreme
disasters.
Results from numerous case studies and full-scale model tests attribute GRS and
GMSEWs geo-structures with such features as cost-effective, construction time
savings, high performance and low deformation even under severe seismic
activity, due to their flexibility and ductility which allow for differential settlements
of the base without failure.
ESSENTIAL TIPS
1. Both GMSEW and GRS systems have three main components consisting of: i)
reinforcing elements; ii) facing system; and, reinforced fill.
2. A degree of composite behavior results from reinforcement frequency.
3. For larger-spaced reinforced soil systems, the composite behavior diminishes with
increased reinforcement spacing.
4. Closer reinforcement spacing creates more soil-geosynthetic interaction.
5. In GRS, the reinforcement not only serves to resist tensile forces but also functions
to restrain lateral deformation of the soil, increase lateral confinement of the soil,
generate apparent cohesion in a granular fill (while maintaining all desirable
characteristics of granular soil), suppress dilation of the soil, enhance compaction-
induced stresses, increase ductility of the soil mass, and reduce migration of fines,
depending on the reinforcement type selected. These added benefits develop
because of the close reinforcement spacing.
6. It is important to note that the transition into GRS behavior is not dependent solely
on reinforcement spacing but also on the quality of the geomaterials; in particular,
the angle of internal friction (shearing resistance) and the aggregate size.
1.7 Introduction to Geosynthetics Products

An introduction to the types of geosynthetics products currently manufactured,
their corresponding basic functions and the appropriate applications are
introduced in Volume II of these guidelines as well as in “DG-2:2018 - Technical
Guideline for Geosynthetics Reinforced/Improved Materials – Structural Design,

Specifications and QCA for Road Embankments and Pavements.”
Figure 1-2: a) Biaxial Geogrids; b) Uniaxial Geogrids; c) Geobelts; and, d) Geostraps popularly
used for reinforcement of GMSE Walls
To quantitatively characterize the effective contribution of the geosynthetic within
a composite geo-structure, experimental testing has been performed and the
results comprehensively analyzed through the use of appropriate analytical
methods.
The most dominant factors, which significantly influence the properties listed in
the subsequent box in blue and are main design considerations in both GMSE and
GRS Walls/Structures are as follows.
i) Vertical Reinforcement spacing (VRS) of geosynthetics within the GMSE
walls
′
ii) Quality of Reinforcement Fill (𝜙𝑟𝑓 , 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒/𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)
iii) Geometry and Tensile Properties of Geosynthetics
iv) Base Design Length of Geosynthetics (LGD)
v) Soil – Reinforcement Interaction and Bonding (Frictional Mechanisms)
vi) Size of Shear Interface Layer Thickness
vii) Magnitude of Zone of Influence
viii) Degree of Interaction defined in terms of Mechanical Stability, Bearing
Capacity, Bonding and Friction (refer to the Slide in Figure 1.3).
1.8 K-Stiffness (Working Stress) Method of Design

The most significant aspect of this DG-3 Guideline is the application of the K-
Stiffness method. The K-stiffness Method is an empirically-developed working
stress method used to compute reinforcement loads for the internal stability
design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls under serviceability conditions.
Whilst the criteria for selection of this method are discussed under sub-Section
4.2 of Section 4, the following are some of the main advantages of using this
method.
 Empirically based method developed for internal stability analysis from
extensive case study analyses covering a wide range of GMSE wall types,
facing rigidity, batter angles (facing inclinations), backfill soils and
geosynthetic reinforcement types.
 Calibrated against more than fifty fully and partially well instrumented
MSE walls constructed and constantly monitored over varying periods
since 1986 to-date.
 Although other methods can be used to evaluate the potential for
reinforcement rupture and pullout for the strength and extreme event
limit states, only the K-Stiffness Method can be used to directly evaluate
the potential for soil backfill failure and to design the wall internally for
the service limit state.
 Discerns failure limit state of soil and reinforcement separately.
Conventional methods including the AASHTO simplified method are based
on based on active earth pressure theory or Coulomb wedge analysis and
hence the soil and critical reinforcement layers are assumed to be
simultaneously at incipient failure.
 Explicitly includes the quantitative influence of reinforcement stiffness
and structural facing contribution.
 Predicts reinforcement loads that are within a range of 10% of the post-
construction operational actual measurements resulting in
approximately 1/3 of the loads predicted using the models for the
AASHTO simplified method (refer to Section 4.2). This culminates in more
than 35% savings in the required reinforcement quantities.
Section 2: Design Criteria, Philosophy and fundamental principles

The fundamental design criteria, design philosophy, design aspects, climatic and
environmental considerations, traffic/load factors interpretation/evaluation,
materials characterization and classification as well as vital mechanisms required
for appropriate use of geosynthetics and optimization of the accruing benefits
thereof are introduced in this Section 2 within the framework of a Structural and
Geotechnical Design Approach.
2.1 Main Applications

MSEW structures are cost-effective alternatives for most applications where
reinforced concrete or gravity type walls have traditionally been used to retain
soil. These include bridge abutments and wing walls, as well as areas where the
right-of-way is restricted, such that an embankment or excavation with stable side
slopes cannot be constructed. They are particularly suited to economical
construction in steep-sided terrain, in ground subject to slope instability, or in
areas where foundation soils are poor.
MSE walls offer significant technical and cost advantages over conventional
reinforced concrete retaining structures at sites with poor foundation
conditions. In such cases, the elimination of costs for foundation improvements
such as piles and pile caps, that may be required for support of conventional
structures, have resulted in cost savings of greater than 50 percent on completed
projects.
Some of the typical representative uses of MSE walls for various applications are
shown in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1. Representative MSE wall applications (a) retaining wall; (b) access ramp;
(c) waterfront structure; and (d) bridge abutment (FHWA-024 Volume 1).
Temporary MSE wall structures have been especially cost-effective for

temporary detours necessary for highway reconstruction projects. Temporary
MSE walls are used to support temporary roadway embankments and temporary
bridge abutments, as illustrated in Figure 2-2. MSE walls are also used as
temporary support of permanent roadway embankments for phased
construction, an example is shown in Figure 2-3. On the other hand, Figures 2-4a
and 2-4 depict MSE walls used as a permanent geo-structures for bridge
abutment and retaining wall, respectively.
Figure 2-2. MSE walls to support temporary bridge abutment and roadway
embankment (FHWA-024 Volume 1).
Figure 2-3. MSE wall used to temporarily support a permanent roadway

embankment for phased construction (FHWA-024 Volume 1).
Figure 2-4. MSE wall used as a permanent geo-structure for: a) bridge abutment; and
b) retaining wall (after FHWA-024 Volume 1).
2.2 Advantages and Potential Disadvantages
2.2.1 Major Advantages
Pre-manufactured materials, rapid construction, and, competition among

different proprietary systems has resulted in a cost reduction relative to traditional
types of retaining walls. MSE walls are likely to be more economical than other
wall systems for walls higher than about 3 m or where special foundations would
be required for a conventional wall.
One of the greatest advantages of MSE walls is their flexibility and capability to
tolerate deformations due to poor subsoil foundation conditions. Also, based
on observations in seismically active zones, these structures have demonstrated
a higher resistance to seismic loading than rigid concrete wall structures.
Precast concrete facing elements for MSE walls can be made with various shapes
and textures (with little extra cost) for aesthetic considerations. Masonry units,
timber, and gabions also can be used to blend in the environment.
MSE walls have many advantages compared with conventional reinforced
concrete and concrete gravity retaining walls.
Such advantages mainly include the facts that MSE walls:
 Use simple and rapid construction procedures and do not require as
large of construction equipment.
 Do not require special skills for construction.
 Require less site preparation than other alternatives.
 Need less space in front of the structure for construction operations.
 Reduce right-of-way acquisition.
 Do not need rigid, unyielding foundation support because MSE

structures are tolerant to deformations.
 Are cost effective.
 Are technically feasible to heights in excess of 30 m.
Other benefits include:

 Bearing pressure is distributed over a wide foundation area
 Extreme wall heights can be achieved
 Extreme loads can be carried (bridge abutment footings, cranes)
 High resistance to seismic and other dynamic forces
 Free-draining, due to granular backfill and open panel joints
 Form liners or elaborate murals can customize the aesthetics
 Soil reinforcing strips can easily accommodate obstructions within
the MSE backfill volume
 Very versatile. Special design can allow for nearly any geometry
 Rapid, predictable, and repetitive construction
 Superior finished wall alignment
 Mechanical connection of soil reinforcements to facing units
2.2.2 Potential Disadvantages
The following general potential disadvantages may be associated with all

reinforced soil structures, and are dependent upon local and project conditions:
 Require a relatively large space (e.g., excavation if in a cut) behind the

wall or slope face to install required reinforcement.
 MSE walls require the use of select granular fill. (At some sites, the cost
of importing suitable fill material may render the system
uneconomical.) However, R&D for utilization of less restrictive
reinforced backfill geomaterials is progressively on-going.
 The design of soil-reinforced systems often requires a shared design
responsibility between material suppliers and owners.
2.3 Relative Costs and Method of Costing
2.3.1 Relative Costs
Site specific costs of a soil-reinforced structure are a function of many factors,

including cutfill requirements, wall/slope size and type, in-situ soil type, available
backfill materials, facing finish, temporary or permanent application, etc (refer to
the BoQ template provided in Appendix 14.1 included in Volume II of this DG-3.
It has been found that MSE walls with precast concrete facings are usually less
expensive than reinforced concrete retaining walls for heights greater than
about 3 m and average foundation conditions. Modular block wall (MBW) unit
faced walls are competitive with concrete walls at all heights and also for small
projects.
In general, and as can be inferred from Figure 2-5, the use of MSE walls results in
savings on the order of 25 to 50 percent and possibly more with a conventional
reinforced concrete retaining structure, especially when the latter is supported
on a deep foundation system (poor foundation condition). A substantial savings
is obtained by elimination of the deep foundations, which is usually possible
because reinforced soil structures can accommodate relatively large total and
differential settlements. Other cost saving features include ease of construction
and speed of construction.
It can further be derived from Figure 2-5 that the cost savings increase
exponentially as the height of the MSE wall increases.
Figure 2-5. Cost comparison for retaining walls (after US DOT-FHWA)
In accordance with the US DOT-FHWA: NHI No. FHWA-NHI-10-024, November

2009, typical total costs for permanent transportation MSE walls range from
$320 to $650 per 𝐦𝟐 of face, and generally vary as function of height, size of
project, aesthetic treatment, site accessibility, and cost of select wall fill.
However, in accordance with the New York State Department of Transportation
(NYS DOT) Geotechnical Engineering Manual (GEM) Revision No.3 of August
2015, typical total costs for MSE walls range from $200 to $400 per m 2 of face,
generally as function of height, size of project and cost of select fill. Some
example costs are presented with the case histories in Section 2.10 of the FHWA-
NHI-10-024.
The actual cost of a specific MSEW structure will depend on the cost of each of its
principal components. For segmental precast concrete faced structures, typical
relative costs are:
 Erection of panels and contractors profit - 20 to 30 percent of total cost.
 Reinforcing materials - 15 to 30 percent of total cost.
 Facing system - 20 to 40 percent of total cost.

 Reinforced wall fill including placement - 30 to 60 percent of total cost,
where the fill is a select granular fill from an off-site borrow source.
The additional cost for panel architectural finish treatment ranges from
$𝟓 𝐭𝐨 $𝟏𝟓 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝟐 depending on the complexity of the finish. Traffic barrier
costs average $550 per linear m. In addition, consideration must be given to the
cost of excavation, which may be somewhat greater than for other systems due to
the required width of the reinforcement zone. MBW faced walls at heights less
than 4.5 m are typically less expensive than segmental panel faced walls by 10
percent or more.
2.3.2 Method of costing
As introduced in the preceding sub-Section 2.3.1, costs for MSE Walls are generally
quoted per square meter with the exception of auxiliary components with
standard areas such as the traffic barrier.
An example of some of the main cost components is provided in Table 2.3, whilst
a standard template of the Bills of Quantities (BoQs) is provided in Appendix A14.1
of Volume II of this DG-3 Guideline.
ENG. SIRMOI TO FINALIZE THIS SECTION

2.4 Basic Description of MSE Systems
2.4.1 Systems Differentiation
Since the expiration of the fundamental process and concrete facing panel patents
obtained by the Reinforced Earth Company for MSE wall systems and structures,
the engineering community has adopted a generic term Mechanically Stabilized
Earth (MSE) to describe this type of retaining wall construction.
Trademarks, such as Reinforced Earth®, Retained Earth®, Genesis® etc., describe
systems with some present or past proprietary features or unique components
marketed by nationwide commercial suppliers. Other trademark names appear
yearly to differentiate systems marketed by competing commercial entities that
may include proprietary or novel components or for special applications.
A system for either MSEW or RSS structures is defined as a complete supplied
package that includes design, specifications and all prefabricated materials of
construction necessary for the complete construction of a reinforced soil
structure. Often technical assistance during the planning and construction phase
is included. Components marketed by commercial entities for integration by the
owner, or others, into a coherent package are not classified as systems. Generic
systems created by combining components are also possible; however, the
components must be tested and evaluated together in the form of the final
system. Components cannot be substituted without complete evaluation of the
impact on the system.
2.4.2 Types of MSE Systems
Mechanically Stabilized Earth/Reinforced Soil Slope (MSE/RSS) systems can be

described by the reinforcement geometry, stress transfer mechanism,
reinforcement material, extensibility of the reinforcement material, and the type
of facing and connections.
Reinforcement Geometry: Three types of reinforcement geometry can be
considered:
 Linear unidirectional: Strips, including smooth or ribbed steel strips, or
coated geosynthetic strips over a load-carrying fiber. C Composite
unidirectional. Grids or bar mats characterized by grid spacing greater
than 150 mm.
 Planar bi-directional. Continuous sheets of geosynthetics, welded wire
mesh, and woven wire mesh. The mesh is characterized by element
spacing of less than 150 mm.
Reinforcement Material: Distinction can be made between the characteristics of

metallic and nonmetallic reinforcements:
 Metallic reinforcements: Typically manufactured of mild steel. The
steel is usually galvanized.
 Nonmetallic reinforcements. Generally polymeric materials consisting
of polyester or polyethylene.
The performance and durability considerations for these two classes of

reinforcement vary considerably and are detailed in the companion
Corrosion/Degradation manual (FHWA NHI09-087; Elias et al., 2009).
Reinforcement Extensibility: There are two classes of extensibility relative to the
soil’s extensibility:
 Inextensible: The deformation of the reinforcement at failure is much
less than the deformability of the soil. Steel strip and bar mat
reinforcements are inextensible.
 Extensible: The deformation of the reinforcement at failure is
comparable to or even greater than the deformability of the soil.
Geogrid, geotextile, and woven steel wire mesh reinforcements are
extensible.
2.4.3 Facing Systems
The types of facing elements used in the different MSE systems control their
aesthetics because they are the only visible parts of the completed structure. A
wide range of finishes and colors can be provided in the facing, as shown in the
FHWA Federal Lands Highway Division’s Roadway Aesthetic Treatments Photo
Album (RATPA) available at http://gallery.company39.com/FLH/gallery/. In
addition, the facing provides protection against backfill sloughing and erosion,
and provides, in certain cases, drainage paths. The type of facing influences
settlement tolerances. Major facing types are:
 Segmental precast concrete panels: The various shapes and

dimensions of segmental precast panels are summarized in Table 1-1,
and examples are illustrated in Figure 2-6 (and in Figure 5-33) provided
in Appendix 8 of Volume II. The precast concrete panels have a
minimum thickness of 140 mm and are of a square, rectangular,
cruciform, diamond, or hexagonal geometry. Typical nominal panel
dimensions are 1.5 m high and 1.5 or 3 m wide. Temperature and
tensile reinforcement of the concrete are required and should be
designed in accordance with Section 5 of AASHTO LRFD Specifications
for Highway Bridges (2010).
 Dry cast modular block wall (MBW) units: These are relatively small,
squat concrete units that have been specifically designed and
manufactured for retaining wall applications. The weight of these units
commonly ranges from 15 to 50 kg, with units of 35 to 50 kg routinely
used for highway projects. Unit heights typically range from 100 to
300 mm for the various manufacturers, with 200 mm typical. Exposed
face length usually varies from 200 to 450 mm. Nominal front to back
width (dimension perpendicular to the wall face) of units typically
ranges between 200 and 600 mm. Units may be manufactured solid
or with cores. Full height cores are filled with aggregate during
erection. Units are normally dry-stacked (i.e. without mortar or
bearing pads) and in a running bond configuration. Vertically adjacent
units may be connected with shear pins, lips, or keys. They are referred
to by trademarked names such as Keystone®, Landmark®, Mesa®,
Versa-Lok®, etc. Several example MBW units are illustrated in Figure
2-7 provided in Appendix 8 of Volume II.
 Welded Wire Mesh (WWM): Wire grid can be bent up at the front of
the wall to form the wall face. This type of facing is used for example
in the Hilfiker, Tensar, and Reinforced Earth wire faced retaining wall
systems. This type of facing is commonly used for RSS with face angles
of about 45 degrees and steeper.
Figure 2-6. Example MSE wall facing treatments (FHWA-10-024).
2.5 Systematic Method of Construction and Monitoring of Construction

Progress
2.5.1 Systematic Method of Construction
1) Construction Sequence: Construction of MSEW systems with precast panel

facings
The following is an outline of the principal sequence of construction for MSEW and
RSS. Specific systems, special appurtenances and specific project requirements
may vary from the general sequence indicated.
The construction of MSEW systems with a precast panel facing is carried out as
follows:
 Preparation of subgrade. This step involves removal of unsuitable

materials from the area to be occupied by the retaining structure. All
organic matter, vegetation, slide debris and other unstable materials
should be stripped off and the subgrade compacted.
In unstable foundation areas, ground improvement methods, such as

excavation and replacement, or dynamic compaction, stone columns,
wick drains, etc. (see FHWA NHI06-019 and NHI-06-020, Elias et al.,
2006) would be constructed prior to wall erection.
 Placement of a leveling pad for the erection of the facing elements. This
generally unreinforced concrete pad is often only 300 mm wide and 150
mm thick and is used for MSEW construction only, where concrete
panels are subsequently erected. A wider concrete pad is recommended
for MBW unit erection.
The purpose of this pad is to serve as a guide for facing panel erection
and is not intended as a structural foundation support.
 Erection of the first row of facing panels on the prepared leveling pad.
Facings may consist of either precast concrete panels or dry cast MBW
units.
The first row of facing panels may be full, or half-height panels,

depending upon the type of facing used. Only the first tier of panels must
be braced to maintain stability and alignment. Subsequent rows of
panels are simply wedged and clamped to adjacent panels. For
construction with MBW units, full sized blocks are used throughout with
no shoring.
The erection of facing panels and placement of the soil backfills should
proceed simultaneously.
 Placement and compaction of reinforced wall fill on the subgrade to
the level of the first layer of reinforcement and its compaction. The fill
should be compacted to the specified density, usually 95 to 100 percent
of AASHTO T-99 maximum density and within the specified range of
optimum moisture content. Compaction moisture contents dry of
optimum are recommended.
A key to good performance is consistent placement and compaction.
Wall fill lift thickness must be controlled based on specification
requirements and vertical distribution of reinforcement elements. The
uniform loose lift thickness of the reinforced backfill should not exceed
300 mm. Reinforced wall fill should be dumped into or parallel to the
rear and middle of the reinforcement and bladed toward the front face.
Retained backfill placement and compaction behind the reinforced
volume should proceed simultaneously.
 Placement of the first layer of reinforcing elements on the wall fill. The
reinforcements are placed and connected to the facing panels, when the
compacted fill has been brought up to the level of the connection. The
reinforcements are generally placed perpendicular to back of the facing
panels. More detailed construction control procedures associated with
each construction step are outlined in Appendix A14.1 in Volume II of
this DG-3 Guideline.
 Placement of the wall fill over the reinforcing elements to the level of
the next reinforcement layer and compaction of the wall fill. The
previously outlined steps are repeated for each successive layer.
 Construction of traffic barriers and copings. This final construction

sequence is undertaken after the final panels have been placed, and the
wall fill has been completed to its final grade.
A complete sequence is illustrated in Figures 2-7 through 2-9.
Figure 2-7. Erection of precast panels.
Figure 2-8. Fill spreading and reinforcement connection.
Figure 2-9. Compaction of the reinforced wall fill.
Eng. Sirmoi to Complete this Section

2.5.2 Method of Monitoring Construction Progress
Monitoring of construction progress is to be monitored with two main objectives

in mind.
1. Construction time management.
2. Performance monitoring and deformation control.
Construction time management: Monitoring construction time of MSE walls
indicates that most well-constructed MSE geo-structures take approximately
1000hrs (42 days) to completion for a wall of 6 meters in height (refer to Figure
2-11b). In other words, the rate of construction should be designated at an
approximate average of 170hrs (7 days) per layer with site specific, dimensional
and geometric variables taken into account (refer to Figure 2-13). This
computation assumes competent procurement of construction materials.
Consequently, the default construction rate of 170 × 𝐻 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠; where 𝐻 is the
height of the MSE wall is reasonable in the absence of actual project timelines.
Figure 2-10. Cross section at instrumented section and profile for wall C. Note: maximum height
of wall at face excluding barrier was 10.7 m. However, because of the 10% negative batter
behind facing, an effective height of H = 10.5 m was used in reinforcement load calculations
(refer to the Plate in Figure 2-12).
Figure 2-11 a) LHS - Cross section of wall C showing instrumentation layout; and b) RHS
- rate of construction progress and associated reinforcement strain response at
selected locations on instrumented layers shown a); figure on LHS (Allen & Bathurst,
2013).
Performance monitoring and deformation control: Reinforcement strains in

monitored field walls that have behaved well under operational conditions have
stayed the same or strain rates have decreased with time after about 1000 hours
following end of construction. At longer times there is evidence in some monitored
walls of reinforcement load relaxation with time following construction (Allen and
Bathurst 2002; Bathurst et al. 2005; Tatsuoka et al. 2004; Kongkitkul et al. 2010).
Hence, tensile reinforcement loads at the end-of-construction condition are the
maximum loads used in the K-stiffness method provided original site and boundary
conditions for which the wall was designed do not change.
Figure 2-12. Reinforcement strain response for instrumented layer 10 showing

inﬂuence of contractor efforts to adjust face batter of wall above layer 10 by pushing
down on soil surface behind wall with hydraulic arm; the results of which are shown in
Figure 2-13 (Allen & Bathurst, 2013).
Figure 2-13. Photograph showing variations in as-built wall C face alignment due to
batter adjustment technique used by contractor.
As demonstrated in Figures 2-11 and 2-12, the method has been calibrated against
measured reinforcement loads deduced from isochronous stiffness values
corresponding to 2% strain and elapsed construction times or 1000 hours. The
default time of 1000 hours is reasonable in the absence of actual project timelines
since most walls are constructed within 1000 hours.
Furthermore, results of in-isolation constant load (creep) and constant-rate-of-
strain (CRS) tests on the polyolefin reinforcement products used in the case studies
have shown that the 𝐽2% secant stiffness is a constant value for practical purposes
at or beyond 1000 hours (e.g. Figure 2-11).
Figure 2-14. Finished Section: Front view of wall C at location of instrumented section.
2.6 Evaluation of Project Attributes

Geosynthetics are generally designed and produced to withstand fairly harsh
conditions, drastic climatic changes and temperature differentials.
Structure Selection Factors: The major factors that influence the selection of a
GMSEW for any project include:
 Geologic and topographic conditions

 Environmental conditions
 Size and nature of the structure
 Aesthetics
 Durability considerations
 Performance criteria
 Availability of materials
 Experience with a particular system or application
 Cost
Specific technical issues focused on selection factors are summarized in the
following sections.
Geologic and Topographic Considerations: GMSE structures are particularly well
suited where a "fill-type" wall must be constructed or where side-hill fills are
indicated. Under these latter conditions, the volume of excavation may be small,
and the general economy of this type of construction is not jeopardized.
Economic advantages diminish with large cut volumes to accommodate the
reinforced soil structure, but in many instances remain viable.
The adequacy of the foundation to support the fill weight must be determined as
a first-order feasibility evaluation. Where soft compressible soils are encountered,
preliminary stability analyses must be made to determine if sufficient shear
strength is available to support the weight of the reinforced fill. As a rough first
approximation for vertically faced GMSE structures, the available shear strength
must be equal to at least 2.0 to 2.5 times the weight of the fill structure.
Where these conditions are not satisfied, ground improvement techniques must
be considered to increase the bearing capacity at the foundation level. These
techniques include but are not limited to: i) excavation and removal of soft soils
and replacement with a compacted structural fill; ii) use of lightweight fill
materials; iii) in-situ densification by dynamic compaction or improvement by use
of surcharging with or without prefabricated vertical drains; iv) construction of
aggregate and/or coarse sand columns.
Where marginal to adequate foundation strength is available, preliminary
settlement analyses should be made to determine the potential for differential
settlement, both longitudinally along a proposed structure as well as transverse to
the face. This second- order feasibility evaluation is useful in determining the
appropriate type of facing systems for GMSE walls and in planning appropriate
construction phasing to accommodate the settlement.
In general, concrete-faced GMSE structures using discrete articulating panels can
accommodate maximum longitudinal differential settlements of about 1/100H
(0.01H), without the introduction of special sliding joints between panels. Full-
height concrete panels are considerably less tolerant and generally would not be
considered where differential settlements are anticipated. MBW unit faced walls
can accommodate maximum longitudinal differential settlements of about
1/200H (0.005H), with the introduction of special slip joints.
Climatic and Environmental Considerations: Geosynthetics are generally
designed and produced to withstand fairly harsh conditions, drastic climatic
changes and temperature differentials.
Nevertheless, climatic input factors adopted particularly in consideration of the
geomaterial ~ geosynthetics interaction. In most cases, the input factors
considered for non- reinforced/non-improved geomaterials should be adopted as
representative of the worst case scenario.
The primary environmental condition affecting reinforcement type selection
and potential performance of GMSE structures is the aggressiveness of the in-
situ ground regime that can cause deterioration to the reinforcement. Post
construction changes must be considered where toxic fluids or fertilizers are
subsequently used.
A secondary environmental issue is site accessibility, which may dictate the nature
and size of the facing for GMSE wall construction. Sites with poor accessibility or
remote locations may lend themselves to lightweight facings such as geotextile or
geogrid wrapped facings and vegetative covers; metal skins; welded wire mesh,
gabions, modular blocks (MBW) which could be erected without heavy lifting
equipment.
Size and Nature of Structure: Theoretically there is no upper limit to the height of
GMSE walls that can be constructed. Practical limits are often dictated by
economy, available ROW, and the tensile strength of commercially available soil
reinforcing materials. For bridge abutments there is no theoretical limit to the
span length that can be supported, although the longer the span, the greater is the
area of footing necessary to support the beams. Since the nominal bearing
resistance of the reinforced fill for the service limit state is usually limited to 200
kPa, a large abutment footing further increases the span length, adding cost to the
superstructure. This additional cost must be balanced by the potential savings of
the GMSE alternate to a conventional abutment wall, which would have a shorter
span length. As an option in such cases, it might be economical to consider support
of the bridge beams on deep foundations, placed within (or in front of) the
reinforced fill zone.
The lower limit to height is usually dictated by economy. When used with traffic
barriers, low walls on good foundations of less than 3 to 4 m are often
uneconomical, as the cost of the overturning moment leg of the traffic barrier
approaches one-third of the total cost of the GMSE structure in place. For
cantilever walls, the barrier is simply an extension of the stem with a smaller
impact on overall cost.
The total size of structure (square meters of face) has little impact on economy
compared with other retaining wall types.
However, the unit cost for small projects of less than 300 m2 is likely to be 10 to 15
percent higher.
Aesthetics: Precast concrete facing panels may be cast with an unlimited variety
of texture and color for an additional premium that seldom exceeds 15 percent of
the facing cost, which on average would mean a 4 to 6 percent increase on total
inplace cost.
Modular block wall facings are often comparable in cost to precast concrete panels
except on small projects (less than 400 m2) where the small size introduces savings
in erection equipment cost and the need to cast special, made-to-order concrete
panels to fit what is often irregular geometry. MBW facings may be
manufactured in color and with a wide variety of surface finishes.
Limits of Applicability: The current AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2007) states that
MSE walls should not be used under the following conditions:
 When utilities other than highway drainage must be constructed within the
reinforced zone where future access for repair would require the
reinforcement layers to be cut.
 With galvanized metallic reinforcements exposed to surface or ground water
contaminated by acid mine drainage or other industrial pollutants as indicted
by low pH and high chlorides and sulfates.
 When floodplain erosion may undermine the reinforced fill zone, or where
the depth to scour cannot be reliably determined.
2.7 Establishment of Project Criteria
Geosynthetics are generally designed and produced to withstand fairly harsh

conditions, drastic climatic changes and temperature differentials. However, the
engineer should consider each topic area presented in this section at a preliminary
design stage and determine appropriate elements and performance criteria.
The process consists of the following successive steps: i) consider all possible
alternatives; ii) choose an appropriate system; iii) consider facing options; iv)
develop performance criteria (loads, design heights, embedment, settlement
tolerances, foundation capacity, effect on adjoining structures, etc.); and, v)
consider effect of site on corrosion/degradation of reinforcements.
Consideration of Alternative Options: Cantilever, gravity, semi gravity, or
counterforted concrete walls or soil embankments are the usual alternatives to
GMSE walls and abutments.
In cut situations, in-situ walls such as tieback anchored walls, soil nailed walls or
non-gravity cantilevered walls are often more economical, although where limited
ROW is available, a combination of a temporary in-situ wall at the back end of the
reinforcement and a permanent GMSE wall is often competitive.
For waterfront or marine wall applications, sheet pile walls with or without
anchorages or prefabricated concrete bin walls that can be constructed in the wet
zones are often, if not always, both more economical and more practical to
construct.
Structural requirements: It is recommended that comprehensive analysis of the

structural requirements of each option are carried out when considering the
alternatives.
Design Code: The Design Code to be adopted, for example; MOTIHUD-MTRD DG-
3 2018; BS8006-1:2010, AASHTO/FHWA LFRD 2007; etc. should be clearly
designated.
It should further be indicated whether the design philosophy will be based on ASD
(Allowable Stress Design) or LRFD (Load and Resistance Factor Design).
Note that this DG-3 2018, AASHTO LFRD 2010 and BS8006-1:2010 Design Codes
are based on LRFD.
Load factors: Reinforced Soil is a combination of structural and geotechnical
engineering. The evolution of limit state design in structural engineering has led to
the definition of a number of partial load factors which are applied to loads in
design combinations and material factors which are applied to the structural
components (refer to Section 2.7).
For the purposes of reinforced soil design, a limit state is deemed to be reached
when one of the following conditions occur.
a) collapse or major damage;
b) deformations in excess of acceptable limits; and,
c) other forms of distress or minor damage, which would render the structure
unsightly, require unforeseen maintenance or shorten the expected life of the
structure.
The condition defined in (a) is the ultimate limit state, whilst (b) and (c) are
serviceability limit states.
2.8 Design Philosophies for GMSE Walls

Uncertainties in Design: Uncertainties exist in every structure that is designed.
These uncertainties are compensated to varying degrees in the design codes
depending on the choice of the design philosophies, which dictate the level of
precision and confidence as a function of the degree of probabilistic reliability. The
fundamental design philosophies that are adopted for the design of Geosynthetics
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (GMSE) Walls include: i) Allowable Stress Design
(ASD); ii) Load Factor Design (LFD); and iii) Limit State Design (LSD) or Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD).
A preferable design philosophy is one that reduces over-conservatism,
inconsistency and empiricism to enhance reliability to meet or exceed target levels
mainly in reference to the following states/conditions: i) structural integrity; ii)
serviceability and safety; and iii) economic and durability.
This can be further achieved by incorporating true reliability theory based design
(RBD) as useful complimentary tools to LSD/LRFD to offer more flexibility to adjust
design parameters (Bathurst et. al., 2018).
Allowable Stress Design (ASD): In the allowable stress design, uncertainties are
compensated through the application of a single factor of safety and combined
load factor as defined in Equation 2.1.
𝑅𝑛
𝐹𝑆
≥ 𝑄𝑑 + 𝛾 ∑ 𝑄𝑡𝑖 (2-1)
where, 𝑅𝑛 = nominal (characteristic) resistance, 𝐹𝑆 = factor of safety, 𝑄𝑑 = nominal

(specified) dead load effect, 𝛾 = load combination factor and 𝑄𝑡𝑖 = nominal
(specified) transient load effects.
As can be observed from Equation 2.1, ASD does not recognize different
variabilities for various load types. The major limitations of the ASD method
include:
 It does not adequately account for variability of loads and resistances.
 The factor of safety is applied only to resistance.
 Loads are considered to be without variations.
 It does not represent a reasonable measure of strength which is more
fundamental measure of resistance than the allowable stress.
 Selection of the factor of safety is subjective and does not provide a
measure of reality in terms of probability of failure.
Load Factor Design (LFD): Although the LFD makes consideration of different
variabilities for various load types, it does not provide for a rational approach to
the selection of resistance factors as can also be derived from the expression
provided in Equation 2-2.
𝑅𝑛 ≥ 𝛾𝑑 𝑄𝑑 + ∑ 𝛾𝑡𝑖 𝑄𝑡𝑖 (2-2)
where, 𝑅𝑛 = nominal (characteristic) resistance, 𝛾𝑑 = dead load factor, 𝑄𝑑 =

nominal (specified) dead load effect, 𝛾𝑡𝑖 = transient load factor and 𝑄𝑡𝑖 = nominal
(specified) transient load effects.
Limit state design (LSD)/ Load And Resistance Factor Design (LRFD): Practically all
GMSE wall structures are designed within the fundamental design philosophy of
the LSD (BS8006-1:2010), also known as LRFD in North America (AASHTO LRFD
2012 6th Edition). A limit state is a condition of a structure beyond which it no
longer fulfills the relevant design criteria. The condition may refer to a degree
of loading or other actions on the structure, while the criteria refer to structural
integrity, fitness for use, durability or other design requirements. A structure
designed by LSD is proportioned to sustain all actions likely to occur during its
design life, and to remain fit for use, with an appropriate level of reliability for each
limit state. Design codes based on LSD implicitly define the appropriate levels of
reliability by their prescriptions.
The LSD/LRFD requires that the structure satisfies two principal criteria:
the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) demarcating the designated upper boundary limit
of the structural scheme and the Serviceability Limit State (SLS), which basically
defines the functional limit as a criteria from deformation resistance.
Thus the philosophy of LSD/LRFD method is to ensure that the structure remains
fit for use throughout its designed life by remaining within the acceptable limit of
safety and serviceability requirements based on the risks involved.
In load and resistance factor design, engineers use prescribed limit state equations
and load and resistance factors specified in design codes to ensure that a target
probability of failure for each load carrying member in a structure is not exceeded.
The preferred objective of LSD calibration is to compute load and resistance factor
values to meet a target probability of failure using measured load and resistance
data rather than fitting to allowable stress design (ASD) past practice.
In the LSD/LRFD, the resistance side is multiplied by a statistically-based resistance
factor φ, which value is usually less than one. As applied to the geotechnical design
of GMSE walls, φ accounts for factors such as weaker foundation soils than
expected, poor construction and its materials such as earth, geosynthetics
reinforcing elements, among others, that may not completely satisfy the
specification requirements.
On the other hand, the load components on the right side are multiplied by their
respective statistically-based load factors, 𝛾𝑑 ⁄𝛾𝑡𝑖 , whose values are usually
greater than one. Because the load effect at a particular limit state involves a
combination of different load types, Qi, each of which has different degrees of
predictability, the load factors differ in magnitude for the various load types.
Therefore, the load effects can be represented by a summation of 𝛾𝑑 𝑄𝑑 ⁄𝛾𝑡𝑖 𝑄𝑡𝑖
products. If the nominal resistance is given by 𝑅𝑛 , then the safety criterion of the
fundamental limit state expression used in LRFD can be written as:
𝜙𝑅𝑛 ≥ 𝛾𝑑 𝑄𝑑 + ∑ 𝛾𝑡𝑖 𝑄𝑡𝑖 (2-3)
where, 𝜙 = statistically-based resistance factor, 𝑅𝑛 = nominal (characteristic)

resistance, 𝛾𝑑 = dead load factor, 𝑄𝑑 = nominal (specified) dead load effect, 𝛾𝑡𝑖 =
statistically-based transient load factor and 𝑄𝑡𝑖 = nominal (specified) transient load
effects.
Because of above equation involves both load factors and resistance factors, the
design method is also referred to as the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD).
For a satisfactory design, the factored nominal resistance should equal or exceed
the sum of the factored load effects for a particular limit state. Load and resistance
factors are chosen such that in the highly improbable event that the nominal
resistance of the GMSE Wall elements is overestimated and at the same time the
loads are underestimated, there is a reasonably high probability that the actual
resistance of the GMSE Wall elements should still be large enough to support the
loads.
In design codes, load factor values are typically greater than or equal to one and
resistance factor values are always less than or equal to one. It is important to
emphasize that as for bridge design, a nominal load is not a failure load but rather
a value that is a best estimate of the load under operational conditions (Harr
1987). For example, this nominal load may be due to structure dead loads plus a
representative vehicle load based on statistical treatment of traffic. Conceptually,
the margin of safety is largely provided by the resistance side of the equation
where the resistance value is calculated based on the failure capacity (ultimate
limit state) or a deformation criterion (serviceability limit state) for each element
analyzed. The same concepts described above must apply to strength limit states
for internal stability design of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls using LRFD (e.g.
rupture (over-stressing) and pullout).
The most popular analytical methods for determining/designating appropriate
limiting states/conditions/values for the internal stability design of GMSE are the
limit equilibrium analysis and the working stress method.
Limit Equilibrium Based Methods: Current design methods for the internal
stability analysis of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls are based on limit
equilibrium analysis and the assumption of a simultaneous failure state for the soil
and reinforcement.
There are a number of disadvantages of limit equilibrium-based methods for
internal stability design of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls which contribute to
their poor prediction accuracy. For example, Leshchinsky and Han (2003)
identified the following shortcomings of limit equilibrium based methods
including: i) Equilibrium is satisfied only for sliding mass modes of failure; ii)
Deformation is not considered; iii) In simplified methods, failure is allowed only on
predefined surfaces; and iv) Kinematics are not considered so that some failure
mechanisms may not be possible.
Hence, if reinforced soil walls are assumed a priori to be at incipient collapse for
design purposes, the general approach has major deficiencies. In fact, walls are
designed for working stress conditions. Given the points made above it cannot be
accepted that limit equilibrium-based methods of analysis for internal design of
reinforced soil walls are rational. It is more appropriate to understand that this
general approach results in simple models that do not satisfy a consistent
mechanics framework but nevertheless result in conservative (safe) designs.
Furthermore, the complex interactions that develop between a structural facing
(a common feature of permanent walls) and the soil and reinforcement cannot be
captured using simple wedge or slip surface models based only on force
equilibrium. The persistence of limit equilibrium based models for the internal
stability design of geosynthetic reinforced design in current design codes is largely
the result of lack of an alternative analytical approach. Nevertheless, the earliest
attempts in North America to improve the prediction accuracy of geosynthetic
reinforcement loads under operational conditions recognized that reinforcement

loads were a function of displacement and hence the tensile stiffness of the
reinforcement is a fundamental property for design (Christopher 1990, 1993). An
obvious shortcoming of limit equilibrium methods that consider only the strength
of the reinforcing elements is that predicted loads under operational conditions
will be the same for steel and relatively extensible polymeric materials provided
they have the same strength and number of layers in the wall.
Working Stress Based Methods: GMSE Walls are usually designed for working
stress conditions simulating the post-construction state of in-service operations.
One of the effective working stress based methods is the empirically developed K-
Stiffness briefly introduced under sub-Section 1.6 of Section 1 and adopted for
internal stability design in Step 7, sub-Section 4.2 of Section 4. This new method
explicitly includes the influence of reinforcement stiffness and the structural facing
amongst other contributions. Statistical analysis of the bias of measured to
predicted load is used to demonstrate the improved accuracy of this new load
design approach.
Design Philosophy Adopted in DG-3 Guidelines: Based on the fact that the
LSD/LRFD philosophy provides a more uniform, systematic and rational approach
to the selection of load factors and resistance factors, which culminates in a more
structurally reliable and economic design, these DG-3 Guidelines shall be based
on the LSD/LRFD philosophy. In particular, given its structural and economic
merits, the K-Stiffness method shall be adopted for the internal stability design
as guided in Step 7 of sub-Section 4.2 of these guidelines.
2.9 Structural Facing Considerations and Performance (Limit State

Serviceability) Criteria
2.9.1 Structural Facing Considerations
In view of the fact that the K-Stiffness Method is adopted for the design and
analysis of internal stability (refer to Section 4.2), structural considerations of the
wall facing column become exceedingly important.
Consideration of Wall Facing Structural Contribution: During the studies
undertaken for the development of these Design Guidelines; and as subsequently
introduced, research initiatives were extended to the consideration of the
structural contribution of wall facings in actual design. However, it is
recommended that this factor be incorporated into actual design after further
studies.
Conventional Consideration: Conventionally the following considerations are
normally made.
 Facings are only incorporated to prevent a spill out of the backfill material.
 Earth pressure at the facing is (should be) as low as possible.
 Facing should be flexible enough to accommodate deformation of supporting
ground
Structural Contribution of Wall Facing: On the contrary
 Facing is a very essential structural component that actively confines the

backfill and develops the necessary large tensile forces within the
reinforcement.
 Earth pressure at facing should be high enough to provide sufficient confining
pressure to the backfill.
 The facing should be flexible enough to accommodate deformation of
supporting ground during construction but should become rigid before
service.
 The structural contribution of wall facing is to be characterized based on its
capacity to carry active pressure culminating in enhanced internal stability as
well as vindication of vertical settlement and lateral displacement.
 The magnitude of contribution is known to increase exponentially with
increasing height of wall facing.
In order to effectively evaluate the performance and contribution of geosynthetics
reinforcement in GMSEWS-Wall structures, it is imperative that the role and
contribution of the facing in the global stability of the entire structure be taken
into account.
The development of project-specific aesthetic criteria: is principally focused on
the type, size, and texture of the facing, which is the only visible feature of any
GMSE structure.
For permanent applications, considerations should be given to GMSE walls with
precast Segmental Concrete Panels (SCP). They are constructed with a (near)
vertical face. Currently, the size of panels commercially produced varies 1.8 to 4.5
m2. Generally, Full Height Panels (FHP) may be considered for walls up to about 4
to 5 m in height on foundations that are not expected to settle. Experienced
contractors have successfully constructed taller full height panels (e.g. 7.5 m) on
competent foundations. The precast concrete panels can be manufactured with a
variety of surface textures and geometries.
Also for permanent applications, considerations should be given to Modular Block
Wall (MBW) facings, which are available in a variety of shapes and textures. They
range in facial area from 0.05 to 0.1 m2. An integral feature of this type of facing
is a front batter ranging from nominal up to 15 degrees. Project geometric
constraints, i.e., the bottom of wall and top of wall horizontal limits, may limit the
amount of permissible batter and, thus, the types of MBW units that may be used.
Note that the toe of these walls step back as the foundation elevation steps up,
due to the stacking arrangement and automatic batter.
Other facing options that may be considered are gabion, timber faced, or
vegetated.
For temporary walls, significant economy can be achieved with geosynthetic
wrapped facings. They may be made permanent by applying gunite or cast-in-
place concrete in a post-construction application.
Structural vs. flexible facing: When contemplating the use of either structural
(MBW, SCP or FHP) and flexible (geosynthetics wraparound, gabion, vegetated),
design and service life considerations should be made based on the structural
requirements of the GMSEW geo-structure (refer to Section 1.7).
Structural performance, cost and aesthetics considerations: The choice of

suitable facings should be made on the basis of structural
performance/contribution, cost and aesthetics with reference to structural and
value engineering benefits.
2.9.2 Performance (Limit State Serviceability) Criteria
The performance or limit state serviceability criteria is fundamentally based on

deformation characteristics defined in terms of lateral displacement and
vertical/differential settlement.
Performance Criteria: Performance criteria for GMSE structures with respect to
design requirements are governed by design practice or codes such as contained
in Article 11.10 of 2010 AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Highway Bridges. These
requirements consider load and resistance factors with respect to various failure
modes and materials, and for various limit states.
Performance criteria are both site and structure-dependent. Structure-dependent
criteria consist of safety factors or a consistent set of load and resistance factors
as well as tolerable movement criteria of the specific GMSE structure selected.
Recommended GMSE Wall load and resistance factors with respect to the various
potential failure modes and limit states are presented in Chapter 4.
Deformation criteria:
 Prediction criteria for lateral displacements

With respect to lateral wall displacements, NO method is presently available to
definitively predict lateral displacements, most of which occur during
construction. The horizontal movements depend on quality of fill, compaction
effects, vertical reinforcement spacing, reinforcement extensibility, reinforcement
length, reinforcement-to-panel connection details, and details of the facing
system. Recent advances in R&D of GMSE walls indicate that estimation of
probable lateral displacements of simple structures that may occur during
construction can be made mainly based on: i) angle of friction (shearing resistance)
of the fill geomaterials; ii) vertical reinforcement spacing; iii) the reinforcement
length to wall-height ratio; iv) and reinforcement extensibility for the serviceability
limit check.
Other studies indicate that increasing the length-to-height ratio of
reinforcements from its theoretical lower limit of 0.5H to 0.7H, decreases the
deformation by 50 percent.
 Evaluation criteria for lateral displacements
Horizontal and vertical movements can be monitored by surveying methods, using
suitable measuring points on the retaining wall facing elements or on the
pavement or surface of the retained soil. Permanent benchmarks are required for
vertical control. For horizontal control, one horizontal control station should be
provided at each end of the structure.
The maximum lateral movement of the wall face during construction is
anticipated to be on the order of H/250 for inextensible reinforcement and H/75
for extensible reinforcement. Tilting due to differential lateral movement from

the bottom to the top of the wall would be anticipated to be less than 4 mm per
m of wall height (H) for either system. Post-construction horizontal movements
are anticipated to be very small.
Some typical characteristics depicting the effect of height of concrete wall facing
on maximum lateral displacement for predicted and measured cases of RW
structures in the United States, Japan and Kenya are shown in Figure A1-4 of
Appendix A1 presented in Volume II of this DG-3 Guideline.
Lateral displacement occurs during construction of GMSE walls and that the
magnitude of this displacement is influenced by height, stiffness of the
geosynthetic, quality of fill material, as well as quality and rate of construction of
the GMSE Walls.
 Vertical settlement
During the design stage, it is important to carry out prediction analysis for the
initial vertical and differential settlements as well as lateral displacements
resulting from construction for purposes of calibrating, controlling and
programming the construction stages and characterization of the fill geomaterial
and reinforcement layers.
This subject has not been captured in this Design Guidelines and more research
ought to be carried out to develop models for their determination.
Typically, the tolerable maximum values range between 35 ~ 70 mm for
concrete block walls
Post construction vertical movements should be estimated from foundation
settlement analyses, and measurements of actual foundation settlement
during and after construction should be made.
 Differential settlement
Tolerance of precast facing panels to settlement: GMSE structures have
significant deformation tolerance both longitudinally along a wall and
perpendicular to the front face. Therefore, poor foundation conditions seldom
preclude their use. However, where significant differential settlements are
anticipated (greater than 1/100) sufficient joint width and/or slip joints must be
provided to preclude panel cracking. This factor may influence the type and
design of the facing panel selected.
Square panels generally adapt to larger longitudinal differential settlements better
than long rectangular panels of the same surface area. A joint width of 20 mm is
generally recommended. Guidance on differential settlements that can be
tolerated is presented in Table 2-1, for panels with a surface of 2.8 m2 or less and
for panels with surface area greater than 2.8 m2 and less than or equal to 7 m2.
Bearing pads used between segmental precast concrete panels should be designed
to accommodate down drag forces on it due to elastic settlement of the wall fill.
Bearing pad design and specification are addressed in Volume II.
GMSE walls constructed with full height panels should be limited to differential
settlements of 1/500H. Walls with drycast facing (MBW) should be limited to
settlements of 1/200H. For walls with welded wire facings, the limiting
differential settlement should be 1/50H.
Where significant differential settlement perpendicular to the wall face is
anticipated, the reinforcement connection may be overstressed. Where the back
of the reinforced soil zone will settle more than the face, the reinforcement could
be placed on a sloping fill surface which is higher at the back end of the
reinforcement to compensate for the greater vertical settlement. This may be the
case where a steep surcharge slope is constructed. This latter construction
technique, however, requires that surface drainage be carefully controlled after
each day's construction. Alternatively, where significant differential settlements
are anticipated, ground improvement techniques may be warranted to limit the
settlements.
Table 2-1a. Summary of Limit State performance criteria based on deformation
(after C11.10.4.1 AASHTO LRFD {2007/2010}).
Joint Width Limiting Differential Settlement
2 2 2
Area < 2.8 m 2.8 m <Area < 7 m
20 mm 1/100 1/200
Table 2-1b. Relationship between joint width and limiting differential settlements
for GMSE Precast Panels (after C11.10.4.1 AASHTO LRFD {2007/2010}).
Joint Width Limiting Differential Settlement
2 2 2
Area < 2.8 m 2.8 m <Area < 7 m
20 mm 1/100 1/200
Site specific criteria: A number of site-specific project criteria need to be

established at the inception of design:
 Design limits and wall height. The length and height required to meet project
geometric requirements must be established to determine the type of
structure and external loading configurations.
 Alignment limits. The horizontal (perpendicular to wall face) limits of bottom
and top of wall alignment must be established as alignments vary with batter
of wall system. The alignment constraints may limit the type and maximum
batter of the wall facing, particularly with MBW units.
 Length of reinforcement. A minimum reinforcement length of 0.7H is
recommended for GMSE walls. Longer lengths are required for structures
subject to surcharge loads, or where foundation conditions affect lateral
sliding and/or global/compound slope stability, as listed in Table 2-1. Shorter
lengths can be used in special situations (see Appendix A2).
 External loads. The external loads may be soil surcharges required by the
geometry, adjoining footing loads, loads as from traffic, and/or traffic impact
loads. The magnitude of the minimum traffic loads outlined in Article 3.11.6.4
(AASHTO, 2007) is a uniform load equivalent to 2 ft (0.6 m) of soil over the
traffic lanes. The traffic load is greater for some cases (see Tables 4-5 and 4-
6).
 Wall embedment. The minimum embedment depth for walls from adjoining
finished grade to the top of the leveling pad should be based on bearing,
settlement, and slope stability considerations. Current practice based on local
bearing considerations, recommends the minimum embedment depths listed
in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2. Typical minimum length of reinforcement (AASHTO LRFD 2007/2010)
Case Typical Minimum L/H Ratio
Static loading with or with traffic surcharge 0.7
Sloping backfill surcharge 0.8
Seismic loading 0.8 to 1.1
Table 2-3. Minimum GMSEW Embedment Depths (AASHTO LRFD 2007/2010).

Slope in Front of Wall Minimum Embedment
Depth to Top of Leveling
Pad*
All Geometries 0.6 m minimum
horizontal (walls) H/20
horizontal (abutments) H/10
3H:1V H/10
2H:1V H/7
1.5H:1V H/5
* Minimum depth is the greater of applicable values listed or scour depth.
Larger values may be required, depending on shrinkage and swelling of foundation

soils, seismic activity, and/or scour. A greater embedment depth may also be
required based upon bearing, settlement, and/or global stability calculations. As
noted, the minimum in any case is 0.6 m, except for structures founded on rock
at the surface, where no embedment may be used.
A minimum horizontal bench 1.2 m wide as measured from the face shall be
provided in front of walls founded on slopes. The bench may be formed or the
slope continued above that level (11.10.2.2, AASHTO {2007/2010}), as illustrated
in Figure 2-1. The horizontal bench is intended to provide resistance against
general bearing failure and to provide access for maintenance inspections
(C11.10.2.2, AASHTO {2007/2010}).
For walls constructed along rivers and streams where the depth of scour has
been reliably determined, a minimum embedment of 0.6 m below scour depth
is recommended.
Figure 2-1. GMSE wall embedment depth requirements, (a) level toe condition and (b)
benched slope toe condition (𝒅𝒉 = minimum depth for horizontal slope and 𝒅𝒔 =
minimum depth for sloping toe, from Table 2-3) - (FHWA-NHI-10-024: 2009).
 Seismic Activity. Due to their flexibility, GMSE wall and slope structures are
quite resistant to dynamic forces developed during a seismic event, as
confirmed by the excellent performance in several recent earthquakes. As a
consequence, Seismic loading analysis of GMSE walls is an Extreme Event
limit state.
Note that for sites where the anticipated ground acceleration is greater than 0.29
g, significant total lateral structure movements may occur, and a deformation
analysis for the structure is recommended (C11.10.7.1, AASHTO {2007}).
GMSE walls should be designed/checked for seismic stability on all sites where the
𝑨𝒔 coefficient is greater than 0.05.
Design life: GMSE walls should be designed for a service life based on
consideration of the potential long-term effects of material deterioration,
seepage, stray currents and other potentially deleterious environmental factors
on each of the material components comprising the wall. For most applications,
permanent retaining walls should be designed for a minimum service life of 75
years. Retaining walls for temporary applications are typically designed for a
service life of 36 months or less.
A greater level of safety and/or longer service life (i.e., 100 years) may be
appropriate for walls that support true bridge abutments, buildings, critical
utilities, or other facilities for which the consequences of poor performance or
failure would be severe.
Service life: The quality of in-service performance is an important consideration in
the design of permanent retaining walls. Permanent walls shall be designed to
retain an aesthetically pleasing appearance, and not require significant
maintenance throughout their design service life.
The service life of reinforced soil structures should be considered in design. In most
applications the selected design life of the reinforcing elements is equal to the
service life of the structure (usually 120 years). In certain cases, mostly
foundations to embankments, the entire structure can have a long term service
life but it may only be necessary for the reinforced portion to function for a shorter
time while the surrounding ground gains strength.
Table 2-4 gives examples for the categorization of the service life of reinforced soil
for a variety of applications.
Table 2-4 Categorization of the service life of reinforced segmental blocks soil for a
variety of applications.
Category Typical service life Example
(years)
Temporary works 1 to 2 Contractors site structures
Short term 5 to 10 Contractors site structures
Basal reinforcement
Industrial 10 to 50 Structures at mines
Long term 60 Marine structures and highway
embankments
Long term 70 Retaining walls
Long term 120 Highway retaining walls and highway
structures and bridge abutments to
DoT requirements
Construction constraints: Any possible construction constraints should be

determined and/or envisaged during the feasibility and design studies stages,
evaluated and effective mitigation measures proposed accordingly.
Establishment of Fundamental Project Design Parameters: The fundamental
design parameters for GMSE walls can principally be considered to be: i) the angle
of internal friction/shearing resistance for the foundation (𝜙𝑓′ ), reinforced fill
′ ′
(𝜙𝑟𝑓 ), and backfill (𝜙𝑏𝑓 ),; ii) Unit weight for the foundation (𝛾𝑓 ), reinforced fill
(𝛾𝑟𝑓 ), and backfill (𝛾𝑏𝑓 ); iii) maximum particle size (𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) and distribution
(influence on mechanical stability through interlocking and frictional interaction
with geosynthetics); iv) geosynthetics base design length, 𝐿𝐺𝐷 ; and, iv vertical
reinforcement spacing, 𝑆𝑣 .
The maximum particle size and distribution are known to influence the degree of
installation damage, amongst other factors (refer to sub-Section 2.5.5).
Foundation Design: Determine the depth and volume of excavation necessary for
construction. A GRS abutment is inherently stable and therefore can be built with
a truncated base to reduce the excavation. Truncation also reduces the
requirements for backfill and reinforcement.
 For span lengths (Lspan) greater than or equal to 7.6m, a minimum base width
of the wall including the block face (Btotal) of 1.8m should initially be chosen.
For span lengths (Lspan) less than 7.6m initially be chosen. Whether a cut or
fill situation, there should be a minimum base-to-height (Btotal/H) ratio of
0.3. If GRS-IBS is to cross water, the base of the abutment should be placed at
the calculated scour depth.
 Excavation of one-quarter the total width of the base of the abutment
including the block face should be made at the base in front of the face of the
wall to accommodate for construction of the RSF. The total width of the RSF
should extend beyond the base of the GRS abutment by one-fourth the width
of the base (see Figure 2-2).
 The depth of the excavation for the RSF (DRSF) should equal one-quarter the
total width of the base of the GRS abutment including the block face (see
Figure 2-2). Additional excavation may be necessary depending on the soil
conditions (e.g., compressible soils) and should be determined by the
engineer.
In some situations, it may be beneficial to improve the ground beneath the RSF to
reduce settlement of the bridge system.
 Before designing and constructing an RSF, it is prudent to conduct a soil
investigation of the existing foundation soil including applicable lab tests to
determine the soil’s properties.
Figure 2-2. Illustration. Reinforced Soil Foundation (RSF) dimensions (FHWA-

HRT-11-026:2012).
Wall Embedment Depth: Should be 1⁄20𝐻 or a minimum of 0.3m.

Reinforced Wall Fill: Should ideally consist of crushed stone or granular
geomaterial with a plane strain (refer to Equations 4-1 and 4-1 in Section 4.2) angle
′
of internal friction; 𝜙𝑟𝑏𝑓 ≥ 34°; a unit weight of 𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 ≥ 19 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3 ; maximum
particle size 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 20𝑚𝑚, coefficient of uniformity; 𝐶𝑢 > 4 and a Plasticity
Index of 𝑃𝐼 ≤ 6%.
Retained Backfill: Should consist of granular geomaterial with an angle of internal
′
friction; 𝜙𝑏𝑓 ≥ 30°; a unit weight of 𝛾𝑟𝑓 ≥ 19 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3; maximum particle size
𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 50𝑚𝑚, coefficient of uniformity; 𝐶𝑢 > 4 and a Plasticity Index of 𝑃𝐼 ≤
15%.
Structural Wall Facing: Should be selected in accordance with the reinforcing
elements that are adopted.
Geosynthetics Base Design Length: Adopt a minimum of 0.7𝐻 for GMSE Walls.
Vertical Reinforcement Spacing (VRS), 𝑆𝑉 : Maintain 0.35𝑚 ≤ 𝑆𝑉 ≤ 0.8𝑚 for
GMSE Walls depending on the quality of the reinforced backfill geomaterials
′
defined in terms of the magnitude of the angle of internal friction, 𝜙𝑟𝑏𝑓 .
Geosynthetic – Wall Facing Connection Strength: The contribution of the wall

facing and the geosynthetics tensile stiffness through their capacity to carry active
pressure and eventually reducing lateral displacement can only be assured
through adequate connections between the wall facing and the reinforcing
elements as depicted in Figure 2-3.
Reinforcement Wall Facing

Geosynthetic Interlocking Blocks
Figure 2-3 Stable connection between geosynthetics and GMSEWS-Wall unit and adequate
bond within reinforcement layer extremely vital in controlling lateral displacement
2.10 Earth Reinforcement Principles and System Design Properties

This Section outlines the fundamental soil reinforcement principles that govern
structure behavior, and develops system design parameters which are used for
specific GMSE wall detailed in Chapter 4.
The objectives of this chapter are to develop: i) an understanding of soil-

reinforcement interaction; ii) introduce normalized pullout capacity concepts; iii)
develop design soil parameters for select reinforced fill, retained backfill and
foundation bearing capacity; and, iv) establish structural design properties.
Overview: As discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter, mechanically
stabilized earth systems (GMSEW) have three major components: reinforcing
elements, facing system, and reinforced fill. Reinforcing elements may be
classified by stress/strain behavior and geometry. In terms of stress/strain
behavior, reinforcing elements may be considered inextensible (metallic) or
extensible (polymeric). This division is not strictly correct because some newer
glass-fiber reinforced composites and ultra-high-modulus polymers have moduli
that approach that of mild steel. Likewise, certain metallic woven wire mesh
reinforcements, such as hexagon gabion material, have a structure that will
deform more than the soil at failure and are thus considered extensible. Based on
their geometric shapes, reinforcements can be categorized as strips, grids or
sheets.
Facing elements, when employed, can be precast concrete panels or modular
blocks, gabions, welded wire mesh, cast-in-place concrete, timber, shotcrete,
vegetation, or geosynthetic material. Reinforced fill refers to the soil material
placed within the zone of reinforcement. The retained soil refers to the material,
placed or in-situ, directly adjacent to the reinforced fill zone. The retained soil is
the source of earth pressures that the reinforced zone must resist. A drainage
system below and behind the reinforced fill is also an important component,
especially when using poorly draining backfill.
Establishment of Engineering Properties Based on GI and Testing: The
engineering properties for foundation, reinforced wall fill, retained backfill,
natural retained earth as well as electrochemical properties are to be determined
based on comprehensive Geotechnical Investigations (GI) as per the provisions in
Part I of Chapter 3. Rigorous laboratory testing is to be performed on the
geomaterials sampled during the GI for use as reinforced and retained backfill.
The mode and rationale of application of the parameters determined from GI and
laboratory testing for the design of GMSEW geo- structures is presented in Section
3.
Basic Reinforced Earth Concepts: A reinforced soil mass is somewhat analogous
to reinforced concrete in that the mechanical properties of the mass are improved
by reinforcement placed parallel to the principal strain direction to compensate
for soil's lack of tensile resistance. The improved tensile properties are a result of
the interaction between the reinforcement and the soil. The composite material
has the following characteristics:
 Stress transfer between the soil and reinforcement takes place continuously
along the reinforcement.
 Reinforcements are distributed throughout the soil zone with a degree of
regularity and localization.
Geosynthetics reinforcing mechanisms: Basically, if the appropriate geosynthetics
reinforcement is properly embedded and bonded within the layers of the fill
material across the active and resistant zones as depicted in Figure 2-4, it can then
serve to stabilize the active zone.
Essentially therefore, the role of geosynthetics reinforcement in GMSE walls is to
effectively expand the width of the wall and “Tie- Back” the facing thereby
enhancing the structural stability.
Stability within a reinforced structure is achieved by the reinforcing elements
carrying tensile forces and transferring them by friction, friction and adhesion, or
friction and bearing.
The precise reinforcing mechanism will be mainly influenced by the properties of
the geosynthetics product. Some of the important indicators to note are:
 Flexible reinforcements provide stability to a reinforced mass of soil by
transferring destabilizing forces from the active zone to the resistant zone
where they are safely absorbed. In this process purely axial tensile loads are
resisted by flexible reinforcement.
 Provided the reinforcement develops adequate bond, and has adequate
tensile stiffness, it will absorb tensile strains developed in the soil within the
active zone.
 The tensile strains are then transferred from the soil to the reinforcement,
through the mechanism of soil-reinforcement bond.
 External and internal stability analysis should also be carried out to ensure
that the reinforcement length, LGD is sufficient enough to absorb the stresses
and strains impacted whilst resisting de-bonding through the providence of
adequate pull-out resistance.
Consequently, the most important considerations for the design and stability
analysis of GMSEWs are properties of the reinforcing product, quality of backfill
and type of facing.
Typical Performance/Stress Transfer Mechanisms: Stresses are transferred
between soil and reinforcement by friction (Figure 1-5a) and/or passive resistance
(Figure 1-5b) depending on the reinforcement geometry.
Friction develops at locations where there is a relative shear displacement and
corresponding shear stress between soil and the reinforcement surface.
Reinforcing elements dependent on friction should be aligned with the direction
of soil reinforcement relative movement. Examples of such reinforcing elements
are steel strips, longitudinal bars in grids, geotextile, geosynthetic straps, and
some geogrid layers.
Passive resistance occurs through the development of bearing type stresses on
"transverse" reinforcement surfaces normal to the direction of soil reinforcement
relative movement. Passive resistance is generally considered to be the primary
interaction for bar mat, wire mesh reinforcements, and geogrids with relatively
stiff cross machine direction ribs. The transverse ridges on "ribbed" strip
reinforcement also provide some passive resistance.
The contribution of each transfer mechanism for a particular reinforcement will
depend on the roughness of the surface (skin friction), normal effective stress, grid
opening dimensions, thickness of the transverse members, and elongation
characteristics of the reinforcement. Equally important for interaction

development are the soil characteristics, including grain size, grain size
distribution, particle shape, density, water content, cohesion, and stiffness.
Figure 2-4 Stress transfer mechanisms of geosynthetics reinforcement

(FHWA-NHI-10-024:2009)
Figure 2-5 Main Influencing and Resulting Factors: VRS: Vertical Reinforcement Spacing;
AIF/ASR: Angle of Internal Friction/Shearing Resistance; GTP: Geosynthetics Geometry &
Tensile Properties; LGD: Geosynthetics Base Design Length
Figure 2-6 Performance demonstration on unconfined granular geomaterial; confirming

the influential roles of the VRS, AIF/ASR, GTP, and LGD
.= +
Wall GMSE Wall Width with

Facing Geosynthetics
Width reinforcement
Reinforced
Geosynthetics
𝟓° 𝟐 Reinforcement
Figure 2-7 Schematic depiction of hypothetical consideration of role of geosynthetics

reinforcement in GMSE Walls
Mode of Reinforcement Action: The primary function of reinforcements is to

restrain soil deformations. In so doing, stresses are transferred from the soil to the
reinforcement. These stresses are resisted by the reinforcement tension and/or
shear and bending.
 Tension is the most common mode of action of tensile reinforcements. All

"longitudinal" reinforcing elements (i.e., reinforcing elements aligned in the
direction of soil extension) are generally subjected to high tensile stresses.
Tensile stresses are also developed in flexible reinforcements that cross shear
planes.
 Shear and Bending. "Transverse" reinforcing elements that have some
rigidity, can withstand shear stress and bending moments.
Main Types of Geomaterial Reinforcement: Two types of soil/earth/geomaterial
reinforcement can be considered:
 Strips, bars, and steel grids. A layer of steel strips, bars, or grids is
characterized by the cross-sectional area, the thickness and perimeter of the
reinforcement element, and the center-to-center horizontal distance
between elements (for steel grids, an element is considered to be a
longitudinal member of the grid that extends into the wall).
 Geotextiles and geogrids. A layer of geosynthetic strips is characterized by
the width of the strips and the center-to- center horizontal distance between
them. The cross-sectional area is not considered, since the strength of a
geosynthetic strip is expressed by a tensile force per unit width, rather than
by stress. Difficulties in measuring the thickness of these thin and relatively
compressible materials preclude reliable estimates of stress.
Coverage Ratio: The coverage ratio, 𝑅𝑐 is the parameter which relates the force
per unit width of discrete reinforcement to the force per unit width required
across the entire structure. This parameter significantly impacts directly on: i) the
𝑅𝑒𝑠.
resulting maximum tensile load (tension), 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 and/or equilibrium between
maximum tension and allowable long term design strength, 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤.(𝐿𝑇𝐷𝑆) ; ii)
frictional parameters; iii) and, direct sliding resistance, 𝜏𝑑𝑠 .
In this Study, the coverage ratio is defined in terms of the: i) nominal coverage
ratio defined as 𝑅𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑚. = 𝑏 𝑆 ; and, ii) resulting or required coverage ratio 𝑅𝑐𝑅𝑒𝑠.
ℎ
as defined in Volume II. Note that 𝑅𝑐 = 1 in the case of continuous
reinforcement, i.e., each reinforcement layer covers the entire horizontal surface
of the reinforced soil zone.
Stress Intensity Dispersal Mechanisms
Vertical and Horizontal Stress intensity dispersal: Stress dispersal is important in
determining the stress magnitudes developed in each reinforcement layers for
purposes of precise internal and global stability analysis.
Figure 2-8 Dispersal of vertical strip load and of horizontal shear through reinforced fill
– Tie back wedge method (BS8006:2010)
The analytical approach developed in this DG for stress distribution through each
reinforced layer is fundamentally based on the dispersal vertical strip load concept
depicted in Figures 29 and 30 of the BS 8006-1:2010 Code and as represented in
Figures 2-8.
The effect of progressively increasing vertical stress intensity through reinforced
layers is an important consideration to make in the design particularly in relation
to the total horizontal earth force to be carried by each reinforcement layer as well
as the consolidation effects that develop within.
In the design, stability analysis and evaluation of the structural performance of
GMSE Walls, the contribution of progressive secondary consolidation should be
accounted for through the use of prediction models such as schematically
depicted in Figure A1-1 in the Appendix A1.
In general, the enhancement of the strength and deformation resistance
properties that result in increased structural stability can be measured by means
of geophysical and/or mechanical ND testing.
Dynamic loading effects: The model to be adopted in analyzing the effects of initial
and progressive dynamic and static loading is schematically depicted in Figure A1-
1 in Appendix A1. The generation of the characteristic curves used in
quantitatively predicting the structural capacity as impacted by the cumulative
ESAL.
The structural capacity factor is then used in determining the state and condition
of the geo-structure through parametric and comparative analysis.
Deformation restraint as a result of reinforcement: The primary function of
reinforcements is to restrain soil deformations. In so doing, stresses are
transferred from the soil to the reinforcement. As introduced in Figure 2-8, these
stresses are resisted by the reinforcement tension and/or shear and bending.
Earth Reinforcement Interaction: Soil-interaction (pullout capacity) coefficients
have been developed by laboratory and field studies, using a number of different
approaches, methods, and evaluation criteria. A unified normalized approach
developed in a FHWA research project is detailed in Appendix A5 in Volume II.
Particle Size Effects on Installation Damage: As indicated in Section 2.4, the

maximum particle size is one of the principle design parameters for GMSE walls.
The structural design properties of reinforcement materials are a function of
geometric characteristics, strength and stiffness, durability, and material type.
Damage during reinforced fill placement and compaction operations is a function
of the severity of loading imposed on the geosynthetic during construction
operations and the size and angularity of the reinforced fill. For GMSE walls
construction, lightweight, low strength geotextiles and geogrids should be
avoided to minimize damage with ensuing loss of strength.
Table 2-5 provides a summary of typical 𝑅𝐹𝐼𝐷 values for a range of soil gradations
and geosynthetic types. In general, 𝑅𝐹𝐼𝐷 is strongly dependent on the backfill soil
gradation characteristics and its angularity, especially for lighter weight
geosynthetics. Provided a minimum of 6 inches of backfill material is placed
between the reinforcement surface and the compaction and spreading equipment
wheels/tracks, the backfill placement and compaction technique will have a lesser
effect on RFID. Regarding geosynthetic characteristics, the geosynthetic
weight/thickness or tensile strength may have a significant effect on RFID.
However, for coated polyester geogrids, the coating thickness may overwhelm the
effect of the product unit weight or thickness on RFID
Table 2-5. Influence of maximum particle size and distribution on installation damage
reduction factors (AASHTO LRFD:2010).
Reduction Factor, 𝑭𝑰𝑫
Geosynthetic Type 1 Backfill Max. Type 2 Backfill Max. Size

Size 100mm D50 20mm D50 about 0.7
about 30 mm mm
HDPE uniaxial geogrid 1.20 - 1.45 1.10 - 1.20
PP biaxial geogrid 1.20 - 1.45 1.10 - 1.20
PVC coated PET geogrid 1.30 - 1.85 1.10 - 1.30
Acrylic coated PET geogrid 1.30 - 2.05 1.20 - 1.40
Woven geotextiles (PP&PET)a 1.40 - 2.20 1.10 - 1.40
Non-woven geotextiles (PP&PET) 1.40 - 2.50 1.10 - 1.40

a
Slit film woven PP geotextile a 1.60 - 3.00 1.10 - 2.00
a. Minimum weight 270 g/m2.
2.11 Load and Resistance Factors

The load and resistance factors, which are referenced from AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications, 2012 Edition 6, are presented in Tables 2-6 ~ 2-8.
2.11.1 Load Combinations and Factors

The load combinations and factors are summarized in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6 Load Combinations and Load Factors (AASHTO LRFD:2010).
DC Use One of These at a Time
DD
DW
EH
EV LL
ES IM
EL CE
Load PS BR
Combination CR PL
Limit State SH LS WA WS WL FR TU TG SE EQ BL IC CT CV
Strength I γp 1.75 1.00 — — 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE — — — — —
(unless noted)
Strength II γp 1.35 1.00 — — 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE — — — — —
Strength III γp — 1.00 1.4 — 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE — — — — —
0
Strength IV γp — 1.00 — — 1.00 0.50/1.20 — — — — — — —
Strength V γp 1.35 1.00 0.4 1.0 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE — — — — —
0
Extreme γp γEQ 1.00 — — 1.00 — — — 1.00 — — — —
Event I
Extreme γp 0.50 1.00 — — 1.00 — — — — 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Event II
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.3 1.0 1.00 1.00/1.20 γTG γSE — — — — —
0
Service II 1.00 1.30 1.00 — — 1.00 1.00/1.20 — — — — — — —
Service III 1.00 0.80 1.00 — — 1.00 1.00/1.20 γTG γSE — — — — —
Service IV 1.00 — 1.00 0.7 — 1.00 1.00/1.20 — 1.0 — — — — —
0
Fatigue I— — 1.50 — — — — — — — — — — — —
LL, IM & CE
only
Fatigue II— — 0.75 — — — — — — — — — — — —
LL, IM & CE
only
2.11.2 Load Factors for Permanent Loads

The load factors for permanent loads are summarized in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, 𝛄𝒑 (AASHTO LRFD:2010).
Type of Load, Foundation Type, and Load Factor
Method Used to Calculate Downdrag Maximum Minimum
DC: Component and Attachments 1.25 0.90
DC: Strength IV only 1.50 0.90
DD: Downdrag Piles, α Tomlinson Method 1.4 0.25
Piles, λ Method 1.05 0.30
Type of Load, Foundation Type, and Load Factor

Method Used to Calculate Downdrag Maximum Minimum
Drilled shafts, O’Neill and Reese (1999) Method 1.25 0.35
DW: Wearing Surfaces and Utilities 1.50 0.65

EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure
• Active 1.50 0.90
• At-Rest 1.35 0.90
1.35 N/A
• AEP for anchored walls
EL: Locked-in Construction Stresses 1.00 1.00
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure
• Overall Stability 1.00 N/A
• Retaining Walls and Abutments 1.35 1.00
1.30 0.90
• Rigid Buried Structure
1.35 0.90
• Rigid Frames
• Flexible Buried Structures o Metal Box Culverts and Structural Plate Culverts 1.5 0.9
with Deep Corrugations o Thermoplastic culverts o All others 1.3 0.9
1.95 0.9
ES: Earth Surcharge 1.50 0.75
2.11.3 Resistance Factors for Permanent Retaining Walls

The resistance factors for permanent retaining walls are summarized in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8 Resistance Factors for Permanent Retaining Walls (AASHTO LRFD:2010).
Wall-Type and Condition Resistance Factor
Nongravity Cantilevered and Anchored Walls
Axial compressive resistance of vertical elements Article 10.5 applies
Passive resistance of vertical elements 0.75
Pullout resistance of anchors (1) • Cohesionless (granular) soils 0.65 (1)
• Cohesive soils 0.70 (1)
• Rock 0.50 (1)
Pullout resistance of anchors (2) • Where proof tests are conducted 1.0 (2)
Tensile resistance of anchor • Mild steel (e.g., ASTM A615 bars) 0.90 (3)
tendon • High strength steel (e.g., ASTM A722 0.80 (3)
bars)
Flexural capacity of vertical elements 0.90
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls, Gravity Walls, and Semigravity Walls

Bearing resistance • Gravity and semigravity walls 0.55
• MSE walls 0.65
Wall-Type and Condition Resistance Factor

Sliding 1.0
(4)
Tensile resistance of metallic Strip reinforcements
reinforcement and connectors • Static loading 0.75
Grid reinforcements (4) (5)
0.65
• Static loading
Tensile resistance of • Static loading 0.90
geosynthetic reinforcement
and connectors
Pullout resistance of tensile • Static loading 0.90
reinforcement
Prefabricated Modular Walls

Bearing Article 10.5 applies
Sliding Article 10.5 applies
Passive resistance Article 10.5 applies
TIPS
1. The two most influential parameters on the structural performance of geosynthetics and the soil-geosynthetics
interaction are the vertical reinforcement spacing, 𝑺𝒗 and the base design length, 𝑮𝑫 .
2. Recent research shows that the ratio of the geosynthetics base design length to the height of the retaining wall,
𝐿𝐺𝐷 ⁄𝐻𝑅𝑊 is NOT a constant but is predominantly influenced by the effective angle of internal friction of the
reinforced fill, ′𝒓𝒃 , and the vertical reinforcement spacing, 𝑺𝒗 ,.
The research shows that the 𝐿𝐺𝐷 ⁄𝐻𝑅𝑊 ratio reduces as the effective angle of internal friction increases (i.e, as the
quality of reinforced fill geomaterial is enhanced) and with smaller vertical reinforcement spacing, 𝑆𝑣 .
3. Other factors that influence the magnitude of the ratio of the geosynthetics design length to the RW height,
(𝐿𝐺𝐷 ⁄𝐻𝑅𝑊 ) but to a lesser extent include: i) structural wall facing contribution factor; ii) wall facing inclination; iii)
surcharge; and, iv) interface shear angle.
′
4. The 𝐿𝐺𝐷 = 0.7𝐻𝑅𝑊 commonly specified in the most popular design guidelines/manuals is characteristic of 𝜙𝑟𝑏𝑓 =
34°.and superimposes perfectly with the characteristic curve generated by universal TACH-MD models, which
account for various influential factors.
5. Both the vertical reinforcement spacing, 𝑆𝑣 and the design length to the height of the retaining wall, 𝐿𝐺𝐷 ⁄𝐻𝑅𝑊 have
significant impact on the ultimate load carrying capacity whereby an increase in capacity is registered with a reduction
in the vertical spacing and an increase in the 𝐿𝐺𝐷 ⁄𝐻𝑅𝑊 ratio.
2.12 Stability Considerations
2.12.1 Considerations with regard to potential failure modes

The State of the Practice procedure basically involves external, internal, local and
global stability analyses in a standard design approach.
As can be derived from Figure DG2.3, the main potential failure modes considered
for each form of stability analysis are clustered as follow.
External Instability: Base Sliding, Overturning and Tilting and Rotation caused by
inadequate Bearing Capacity [Ref. to Figures 2.9 a), b), c) and Figure 2-11].
Internal Instability: Tensile Overstress, Pullout and Internal Sliding [Ref. to Figures
2.9 d), e), f) and Figures 2-11 and 2-12].
Local Instability: Shear Failure manifested by bulging Connection Failure and
Local Overturning [Ref. to Figures 2.9 g), h), i], j) and Figure 2-13].
Global Instability: Deep-seated and Compound [Ref. to Figure 2-14].
Figure 2-9 Potential failure modes considered for each form of stability analysis
2.12.2 External Stability

It is imperative that external stability analyses are undertaken taking into serious
account the environmental aspects, loadings characteristics and prevailing
conditions including anticipated changes. This analysis is to also aid in the
identification of appropriate dimensions of the zone to be reinforced and
determination of the minimum layers of reinforcement required based on the
ratio of the total horizontal force, 𝑃ℎ and the Long Term Design Strength,
𝑇𝐷 𝑜𝑟 𝑇𝐿𝐷𝑇𝑆 as demonstrated in Section III of the Design Example provided in
Appendix A2.
The initial step is to select the geometry of the GMSE RWs depending on the use,
magnitude of structure, load factors, environmental conditions and available
budget. The geometry is basically defined by: i) total height (H); ii) facing type and
inclination normally considered upright for a batter angle; 𝜔 ≤ 8 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 to the
vertical; iii) embedment depth, 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑏. ≥ 0.5𝑚 𝑜𝑟 0.1𝐻; iv) top slope angle, 𝛽 of
overlaying embankment. The wall is to be founded on a levelled pad of reinforced
concrete slab (thickness of 0.15 ~ 0.4m) or a highly compacted free drainage
crushed stone base (thickness of 0.3 ~ 0.6m).
Note that for batter angle; 𝜔 ≤ 8 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 Rankine’s earth pressure theory is
applied, whilst in cases where 𝜔 > 8 𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠, the Coulomb’s earth pressure
theory is adopted.
The External Stability considers the reinforced structure as whole and the stability
checks are sliding, overturning, bearing/tilt and slip failure.
An external stability analysis of a GMSE structure is straightforward for a qualified
geotechnical engineer and can follow the typical steps outlined below.
1. The foundation width for an GMSE structure is taken equal to the soil
reinforcement length, which is typically 0.7 times the height of the
structure.
2. The height of the structure is taken from the top of leveling pad to the
finished grade at the top of wall.
3. The reinforced soil mass may be modeled as a block, using a high
cohesion value to force the failure surfaces being examined to be
external to the structure. For example, design properties of 𝜸 =
𝟐𝟎 𝒌𝑵/𝒎𝟑 , = 𝟑 ° and 𝒄 = 𝟕𝟎 𝒌𝑵/𝒎𝟐 may be used to model the
reinforced soil mass in a global stability analysis.
4. The applied bearing pressure at the base of an GMSE structure is
approximately 135% of the overburden weight of soil and surcharge
(𝑷𝒔 ) The surcharge of the traffic and overlaying embankment and/or
pavement is usually considered to be within a range of
𝟎~ 𝟐𝟎 𝒌𝑷 (𝒌𝑵/𝒎𝟐 ) and 𝑷𝒔 = 𝜸𝒔 𝒉𝒔 = 𝟏𝟗. 𝟔𝒌𝑵⁄𝒎𝟑 × 𝟎. 𝟔𝒎 =
𝟏𝟏. 𝟗𝟕 𝒌𝑵⁄𝒎.
4. The applied bearing pressure at the base of a GMSE structure is
approximately 135% of the overburden weight of soil and surcharge.
5. Factors of safety of 1.3 against global instability and 2.0 against
bearing capacity failure are adequate for GMSE walls (Anderson, 1991).
6. Settlement analysis is conducted by treating the GMSE structure as a
continuous strip footing of width equal to the strip length, with the
applied bearing pressure as estimated in step 4.
7. Settlement at the wall face is approximately one-half of the value
calculated in step 6.
8. GMSE structures constructed with precast concrete facing panels (1.5
m x 1.5 m and 1.5 m x 3.0 m) and 20 mm thick bearing pads in the panel
joints can tolerate large total settlements up to 300 mm, with up to 1%
differential settlement (i.e., 300 mm in 30 m) without showing signs of
distress in the wall facing.
A typical failure mode adopted in the consideration of external stability analysis

is depicted in Figure 2-10.
Figure 2-10 Typical failure mode consideration for external stability analysis
2.12.3 Internal Stability

This analysis is performed on the soil-geogrid volume to basically determine the
required geogrid tensile strength, the minimum required number of geosynthetics
reinforcement layers and the minimum required length to ensure a rigid behavior
in the reinforced block. Typical output of the internal stability analyses includes
determination of the geosynthetics layers layout, overtension/rupture and
internal sliding characteristics of the reinforced mass as well as the
pullout/frictional adequacy.
Stability within a reinforced structure is achieved by the reinforcing elements
carrying tensile forces and then transferring to the soil by friction, friction and
adhesion, or friction and bearing. In addition forces can be transferred the soil
through fill trapped by the elements of the grid. The fill is than able to support the
associated shear and compressive forces. In the case of anchored earth such as
soil nailing, stability within a structure is achieved by the anchor elements carrying
tensile forces and transferring these by friction along the anchor shaft or anchor
loop and bearing of the anchor to the surrounding fill.
The internal stability is concerned with the integrity of the reinforced volume as a
whole and also whether the structure has the potential to fail internally, by the
rupture or loss of bond of reinforcements.
The analysis considers the local stability of individual layer of reinforcing elements
and stability of several wedges originating at different height at angle (45 –ϕ/2),
where the tensile force required to be resisted is maximum within the reinforced
fill. The arrangement and layout of reinforcing elements should be chosen to
provide stability and to suit the size, shape and detail of facing.
The simplest layout is a uniform distribution of identical reinforcing element
throughout the length and height of the structure. A more economical layout may
be achieved using reinforcement of different properties or by dividing the

structure in to different zones with different spacing of height.
Figure 2-11 provides a visual appreciation of the significant contribution of the
internal frictional, stress absorption and dispersion mechanisms to the overall
superior performance of the GMSEWS RW structures in comparison to the
cantilever gravity RW type.
The following facts can be derived from Figure 2-11: i) due to the stress
concentrations at the toe and foundation, the large forces experienced on the
facing as well as the enormous overturning moments and lateral loads acting at
the bottom of the facing and interface of the foundation the conventional gravity
RWs require the construction of massive structures and strong/pile foundations;
ii) on the other hand, GMSE RW structures can be considered as a continuous
beam with short spans supported at many levels enhancing the stress distribution
mechanisms which make the structure much less susceptible to any mode of
failure, particularly external and global; iii) it is therefore in this regard that internal
and local stability analyses become imperatively essential; and, iv) based on its
ability to effectively distribute the earth pressures and stresses contributed by
both external and internal loads, the GMSE RW structures experience very small
forces along the facing and minimal overturning moments and lateral forces at the
bottom of the facing drastically reducing the requirement of massive facings and
pile foundations.
The mechanisms depicted in Figure 2-11 contribute to the flexibility and ductility
of the GMSE RW structures whose overall performance is appreciated particularly
in zones of high seismicity and critical wind loads.
Figure 2-11 Comparison of performance of conventional gravity RW and GMSEWS RW

(Tatsuoka et al., 2011)
The internal stability analysis is also to provide important information for the local
stability analysis and wedge stability check.
Figure 2-12 shows a typical failure consideration for internal stability analysis to
aid in the appropriate design of a GMSEWS RW structure.
Figure 2-12 Typical failure mode consideration for internal stability analysis
2.12.4 Local Stability

This analysis is carried out for Segmental Retaining Walls to ensure that the column
of concrete block units remains intact without bulging. The local stability analysis
mainly consist of: i) facing connection; ii) bulging; iii) maximum allowable height
and overturning characteristics for the top unreinforced; and, iv) wedge stability
check.
A typical failure mode related to bulging in local instability is depicted in Figure 2-
13a (LHS), whilst Figure 2-13b (RHS) demonstrates the importance of ensuring a
good connection between the GMSE RW facing and the geosynthetics in order to
avoid local instability.
Figure 2-13 Typical failure mode consideration for local stability analysis and
importance of ensuring good connection
2.12.5 Global Stability

Global stability analysis is the evaluation of an entire soil mass and its ability to
maintain its design shape. There are two potential failure modes when carrying
out global stability analysis, namely; deep-seated and compound failure. A deep-
seated failure is one in which the critical slip surface begins in front of the wall and
extends beyond the reinforced soil zone of the retaining wall.
Figure 2-14 Typical deep seated failure mode consideration for global stability analysis
Global stability analysis can be conducted using various methods. Two of the more
common are the Bishop’s Method and Modified Bishop’s Method, where the slip
surfaces are divided into multiple shear wedges. The minimum shear resistance
required at each slip surface is calculated and then compared to the shear strength
of the soil mass. These methods have numerous iterations and variables that it
becomes tedious, complex and time consuming o design using hand-calculations.
Hence, these slip surfaces are modeled in a computer program as a variety of arcs,
curves or planes.
A compound failure occurs when the critical slip surface begins at some height
along the face of the retaining wall or in front of the wall and arcs through the
reinforced zone and into the retained soil.
Recently, models have been developed that can determine the slip circle radius
without the detailed and complex iterations.
2.13 Basic Design Information

In order to develop the design of reinforced soil structure the following.
Information is required to be evaluated:
1. Site investigation
2. Environmental consideration
3. Load combination
4. Design records
5. Site investigation:
In site investigation initial field study, ground investigation and its field study
report should be considered in design and in some case (construction over soft
soil) investigation during construction should be monitored.
Initial field study: The availability and characteristics of the potential local fill
materials should be assessed together with details of local drainage.
2.13.1 Ground investigation

a) Area of investigation
 ground conditions
 behavior of the foundation strata under the imposed loads
 information of settlement (total & differential)
b) Ground water investigation
 Ground water conditions (pH and chemical content of ground water may
affect the durability of reinforcing elements, fasteners & facing).
 Fluctuations in ground water regime may affect the overall structural
behavior.
c) Field study report
Site investigation report should contain the relevant design parameters for the
appropriate structure. The fill or ground material which is proposed to be used in
structure should be tested for particle size distribution, short and long term
strength parameters and consolidation parameters where applicable should be
included.
d) Investigation during construction
Where the construction over soft soil is undertaken the monitoring of settlement
and pore water dissipation should be taken into consideration. The results of this
inspection should be compared to the findings of the ground investigation and the
design assumptions, and the design checked against any variations.
2.13.2 Environmental Consideration

In design the environmental considerations are:
 The effects of loads and pressure should be considered in design such as
impact or seismic loads, loads due to water pressure including seepage
pressure, buoyancy and lateral pressure
 The chemical and biological effects of the material used should be considered
in design. Materials commonly used in reinforced soil are metallic
reinforcement, polymeric reinforcement and polymeric reinforcement joints.
During design the chemical (pH values, chemical contents in soil), biological
(UV effect) and heat (temperature) should be considered.
 The Post construction damage should be considered in design. The adjacent
structure interaction effects should be considered in design such as if
reinforced earth structure is adjacent to or part of any other structure then

interaction
3. Load combinations
The most adverse loads likely to be applied in the structure should be considered
in design.
4. Design records
Important design records should be maintained to enable performance evaluation
of the structure in the future.
2.14 Summary of Structural and Value Engineering Benefits

The structural and value engineering benefits that accrue from the use of
geosynthetics in GMSEWs-Walls can be summarized as follows.
 Reduced Embankment Widths resulting to Land Acquisition Savings.
 The flexible nature of the reinforcing elements allowing for movement under
dynamic and vibrational loading without experiencing brittle structural
damage.
 Effective stress – strain absorption and distribution
 Substantial cost and construction time savings
 Require less site preparation than other alternatives.
 Reduce right-of-way acquisition.
 Do not need rigid, unyielding foundation support because Reinforced Soil
Structures are tolerant to deformations.
Are technically feasible to heights in excess of 30m. Use simple and rapid
construction procedures and do not require large construction equipment.
Section 3: Geotechnical Investigations and

Materials Characterization
(Part I: Geotechnical Investigations (GI) GI Procedure, Methodology, Reporting, Review
Checklists & Application in Design of GMSE Walls )
3-I. Geotechnical Investigations (GI)
3.1 Purpose for Undertaking GI

The geotechnical report is a tool of paramount importance used to communicate
the site conditions and design and construction recommendations to the roadway
design, bridge design, and construction personnel. Site investigations for
transportation projects have the objective of providing specific information on
subsurface soil, rock, and hydrogeological conditions. Interpretation of the site
investigation information, by a geotechnical engineer, results in design and
construction recommendations that should be presented in a project geotechnical
report (refer to Section 3.4).
3.2 Basic GI Procedure

The basic Geotechnical Investigations (GI) procedure adopted is depicted in Figure
3-1, whilst the main aspects are listed subsequently.
Figure 3-1 Geotechnical Investigations Procedure and Role in Design Stages (South
African Pavement Engineering Design Manual – SAPEM)
3.3 Basic GI Requirements

Pursuant to the tasks stipulated in the Terms of Reference (ToR) therefore, the
Engineer shall design the Geotechnical Investigation (GI) Regime taking the
following aspects into account.
1. The Geotechnical Investigation (GI) is to be sufficiently comprehensive to
achieve the intended objectives of the Project.
2. As stipulated in Section 3-I.2, the main tasks of the GI shall include desktop
studies, general site exploration, field reconnaissance, detailed foundation
ground investigations and comprehensive subsurface exploration.
3. As per the RFP requirement, the assignment objectives, tasks and testing
regimes are to be innovatively designed and scoped to minimize the
perceived/envisaged/prospected project risks tender complication and/or
contractual claims, whilst providing the highest value addition to the
project.
4. The laboratory and in-situ tests are to be innovatively designed
achieving appreciable versatility in application and high confidence levels
of the vital geotechnical engineering parameters.
5. Sophisticated State of the Art analytical tools and techniques are to be
employed in order to derive geotechnical engineering design parameters
that would facilitate for the realization of Value Engineering (VE) based
design criteria, particular specifications, quality control programs, methods
of construction and minimal maintenance requirements.
6. Model testing criteria to be employed for purposes of enabling mechanistic
evaluation of the structural performance performance of the GMSEW
structure(s).
7. Comprehensive Geotechnical Engineering Analyses (GEA) be undertaken for
purposes of establishing useful recommendations for the design and
construction of the civil works and structural foundations including
hydraulic structures.
8. The proposed mode of scoping, in-situ and laboratory testing regimes and
the number of tests are to be confirmed subsequent to making a site visit
and undertaking preliminary site characterization thereof for purposes of
developing appropriate designs, particular construction specifications and
QCA systems.
3.4 Methodology
Desk Studies: Desk studies shall include review of pertinent literature and
transportation infrastructure design documents and geotechnical engineering
reports of the project area, physiographic aspects (geographic location,
topography, climate, vegetation, land use, existing aquifers, among other factors)
and geologic aspects (mainly local geological formation/chronology and
geomorphology) including Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
reports/documents.
Compilation of a Technical Note (TN) and dissemination/discussions of the findings

with the Client prior to the kick off Site Visit is encouraged.
General Site Exploration:

 Visual Conditions Assessment and Surveys
 General environmental conditions of the Site including weather,
vegetation, topography and predominant soils
 The Roadway Location in relation to obstacles
 Availability of construction materials on site
 Inventory of equipment currently on site
 Physical Measurements and Location/Area Dimensions

 Working Space
 Determination of the area to be cleared within
Field Reconnaissance: Near Surface Sampling; Evaluation of the geologic and
subsurface profile Limits & Intervals for Topographic Surveys; Access Conditions;
Surface Drainage Patterns, Seepage and Vegetation Characteristics; Surface
geologic Info on subsurface conditions; Extent, nature, and locations of existing or
proposed below-grade utilities and substructures; Available right-of-way; Areas of
potential instability.
Comprehensive Foundation Ground and Subsurface Investigations: Carry out
comprehensive foundation and subsurface investigations for:
 Identification of Suitable Fill Geomaterial and Stone Quarry Sources; and,
 Determination of Parameters for Foundation Design & Global Stability

Analysis.
Subsurface Exploration: Subsurface exploration shall include:

 Sounding; Boring; Sampling; Profiling; Ground Water Characteristics;
Geological Evaluation; Guided by Review of Reconnaissance Data &
Information.
 Identification of: cavities, deep deposits of weak cohesive and organic soils,
slide debris, groundwater table, geological formation, including zones of
instabilities including sinkholes, cavities, weak strata, among others.
In-situ Testing: Near surface ground and subsurface exploration shall include in-
situ quasi-NDT mechanical and/or NDT geophysical tests, the most common of
which are presented in Table 3-1
Table 3-1 Basic Schedule of In-situ Tests
Recommended
Physical/ Mechanical Equivalent
No. of Tests
Property Description of Standard/ Main Objectives and
Test Specification Performance Guidelines
Testing of Foundation Ground and

SubsurfaceR Exploration During
Geotechnical e Investigations
f
Penetration Resistance Standard Penetration Test BS1377: Part 9 SPTs to be .carried out to an average
→Bearing Capacity (SPT) depth of t 5m per borehole in
accordance owith in-situ test 1) at areas
T
for the proposed mall and hospital
where higha raised structures are
anticipated b
l
e
3
Testing of -the Replaced Layers of
Dynamic Penetration 2
the Foundation Ground Post-
Resistance, Soil Profile and Dynamic Cone Penetration Construction i Fill Layers of the
Classification →Bearing (DCP)Test ASTM GMSEW R n Structures for
Capacity, Shear resistance, D6951/6951M Construction eS QCA and
UCS, CBR, Angle of Internal e
f
Compliance Sign Off
Resistance(ϕ), Relative BS 1377:2 & .c
Density (Dr),Undrained 1377:9 Tests to bet performed at designated
Cohesion(Cu), Young’s locations alongi the Site Access Roads,
o
Modulus and Foundation o areas for Buildings to
T
an
simulate dynamic loading effects of the
Design Plane b3 during landing and take-
off. l.
e5
Non-Destructive 3 High Precision
Alternative - to the SPT and DCP.
2
Bearing Capacity, N-value, Geophysical Survey Methods To be carried iR out for In-situ Ground
ASTM D6429-99
CBR, UCS, Elastic Modulus(E) for Subsurface Investigations and Subsurface en Investigations as well as
(2011);
and Shear Modulus (G) QCA purposes fS and ground water
Ground Water Prospecting prospecting e. during construction and
ASTM D5777-00
utilities. tc
(2011); t
o
iT
BS 5930: 2015 o
a
bn
3l
During the .e drilling and boring
operations, 35the groundwater leveling
the boreholes - shall be observed during
Hydraulic Pressure and the fieldwork. 2
Groundwater monitoring BS1377: Part 9 However, the determination of in-situ
Gradient i
permeability in bore-hole which
n
BS 55930 involves the application of hydraulic
S
pressure in the borehole different
e
from that in the ground, and
c
measurement of the flow due to this
t
difference shall not be performed.
i
Quasi-disturbed Quasi-disturbed o (“Undisturbed)
Detailed Examination of Soil (“Undisturbed) Sampling BS1377: Part 9 Sampling to nbe undertaken.
3
Physical, Mechanical and during Boring and SPT
BS 55930 .
Deformation Properties Testing
5
Core Sampling of composite BS1377 Coring of the composite pavement tol be
Shear Strength pavement performed for QCA and R&D
purposes
Foundation Ground Characterization: Foundation ground characterization shall

include the comprehensive analysis of data from in-situ testing up to a depth of
2m. Refer to Engineering Report for further details.
The shear strength of the in situ ground may be determined using conventional
techniques for site investigation and testing described in BS EN 1997-2, BS
5930:1999+A1, BS EN ISO 14688-2 and BS 1377-7 and BS 1377-8, or shear box
testing described above with due regard for sample disturbance.
Interpretation and Analysis of Geotechnical Data: Interpretation and analysis of
geotechnical data shall mainly involve subsurface (𝑑 > 2𝑚) data analysis,
subsurface water movement and hydrogeological characteristics in relation to
water level variation, moisture – suction variation and drainage conditions based
on basic index/physical properties such as Atterberg Limits, particle size and
distribution as well as permeability, among others.
Deliverables: The main deliverable shall be in the form of a Geotechnical
Engineering Report (GER), which shall be formatted and compiled in accordance
with the provisions stipulated in Section 3.5
Foundation Ground Characterization: Foundation ground characterization shall
include the comprehensive analysis of data from in-situ testing up to a depth of
2m. Refer to Engineering Report for further details.
The shear strength of the in situ ground may be determined using conventional
techniques for site investigation and testing described in BS EN 1997-2, BS
5930:1999+A1, BS EN ISO 14688-2 and BS 1377-7 and BS 1377-8, or shear box
testing described above with due regard for sample disturbance.
Interpretation and Analysis of Geotechnical Data: Interpretation and analysis
of geotechnical data shall mainly involve subsurface (𝑑 > 2𝑚) data analysis,
subsurface water movement and hydrogeological characteristics in relation to
water level variation, moisture – suction variation and drainage conditions based
on basic index/physical properties such as Atterberg Limits, particle size and
distribution as well as permeability, among others.
Deliverables: The main deliverable shall be in the form of a Geotechnical
Engineering Report (GER), which shall be formatted and compiled in accordance
with the provisions stipulated in sub-Section 3.5.
3.5 Overall GI Review Checklists

Systematic Procedure: The overall GI review shall be carried out systematically
and presented in the form of checklists, the examples and formats of which are
provided in the subsequent sub-Section 3.3.
Review Checklists: The review checklists have been prepared for review of
geotechnical reports and review of the geotechnical aspects of preliminary plans,
specification and estimate (PS&E) packages. To simplify their use, the checklists
are set up in a question and answer format.
A major aspect of the PS&E review of project geotechnical features is to verify
that the major design and construction recommendations given in the
geotechnical report have been properly incorporated into the plans and
specifications.
The Review Checklists are developed based on the US DOT-FHWA: Checklist and
Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and
Specifications: Publication No. FHWA ED-88-053 OF February, 2003.
*
Note that the most important step in geotechnical design is to conduct an
adequate subsurface investigation. The number, depth, spacing, and character of
borings, sampling, and testing to be made in an individual exploration program are
so dependent upon site conditions and the type of project and its requirements,
that no “rigid” rules may be established. Usually the extent of work is established
as the site investigation progresses in the field. However, the following are
considered reasonable “guidelines” to follow to produce the minimum subsurface
data needed to allow cost-effective geotechnical design and construction and to
minimize claim problems. (Reference: “Subsurface Investigations” FHWA HI-97-
021)
Table 3-2 Guideline on “minimum” boring, sampling, and testing criteria
Geotechnical Feature Minimum Number of Borings Minimum Depth of Borings
Structure Foundation 1 per substructure unit under 30 m (100 ft) in Spread footings: 2B where L< 2B, 4B where L > 2B and interpolate for L between 2B and 4B
width Deep foundations: 6m (20ft) below tip elevation or two times maximum pile group dimension, whichever
2 per substructure unit over 30 m (100 ft) in width is greater
If bedrock is encountered: for piles core 3 m (10 ft) below tip elevation; for shafts core 3D or 2 times
Additional borings in areas of erratic subsurface maximum shaft group dimension below tip elevation, whichever is greater.
conditions
Retaining Structures Borings spaced every 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft). Extend borings to depth of 0.75 to 1.5 times wall height
Some borings should be at the front of and some in When stratum indicates potential deep stability or settlement problem, extend borings to hard stratum
back of the wall face.
Bridge Approach When approach embankments are to be placed Extend borings into competent material and to a depth where added stresses due to embankment load
Embankments over over soft ground, at least one boring should be is less than 10% of existing effective overburden stress or 3 m (10 ft) into bedrock if encountered at a
Soft Ground made at each embankment to determine the shallower depth
problems associated with stability and settlement Additional shallow explorations (hand auger holes) taken at approach embankment locations to
of the embankment. Typically, test borings taken determine depth and extent of unsuitable surface soils or topsoil.
for the approach embankments are located at the
proposed abutment locations to serve a dual
function.
Ground Improvement Varies widely depending in the ground improvement technique(s) being employed. For more information see “Ground Improvement Technical Summaries”
Techniques FHWA SA-98-086R.
Material Sites (Borrow Borings spaced every 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft). Extend exploration to base of deposit or to depth required to provide needed quantity.
sources, Quarries)
Sand or Gravel Soils
SPT (split-spoon) samples should be taken at 1.5 m (5 ft) intervals or at significant changes in soil strata. Continuous SPT samples are recommended in the top 4.5 m (15 ft) of borings
made at locations where spread footings may be placed in natural soils. SPT jar or bag samples should be sent to lab for classification testing and verification of field visual soil
identification.
Silt or Clay Soils
SPT and “undisturbed” thin wall tube samples should be taken at 1.5 m (5 ft) intervals or at significant changes in strata. Take alternate SPT and tube samples in same boring or take tube
samples in separate undisturbed boring. Tube samples should be sent to lab to allow consolidation testing (for settlement analysis) and strength testing (for slope stability and foundation
bearing capacity Analysis). Field vane shear testing is also recommended to obtain in-place shear strength of soft clays, silts and well-rotted peat.
Rock
Continuous cores should be obtained in rock or shales using double or triple tube core barrels. In structural foundation investigations, core a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) into rock to insure
it is bedrock and not a boulder. Core samples should be sent to the lab for possible strength testing (unconfined compression) if for foundation investigation. Percent core recovery and
RQD value should be determined in field or lab for each core run and recorded on boring log.
Groundwater
Water level encountered during drilling, at completion of boring, and at 24 hours after completion of boring should be recorded on boring log. In low
permeability soils such as silts and clays, a false indication of the water level may be obtained when water is used for drilling fluid and adequate time is not
permitted after boring completion for the water level to stabilize (more than one week may be required). In such soils a plastic pipe water observation well
should be installed to allow monitoring of the water level over a period of time. Seasonal fluctuations of water table should be determined where fluctuation
will have significant impact on design or construction (e.g., borrow source, footing excavation, excavation at toe of landslide, etc.). Artesian pressure and
seepage zones, if encountered, should also be noted on the boring log. In landslide investigations, slope inclinometer casings can also serve as water
observations wells by using “leaky” couplings (either normal aluminum couplings or PVC couplings with small holes drilled through them) and pea gravel
backfill. The top 0.3 m (1 ft) or so of the annular space between water observation well pipes and borehole wall should be backfilled with grout, bentonite,
or sand-cement mixture to prevent surface water inflow which can cause erroneous groundwater level readings.
Soil Borrow Sources
Exploration equipment that will allow direct observation and sampling of the subsurface soil layers is most desirable for material site investigations. Such equipment that can consist of
backhoes, dozers, or large diameter augers, is preferred for exploration above the water table. Below the water table, SPT borings can be used. SPT samples should be taken at 1.5 m (5
ft) intervals or at significant changes in strata. Samples should be sent to lab for classification testing to verify field visual identification. Groundwater level should be recorded.
Observations wells should be installed to monitor water levels where significant seasonal fluctuation is anticipated.
Quarry Sites
Rock coring should be used to explore new quarry sites. Use of double or triple tube core barrels is recommended to maximize core recovery. For riprap
source, spacing of fractures should be carefully measured to allow assessment of rock sizes that can be produced by blasting. For aggregate source, the
amount and type of joint infilling should be carefully noted. If assessment is made on the basis of an existing quarry site face, it may be necessary to core or
use geophysical techniques to verify that nature of rock does not change behind the face or at depth. Core samples should be sent to lab for quality tests to
determine suitability for riprap or aggregate.
Remarks:
Soils – temporary ground water control may be needed for foundation excavations in GW through SM soils.
Backfill specifications for reinforced soil walls using metal reinforcements should meet the following requirements in insure use of non-corrosive backfill:
pH range = 5 to 10; Resistivity > 3000 ohm-cm; Chlorides < 100 ppm; Sulfates < 200 ppm; Organic content 1% maximum
Rock – Durability of shales (siltstone, claystone, mudstone, etc.) to be used in fills should be checked. Non-durable shales should be embanked as soils, i.e., placed in maximum
0.3 m (1 ft) loose lifts and compacted with heavy sheepsfoot or grid rollers.
The following checklists cover the major information and recommendations that
should be addressed in project geotechnical reports. Section A covers site
investigation information that will be common to all geotechnical reports for any
type of geotechnical feature, whilst Sections B through D cover the basic
information and recommendations that should be presented in GERs for specific
geotechnical features GMSE Walls, structure foundations and material sites.
Section A: Site Investigation Information
Since the most important step in the geotechnical design process is to conduct
an adequate site investigation, presentation of the subsurface information in the
geotechnical report and on the plans deserves careful attention.
Table 3-3 Checklist for site investigation
Particulars of Geotechnical Investigations for GER Yes No Uknown

or N/A
 Geotechnical Report Text (Introduction)
1. Is the general location of the investigation described and/or a vicinity map included?
2. Is scope and purpose of the investigation summarized?
3. Is concise description given of geologic setting and topography of area?
4. Are the field explorations and laboratory tests on which the report is based listed?
5. Is the general description of subsurface soil, rock, and groundwater conditions given?
*6. Is the following information included with the GER:
a. Test hole logs?

b. Field test data?
c. Laboratory test data?
d. Photographs (if pertinent)?
 Plan and Subsurface Profile
*7. Is a plan and subsurface profile of the investigation site provided?
8. Are the field explorations located on the plan view?
*9. Does the conducted site investigation meet minimum criteria outlined in Table 2?
10. Are the explorations plotted and correctly numbered on the profile at their true
elevation and location?
11. Does the subsurface profile contain a word description and/or graphic depiction of
soil and rock types?
12. Are groundwater levels and date measured shown on the subsurface profile?
 Subsurface Profile or Field Boring Log
13. Are sample types and depths recorded?
*14. Are SPT blow count, percent core recovery, and RQD values shown?
15. If cone penetration tests were made, are plots of cone resistance and friction ratio
shown with depth?
 Laboratory Test Data
*16. Were lab soil classification tests such as natural moisture content, gradation,
Atterberg limits, performed on selected representative samples to verify field visual soil
identification?
17. Are laboratory test results such as shear strength, consolidation, etc., included and/or
summarized?
Note:
*A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the appropriate geotechnical
engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.
Section B: Embankments Over Soft/Weak Ground: Where embankments must be

built over soft ground (such as soft clays, organic silts, or peat), stability and
settlement of the fill should be carefully evaluated. In addition to the basic
information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project

geotechnical report?
Table 3-4 Checklist for embankments over soft/weak ground

or N/A
 Embankment Stability
*1. Has the stability of the embankment been evaluated for minimum F.S. = 1.25 for side
slope and 1.30 for end slope of bridge approach embankments?
*2. Has the shear strength of the foundation soil been determined from lab testing and/or
field vane shear or cone penetrometer tests?
*3. If the proposed embankment does not provide recommendations given or feasible
treatment alternates, which will increase factor of safety to minimum acceptable (such as
change alignment, lower grade, use stabilizing counterberms, excavate and replace
weak subsoil, lightweight fill, geotextile fabric reinforcement, etc.)?
*4. Are cost comparisons of treatment alternates given and a specific alternate
recommended?
 Settlement of Subsoil
5. Have consolidation properties of fine-grained soils been determined from laboratory
consolidation tests?
*6. Have settlement amount and time been estimated?
7. For bridge approach embankments, are recommendations made to get the settlement
out before the bridge abutment is constructed (waiting period, surcharge, or wick drains)?
 Subsurface Profile or Field Boring Log
8. If geotechnical instrumentation is proposed to monitor fill stability and settlement, are
detailed recommendations provided on the number, type, and specific locations of the
proposed instruments?
 Construction Considerations
9. Where a surcharge treatment is recommended, are plan and cross-section of
surcharge treatment provided in geotechnical report for benefit of the roadway designer?
10. Are instructions or specifications provided concerning instrumentation, fill placement
rates and estimated delay times for the contractor?
11. Are recommendations provided for disposal of surcharge material after the settlement
period is complete?
Note:
Section C: Geosynthetics Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (GMSEW): In

addition to the basic information listed in Section A, is the following information
provided in the project geotechnical report?
Table 3-5 Checklist for GMSE Walls

or N/A
*1. Recommended soil strength parameters and groundwater elevations for use in
computing wall design lateral earth pressures and factor of safety for overturning, sliding,
and external slope stability.
2. Is it proposed to bid alternate wall designs?
*3. Are acceptable reasons given for the choice and/or exclusion of certain wall types?

or N/A
*4. Is an analysis of the wall stability included with minimum acceptable factors of safety
against overturning (F.S. = 2.0), sliding (F.S. = 1.5), and external slope stability (F.S. =
1.5)?
5. If wall will be placed on compressible foundation soils, is estimated total, differential
and time rate of settlement given?
6. Will wall types selected for compressible foundation soils allow differential movement
without distress?
7. Are wall drainage details, including materials and compaction, provided?
8. Are excavation requirements covered including safe slopes for open excavations or
need for sheeting or shoring?
9. Fluctuation of groundwater table?
Note:
*A response other than (yes) or (N/A) for any of these checklist questions is cause to contact the
appropriate geotechnical engineer for a clarification and/or to discuss the project.
Section D: Structure Foundations – Spread Foundations: In addition to the basic

information listed in Section A, is the following information provided in the project
geotechnical report?
Table 3-6 Checklist for Spread Foundations

or N/A
*1. Are spread footing recommended for foundation support? If not, are reasons for not
using them discussed?
If spread footing supports are recommended, are conclusions and recommendations
given for the following (2 ~ 5):
*2. Is recommended bottom of footing elevation and reason for recommendation (e.g.,
based on frost depth, estimated scour depth, or depth to competent bearing material)
given?
*3. Is recommended allowable soil or rock bearing pressure given?
*4. Is estimated footing settlement and time given?
*5. Where spread footings are recommended to support abutments placed in the bridge
end fill, are special gradation and compaction requirements provided for select end fill
and backwall drainage material
6. Have the materials been adequately described on which the footing is to be placed so
the project inspector can verify that material is as expected?
7. Have excavation requirements been included for safe slopes in open excavations,
need for sheeting or shoring, etc.?
8. Has fluctuation of the groundwater table been addressed?
Note:
Section E: Ground Improvement: In addition to the basic information listed in

Section A, if ground improvement techniques are recommended or given as an
alternative, are conclusion/recommendations provided in the project foundation

report for the following:
Table 3-7 Checklist for Ground Improvement

or N/A
 Ground Improvement Techniques
1. For wick drains, do recommendations include the coefficient of consolidation for
horizontal drainage, ch, and the length and spacing of wick drains?
2. For lightweight fill, do recommendations include the material properties (φ, c, γ),
permeability, compressibility, and drainage requirements?
3. For vibro-compaction, do the recommendations include required degree of
densification (e.g., relative density, SPT blow count, etc.), settlement limitations, and
quality control?
4. For dynamic compaction, do the recommendations include required degree of
densification (e.g., relative density, SPT blow count, etc.), settlement limitations, and
quality control?
5. For stone columns, do the recommendations include spacing and dimensions of
columns, bearing capacity, settlement characteristics, and permeability (seismic
applications)?
6. For grouting, do the recommendations include the grouting method (permeation,
compaction, etc.), material improvement criteria, settlement limitations, and quality
control?
7. For Moisture Control Sand Columns (MCSC), do the recommendations include
spacing and dimensions of columns, bearing capacity, settlement characteristics, and
permeability (seismic applications)?
Note:
Section F: Geomaterial Sites: In addition to the basic information listed in Section

A, is the following information provided in the project geotechnical report?
Table 3-8 Checklist for geomaterial sites

or N/A
 Geomaterial Sites
1. Material site location, including description of existing or proposed access routes and
bridge load limits, if any?
*2. Have soil samples representative of all materials encountered during pit investigation
been submitted and tested?

*3. Are laboratory quality test results included in the report?
4. For aggregate sources, do the laboratory quality test results (such as L.A. abrasion,
sodium sulfate, degradation, absorption, reactive aggregate, etc.) indicate if specification
materials can be obtained from the deposit using normal processing methods?
5. If the lab quality test results indicate that specification material cannot be obtained
from the pit materials as they exist naturally, has the source been rejected or are detailed
recommendations provided for processing or controlling production so as to ensure a
satisfactory product?
*6. For soil borrow sources, have possible difficulties been noted, such as above optimum
moisture content for clay-silt soils, waste due to high PI, boulders, etc.?
*7. Where high moisture content clay-silt soils must be used, are recommendations
provided on the need for aeration to allow the materials to dry out sufficiently to meet
compaction requirements?

or N/A
8. Are estimated shrink-swell factors provided?
*9. Do the proven material site quantities satisfy the estimated project quantity needs?
10. Where materials will be executed from below the water table, have seasonal
fluctuations of the water table been determined?
11. Are special permit requirements been covered?
12. Have pit reclaimation requirements been covered adequately?
13. Has a material site sketch (plan and profile) been provided for inclusion in the plans,
which contains:
a. Material site number?
b. North arrow and legal subdivision?
c. Test hole or test pit logs, locations, numbers and date?
d. Water table elevation and date?
e. Depth of unsuitable overburden, which will have to be stripped?
f. Suggested overburden disposal area?
g. Proposed mining area and previously mined areas?
h. Existing stockpile locations? i. Existing or suggested access road?
j. Bridge load limits?
k. Reclaimation details?
14. Are recommended special provisions provided?
Note:
3.6 Summary of Geotechnical Investigations Data and Factual Report

Collation of GI Data: GI shall be meticulously collected and systematically
recorded in such user-friendly format that will enable effective and speedy process
of collation and automatic linking of various parameters determined from
different tasks of investigations.
The data collected shall include visual aids of the project area, capturing
physiographic aspects (geographic location, topography, climate, vegetation, land
use, existing aquifers, among other factors) and geologic aspects (mainly local
geological formation/chronology and geomorphology) including g environmental
factors at such intervals and transient period that shall be deemed reasonable.
GI Factual Report: The GI Report shall include factual accounts of the site
exploration, foundation ground, subsurface and hydrogeological conditions as
surveyed, sampled and in-situ tested.
As a minimum requirement, the report shall include: i) an introduction; ii) site
description and location including physiography, geology and geomorphology;
iii) schedule of investigations; iv) the GI regime; v) description of the field work; vi)
method and matrix of sampling; vii) mapping and description of material sources
with adequate visual aids and supporting evidence; viii) in-situ testing protocol and
results; ix) testing protocol and results; x) preliminary discussions of investigations
results; xi) computation of bearing capacities and settlement prediction of the
foundation ground; xii) Conclusions; and, xiii) recommendations.
3.7 Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER)

Main Objective: The main objective of a Geotechnical Engineering Report (GER) is
to communicate the site conditions and provide design and construction
recommendations the GMSE Walls.
Site investigations for transportation projects have the objective of providing
specific information on subsurface soil, rock, and hydrogeological conditions.
Interpretation of the site investigation information, by a geotechnical engineer,
results in design and construction recommendations that should be presented in
a project GER. The importance therefore, of preparing an adequate GER cannot
be overstressed. The information contained in this report is referred to often
during the design period, construction period, and frequently after completion of
the project (resolving claims). As a consequence, the report should be as clear,
concise, and accurate. Both an adequate site investigation and a comprehensive
geotechnical report are necessary to construct a safe, cost-effective (value
engineering) project.
The development of a “Final” GER will not normally be completed until design
has progressed to the point where specific recommendations can be made for
all of the geotechnical aspects of the work. Final alignment, grade, and geometry
will usually have been selected prior to issuance of the final GER.
Format of GER: The format of the GER shall be systematically and logically
presented and shall, as a minimum, include the topics stipulated under the
subsequent sub-Section 3.5 and preferably in a similar order.
The format and main content of the GER are developed based on the US DOT-
FHWA: Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and
Preliminary Plans and Specifications: Publication No. FHWA ED-88-053 of
February, 2003 modified within the TACH-MD Framework.
Main Content of GER: The GER shall include the following topics as a guideline and
as the minimum main content.
 Introduction: including background, format of report, main content, summary
of technical approach and methodology, among any other pertinent
information).
 Physiography of Project Area: including geographic location, topography,

climate, vegetation, land use and existing aquifers.
 Geology of Project Area: including geological overview of Project location,

geomorphology and lithology.
 Geotechnical Investigations: a summary the GI Factual Report whose

guidelines are provided under the preceding Section. along with the
inclusion of site exploration, field reconnaissance, comprehensive foundation
ground and subsurface exploration, overall GI review checklist, and summary
of GI data,
 In-situ Testing: the tests may include one or a number of the tests tabulated
in Table 3-1. Refer to Appendix A7.1 for basic specification of procedures.
 Foundation Ground Characterization: this task shall include the

comprehensive analysis of data from in-situ testing
up to a depth of 2m. Refer to Engineering Report for further

details.
 Interpretation and Analysis of Geotechnical Data: mainly including
subsurface data analysis, subsurface water movement and hydrogeological
characteristics in relation to water level variation, moisture – suction variation
and drainage conditions based on basic index/physical properties such as
Atterberg Limits, particle size and distribution as well as permeability, among
others.
 Characterization of Fill Geomaterials: it is intended that under this topic, an

overview of the “Geomaterials Factual and Characterization Report” shall be
provided including introductory discussions on: i) schedule of tests and
laboratory testing; ii) criteria for analytical tools adopted; iii) summary of basic
design data based on laboratory test results; iv) evaluation of quality of
geomaterials tested and adequacy of performance; v) summary of derived
design data; and, vi) development of special/particular construction and QCA
specifications.
 Application of Geotechnical Results in GMSEW design: including influence of

results on fundamental GMSEW design philosophy, foundation design,
settlement/deformation prediction, external stability analysis, global stability
analysis, compound stability analysis, summary of main design parameters
determined, influence of geotechnical engineering aspects on outcome of final
GMSEW design; and, proposed “fall back” options, if any.
 Particular Quality Control & Assurance (QCA) considerations: review

standard specifications and QCA procedures/systems and develop QCA
measures tailored specifically for the project conditions.
 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations: provide technical

guidelines, engineering mitigation measures/solutions and/or appropriate
proposals within the recommendations.
3.8 Fundamental Criteria for Application of Geotechnical Results

The criteria for application of geotechnical results is presented in Table 3-9 below.
Also refer to Appendix A2 in Volume II, which provides a tabulation of the ideal
parameters derived from in-situ DCP testing for construction QCA.
Table 3-9 Criteria for application of geotechnical results
S/N Description of Parameter Criteria of Application

1. Unit Weight, 𝛾𝑢𝑤 Specified parameter applied in external, internal, local, global
and compound stability analysis.
2. Plasticity Index, 𝑃𝐼 Specified parameter applied for performance characterization.
3. Plasticity Modulus, 𝛼𝑝𝑚 Specified parameter applied for performance characterization.
4. 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 Specified parameter applied in design, mechanical stability
Ideal Maximum Particle Size, 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥
analysis, computation of ultimate carrying capacity and
performance characterization.
5. Ideal Coefficient of Mechanical Stabilization, Parameter applied in determination of mechanical stability and
𝑐 )
(𝜂𝑀𝑆 𝐼𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 for designing mechanical stabilization ratios.
6. 𝑓 Parameter for gauging degree of mechanical stability for
Mechanical Stability Factor, 𝑀𝑆
geosynthetics and geomaterials stabilization. Also used for
structural performance evaluation in relation to stiffness.
7. Ideal Particle Size of 60% Passing, 𝐷60,𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 Specified parameter for determining coefficient of uniformity.
Also used for structural performance evaluation in relation to
stiffness.
8. Ideal Particle Size of 10% Passing, 𝐷10,𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙 Specified parameter for determining coefficient of uniformity.
9. Coefficient of Uniformity, 𝐶𝑢 Specified parameter used for characterization of grading/particle
distribution as a means of establishing degree of mechanical
stability.
10. Maximum Dry Density, 𝛾𝑀𝐷𝐷 Usually adopted in the development of particular specifications
for use during construction QCA.
11. Degree of Compaction, 𝐷𝐶 Specified parameter for ensuring achievement of required
density and optimum moisture content.
12. Compression Index, 𝐶𝑐 Parameter adopted for settlement prediction.
13. Consolidation Mean Effective Stress (Pressure), Parameter applied in the derivation of elastic properties in the
𝑝𝑐, simulation of varying consolidation stress-strain-time histories.
14. Poisson’s Ratio, 𝜈 Versatile parameter adopted in the prediction of the initial
settlement of the GMSEW structures, structural performance
evaluation, lateral stress-strain and deformation analysis, among
others.
15. Elastic Modulus, 𝐸0 (MPa) Specially specified parameter applied in analysis and
estimation/prediction of the virgin settlement envisaged to
occur during construction of the GMSEW structures
3.9 Criteria for Choice of Analytical Models in Reference to Method of

Testing
The criteria for choice analytical models for the evaluation of physical/index,
consolidation, shear and elastic stiffness parameters based on three types of
mechanical in-situ and laboratory testing is presented in Table DG3-1.10 as
follows. An example of the application of consolidation parameters is provided
after this table.
Table 3-10 Criteria for choice of analytical models in reference to method of testing
S/N Method of Testing Criteria for Model Development

1. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Evaluation of existing undisturbed state of consolidation as well
as derivation of performance prediction parameters and
possible backcalculation of the consolidation stress-strain-time
history.
2. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DCPT) Shallow subgrade characterization, in-situ quasi-non-destructive
QCA checks and monitoring & evaluation for structural
performance prediction and projection of future maintenance
requirements.
3. Consolidated Drained/Undrained Triaxial Simulation of varying ground conditions and effects of
Compression (CD/UTC) environmental condition under relatively realistic stress-strain
states and stress ratios.
3.10 Application of Geotechnical Results in GMSE Wall Design

Foundation Design: The fundamental structural design parameters of the
foundation ground are the ultimate bearing capacity, which is predominantly a
function of the undrained shear strength and the friction angle, and the bearing
pressure.
The fundamental parameters derived from the Geotechnical Engineering Report
(GER) that are adopted for design and evaluation include the friction/shearing
resistance angle, . , the unit weight, 𝜸 and the elastic modulus, 𝑬𝟎 of the
foundation geomaterial.
On the other hand, for GMSE walls, as defined in Meyerhof’s model (refer to
Appendix 2 of Volume II), the geosynthetics base design length, 𝑮𝑫 contributes
significantly to the reduction of the imposed/impacted pressure along the base of
the GMSE wall by redistribution/re-dispersal of the imposed stresses/pressures
through a more “rigid” stress path. Another parameter of considerable
significance is the vertical reinforcement spacing, 𝑺𝒗 . The two parameters are
known to be the most influential as far as the soil-geosynthetics interaction
mechanisms and enhanced structural performance are concerned.
The fundamental parameters derived from the GER that are adopted for
estimation/prediction of settlement include the . , the unit weight, 𝜸 and the
elastic modulus, 𝑬𝟎 of the foundation and subsurface geomaterials.
Refer to Appendix 2 in Volume II with reference to the example on the Webuye

Interchange Design of GMSEW Structures.
External Stability Analysis: External stability analysi is primarily dependent upon
the results derived from geotechnical investigations. As a consequence,
application of the GI results is demonstrated in Appendix 2 of the design example
provided therein.
The primary parameters derived from the GER that are adopted for external
stability analysis include the . , the unit weight, 𝜸 and the elastic modulus,
𝑬𝟎 of the foundation and subsurface geomaterials (refer to Appendix 2).
Global Stability Analysis: Global stability analysis is the evaluation of an entire soil
mass and its ability to maintain its design shape (refer to sub-Section 2.7.5 in
Chapter 2 of this DG-3).
The primary parameters derived from the GER that are adopted for global
stability analysis include the . , the unit weight, 𝜸 and the elastic modulus,
𝑬𝟎 of the foundation and subsurface geomaterials. Refer to Appendix 2 of
Volume II.
Summary of Main Foundation Design Parameters Determined: An example of
a summary of the main foundation design parameters determined is provided in
Appendix 2 of Volume II.
3.11 Materials Properties/ Characterization

Part II: Materials Properties & Characterization; Basic Parameters,
Specifications & Testing
3.11.1 Introduction
Soil, either fill or natural ground, can interact with soil reinforcement with each
affecting the performance of the other; broadly there are two possible effects that
should be considered:
a) First, is the axial tensile strain of the reinforcement in service can affect the
shear strength mobilized in the soil; and,
b) secondly, the chemistry of the soil, and soil fluid, can affect the durability and
therefore time-dependent performance of the reinforcement.
Other effects of fill on the reinforced soil performance, which should be

considered, arise from the durability of the fill, hydraulic properties of the soil and
swelling characteristics of the soil; problems in this latter category are
common to conventional earthworks, earth retaining structures and foundations.
The cost of a reinforced soil structure is greatly dependent on the availability of
the required type of backfill materials. Therefore, investigations must be
conducted to locate and test locally available materials which may be used for
backfill with the selected system.
3.11.2 Fill Geomaterials
Basic Physical Properties: Four main physical properties are required for the
characterization of fill geomaterials.
 Atterberg Limits, 𝑃𝐼 , 𝐿𝐿
 specific gravity, 𝐺𝑠 ,
 voids ratio, 𝑒,
 dry unit weight, 𝛾𝑑
 maximum particle size, 𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥
 gradation parameters, [𝐷60, 𝐷10 , 𝐶𝑢 , ] and
 degree of saturation, 𝑆𝑟 ,
Figure 3-2 Example of granular geomaterial for use as GMSEW reinforced fill and
retained backfill
Determination of fill strength: The effective angle of internal friction/shearing

′
resistance 𝜙𝑃𝑆 and effective cohesion c’ may be determined by shear box or
triaxial tests in accordance with BS 1377-7 and BS 1377-8.
Fill strength Related to Reinforcement Strain: The axial tensile stiffness of
reinforcement materials may be classified as inextensible, where the
deformation of the reinforcement at failure is much less than the deformability of
the soil or extensible, where the deformation of the reinforcement at failure is
comparable to or even greater than the deformability of the soil. It should be
noted that steel below the yield point and some polymeric materials mobilize their
design strength at a total axial strain of 1% or less, whereas the majority of
polymeric reinforcements, such as geotextiles and geogrids mobilize their strength
at higher strains.
Effects of Soil on Reinforcement Durability
 Soil chemistry
It should be borne in mind that the chemistry of the soil and soil water can have a
significant effect on the durability and therefore load carrying capacity of the soil
reinforcement; in particular the electrochemical characteristics of the soil can
make it corrosive to metallic reinforcement.
For geosynthetic reinforcement, a reduction factor should be used with respect to
the aggression of a fill, or soil, which is defined in Chapter 4 as RF, and is a function
of the specific polymeric reinforcement and in particular the specific polymer, and
additives, used in the reinforcement.
Consideration should be given to the fact that the performance of polymeric
reinforcements, particularly in the long term, can be impaired by organic or
inorganic chemicals or extreme pH values of the soil.
 Soil grading and constitution
Consideration should be given to the durability of polymeric reinforcement, which

can be affected by the particle size, shape and hardness of the fill; this stems from
the ability of the fill to damage the reinforcement during placement and
compaction of the fill. The severity and nature of the damage caused by a
particular fill and placement method that may be anticipated will vary from one
reinforcement product to another. In general surface scratches may be assumed

to have negligible effect on metallic reinforcement consisting of galvanized steel
provided such damage does not expose the bare steel.
The effects of construction damage on polymeric reinforcement will be dependent
on the specific polymer and additives used to form each proprietary product. The
susceptibility of polymeric reinforcement to damage during installation e.g. cuts,
tears, splits and perforations may be assessed by site or full-scale trials to enable
the value of the partial material factor RF, and other relevant properties to be
determined.
Reinforced Fill: The selection criteria of reinforced fill should consider long-term
performance of the completed structure, construction phase stability and the
degradation environment created for the reinforcements. Much of engineering
communities’ knowledge and experience with GMSE wall structures to date has
been with select, cohesionless backfill. Hence, knowledge about internal stress
distribution, pullout resistance, and failure surface shape is constrained and
influenced by the unique engineering properties of these soil types. Granular
soils are therefore ideally suited to GMSE wall structures. Many agencies have
adopted conservative reinforced fill requirements for both walls and slopes. These
conservative properties are suitable for inclusion in standard specifications or
special provisions when project specific testing is not feasible and
when the quality of construction control and inspection may be in question. It
should be recognized, however, that using conservative reinforced fill property
criteria cannot completely replace a reasonable degree of construction control
and inspection.
In general, these select reinforced fill materials will be more expensive than lower
quality materials. The specification criteria for each application (walls and slopes)
differ somewhat primarily based on performance requirements of the completed
structure (allowable deformations) and the design approach. Material suppliers
of proprietary GMSE systems each have their own criteria for reinforced fills.
The following requirements are consistent with current practice.
Select Fill Material for the Reinforced Zone of Walls: All fill material used in the
structure volume for GMSE wall structures should be reasonably free from organic
or other deleterious materials and should to the gradation limits, PI and
soundness criteria listed in Table 3-11. The reinforced fill should be well-graded
in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in ASTM D2487.
Unstable broadly graded soils (i.e., Cu > 20 with concave upward grain size
distributions) and gap graded soils should be avoided). These soils tend to pipe
and erode internally, creating problems with both loss of materials and clogging
of drainage systems.
Well-Graded Backfill: Specification for well-graded fill geomaterial is
recommended. A maximum grain size of 50 mm is recommended for efficient
compaction behind the abutment wall facing. An example of this type of
aggregate is shown in Table 3-11 and in Figure 3-3. The exact gradation is not
required. As long as the maximum aggregate size is not exceeded, the amount of
fines passing the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve is not greater than 12 percent, and
the friction angle is at least 34 degrees, the backfill material will be adequate for
GMSE wall structures.
Table 3-11. GMSEW well-graded fill geomaterial (VDOT 21-A).
Gradation (VDOT 21-A) U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing
50 100
mm
25 94–
mm 100
14 63–
mm 72
5 mm 32–
41
0.425 14–
mm 24
0.075 6–
mm 12
Figure 3-3. Sample of VDOT 21-A gravel.

Open-Graded Backfill: Recommended open-graded fill material consists of clean,
crushed angular (not rounded) stone. In this case, the maximum grain size to
efficiently achieve compaction behind the abutment wall face is 14 mm. An
example of a typical open-graded fill geomaterial is shown in Table 3-12 and in
Figure 3-13. The amount of fines passing the No. 200(0.075 mm) sieve should be
as close to 0 percent as possible and no more than 5 percent.
Table 3-12. GMSEW open-graded fill geomaterial (AASHTO No. 89).
U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing

50 mm 100
25 mm 94–100
Gradation
14 mm 63–72
(VDOT 21-A)
5 mm 32–41
0.425 mm 14–24
0.075 mm 6–12
Plasticity Index (PI) (AASSHTO
PI ≤ 6
T-90)
The backfill shall be substantially free of
shale or other poor durability particles.
Soundness The material shall have a magnesium
(AASHTO T-104) sulfate loss of less than 30 percent after
four cycles (or a sodium value less than 15
percent after five cycles).
Figure 3-4. Sample of AASHTO No. 89 gravel.

Reinforced Soil Foundation Backfill
The backfill for the Reinforced Soil Foundation (RSF) should be well-graded so
as dense packing can occur during compaction. The recommended backfill is
the same as that specified in Table 3-11.
Riprap Protection: Riprap protection should be sized appropriately for the class of
stone specified. The stone used should be hard, durable, angular, free of organic
and spoil material, and resistant to weathering and water action. It should be
free of clay or soft shale seams that can slake when exposed to water. Hydraulic
Engineering Circular 23 (HEC-23) should be used to adequately size riprap or other

scour countermeasures.
The fill material must be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances,
as these materials generally result in poor performance of the structure and
enhance degradation for reinforcements. Other materials such as soils containing
mica, gypsum, smectite, montomorrilonite or other soft durability particles
should be carefully evaluated as large strains are typically required to reach peak
strength and pullout capacity, resulting in larger lateral and vertical deformation
than with higher quality granular fills.
Use of salvaged materials such as asphaltic concrete millings or Portland Cement
Concrete rubble is not recommended. Recycled asphalt is prone to creep resulting
in both wall deformation and reinforcement pullout. Recycled concrete has a
potential to produce tufa precipitate from unhydrated cement, which can clog
drains and exude a white pasty substance onto the wall face creating aesthetic
problems. The recycled concrete typically does not meet electrochemical
properties and its corrosion potential has also not been fully evaluated,
especially if residual wire and rebar are present that could create problems with
dissimilar metals. The compaction specifications should include a specified lift
thickness and allowable range of moisture content with reference to optimum.
Compaction moisture control should be ±𝟐% of optimum moisture, 𝒐𝒑𝒕..
The compaction requirements of reinforced fill are different in close proximity

to the wall facing (within 1 m). Lighter compaction equipment (e.g., walk-behind
vibratory plate or roller) and thinner lifts are used near the wall face to prevent
buildup
of high lateral pressures from the compaction and to prevent facing panel
movement. Because of the use of this lighter equipment, a reinforced fill
material of good quality in terms of both friction and drainage, such as crushed
stone may be used close to the face of the wall to provide adequate strength and
minimize settlement in this zone. If an open graded fill is used adjacent to the
face, filtration requirements with the reinforced wall fill must be addressed, see
Appendix A8. It should be noted that granular fill containing even a few percent
fines (which can even develop or increase due to breakdown during compaction)
may not be free draining and drainage requirements should always be carefully
evaluated.
Marginal Fill: GMSE wall reinforced fill materials outside of these gradation and
plasticity index requirements (Table 3-11) have been used successfully; however,
problems including significant distortion and structural failure have been
observed with finer grained and/or more plastic soils. A recent NCHRP research
study (NCHRP 2422) on Selecting Reinforced Fill Materials for GMSE Retaining
Walls has confirmed that that reinforced fill with up to 35% passing a No. 200 (0.75
mm) sieve could be safely allowed in the reinforced fill, provided the properties of
the materials are well defined and controls are established to address the design
issues. Design issues include drainage, corrosion, deformations, reinforcement
pullout, constructability, and performance expectations. While there may be a
significant savings in using lower quality reinforced fill, the effect on performance
must be carefully evaluated.
For GMSE walls constructed with reinforced fill containing more than 15%
passing a No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve and/or a PI exceeding 6, both total and
effective shear strength parameters should be evaluated in order to obtain an
accurate assessment of horizontal stresses, sliding, compound failure (behind
and through the reinforced zone) and the influence of drainage on the analysis.
Both long-term and short-term reinforcement pullout tests as well as
soil/reinforcement interface friction tests should be performed. Settlement
characteristics must be carefully evaluated, especially in relation to downdrag
stresses imposed on connections at the face and settlement of supported
structures. Drainage requirements at the back, face, and beneath the reinforced
zone must be carefully evaluated (e.g., use flow nets to evaluate influence of
seepage forces and hydrostatic pressure). If marginal fill is used the surface of
the wall should be positively sloped such that water drains away from the wall
(which is a good practice for all GMSE walls as discussed in Appendix A8). In
addition, a geomembrane is recommended above the wall to preclude
infiltration of seepage water into the fill (see Appendix A8, Section 5.3 for
drainage design details). Again, these drainage features are good practice for all
GMSE walls. The length of the upper 2 layers of reinforcement should be extended
at least 1 to 1.75 m beyond the lower reinforcement layers to reduce the potential
for tension cracks to develop directly behind the reinforced zone.
Electrochemical tests should be performed on the reinforced fill to obtain data for
evaluating degradation of reinforcements and facing connections. Moisture and
density control during construction must be carefully controlled in order to obtain
strength and interaction values. Deformation during construction also must be
carefully monitored and maintained within defined design limits. Performance
monitoring is also recommended for reinforced fill soils that fall outside of the
requirements listed above.
Reinforced Rock Fill: Material that is composed primarily of rock fragments
(material having less than 25 percent passing a 20 mm sieve) should be
considered to be a rock backfill. The maximum particle size should not exceed
the limits listed in Table DG3-II.1. Such material should meet all the other non
gradation requirements such as soundness and electrochemical properties. When
such material is used, a very high survivability geotextile filter (e.g., Type 1
geotextile in accordance with AASHTO M 288), designed for filtration
performance following the guidelines in FHWA NHI-07-092 (Holtz et al., 2008),
should encapsulate the rock backfill to within 1 m below the wall coping. Adjoining
sections of separation fabric should be overlapped by a minimum of 0.30 m.
Additionally, the upper 1 m of fill should contain no stones greater than 75 mm in
their greatest dimension, and should be composed of material not considered to
be rock backfill, as defined herein. Where density testing is not possible, trial fill
sections should be constructed with agency supervisory personnel and
geotechnical specialist present to determine appropriate watering, in situ
modification requirements (e.g., grading), lift thickness, and number of passes
to achieve adequate compaction. Compaction can be determined by measuring
the settlement of the trial section at a number of points after each pass (e.g., a
minimum of 5 points measured at the center of a 0.3 m square plate is typically
required). Several lifts should be constructed to determine the appropriate
number of passes, which will maximize compaction without excessively crushing
the rock at the surface. The number of passes to achieve at least 80 percent of
the maximum settlement should be required.
Design Strength of Granular Reinforced Fill: The GMSE wall reinforced fill criteria
outlined previously represent materials that have been successfully used in most
parts of the world and resulted in excellent performance of GMSEW structures.
Peak shear strength parameters are used in the wall and slope analyses. For GMSE
walls using well fill meeting the gradation requirements in Table 3-11, a maximum
effective friction angle of ′ = 𝟑 degrees is usually assumed (in accordance
with Article 11.10.6.2, AASHTO, 2007), unless project-specific fill is tested by
triaxial (per AASHTO T-296) or direct shear (per AASHTO T-236), per Article
11.10.6.2 (AASHTO, 2007). However, some nearly uniform fine sands meeting the
specifications limits may exhibit friction angles of 30 to 32 degrees. When
contractor furnished sources are used, the specification may also require testing
of the source material to verify that its friction angle meets specification
requirements (e.g., 34 degrees). Higher values may be used if substantiated by
laboratory direct shear or triaxial test results for the site specific material used or
proposed. Note that values determined from these tests are to be converted to
plane strain conditions using Equations 4-1 and 4-2 provided under Section 4.2.
Limits of Reinforced Fill: For GMSE walls, except back-to-back walls, many
agencies extend the reinforced fill beyond the free end of the reinforcement.
Some agencies extend the reinforced fill 0.3 m beyond the reinforcement length,
and some others extend the fill in a wedge behind the reinforced zone, as
illustrated in Figure 3-1. For back to-back walls wherein the free ends of the
reinforcement of the two walls are spaced apart less than or equal to one-half the
design height of the taller wall, reinforced backfill should be used for the space
between the free ends of the reinforcements as well.
Figure 3-5. Examples of reinforced fill zone extension beyond the reinforced
zone.
Retained Backfill and Natural Retained Earth: The key engineering properties
required for the retained backfill are the strength and unit weight based on
evaluation and testing of subsurface or borrow pit data. Friction angles are
preferably determined from plane strain tests. As with reinforced fill, a cohesion
value of zero is conservatively recommended for the long-term, effective strength
of the retained fill. For backcut construction, if undisturbed samples cannot be
obtained, friction angles may be obtained from in-situ tests or by correlations with
index properties. The strength properties are required for the determination of
the coefficients of earth pressure used in design as well as for overall stability
analysis. In addition, the position of groundwater levels above the proposed base
of construction must be determined in order to evaluate hydrostatic stresses in
the retained fill and plan an appropriate drainage scheme to control ground
water conditions. For most retained backfills lower bound frictional strength
values of 28 to 30 degrees are reasonable for granular and low plasticity cohesive
soils. For highly plastic retained fills and natural soils (PI > 20), even lower values
would be indicated and should be evaluated for both drained and undrained
conditions.
Backfill and natural soil behind the limits of the reinforced fill should be considered
to be in the retained zone for a distance equal to 50 percent of the design height
of the GMSE wall. For the reasons discussed previously for reinforced fill, use of
soils containing shale, mica, gypsum, smectite, montmorillonite or other soft
particles of poor durability is discouraged and soundness limits should meet the
criteria in Table 3-11.
Section 4: Structural Analysis and Design
4.1 Fundamental Considerations and Design/Stability Analysis Procedure
4.1.1 Fundamental Considerations
State of the Practice considerations of design responsibility: Most Transportation

Agencies worldwide are clear on who is responsible for each aspect of the design
of GMSE RWs. The distribution of design responsibility is basically as follows:
External Stability. The Implementing Agency or the Implementing Agency's
geotechnical consultant (representative engineer), is responsible for the external
stability of the proposed structure. The logic is simple: the owner is proposing to
build the structure in the specified location and it is the owner's responsibility to
investigate the feasibility of the proposed improvement, including the adequacy
of the foundation soils to support the proposed structure. External stability
analysis includes global stability of the structure, bearing capacity analysis of the
foundation soils, and settlement analysis of the proposed structure.
Internal Stability. The GMSE wall system supplier is responsible for internal
stability design, including checking both pullout and rupture of the
reinforcements. The supplier is also responsible for design of all wall system
components, including the facing units, soil reinforcements, soil reinforcement
connections to the facing units, bearing pads and joint-covering filter fabric. Wall
suppliers also provide calculations that check sliding and overturning of the GMSE
gravity mass and determine the eccentricity of the structure and the applied
bearing pressure at the base of the structure.
The state of the practice of GMSE wall design is substantially about internal
stability. Therefore, the following Sections/Chapters review various aspects of
internal stability design. It is useful to start at the beginning, by reviewing the basic
mechanics of GMSE structures (refer to the Engineering Research Report). In this
Guideline, the K-Stiffness Method, which takes into account the stiffness in the
reinforcement as well as facing elements and considers failure of the reinforced
backfill and reinforcement rupture separately, is adopted for the design of internal
stability. Note that the other conventional methods of internal stability design
such as the simplified AASHTO, coherent gravity and FHWA Stiffness do not take
these factors into consideration.
Considerations of design review responsibility: Recent Design and Construction

GMSEW Guidelines based on advanced R&D such as the” Design of Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume I; Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-10-024; FHWA GEC 011-Vol I, November 2009”, for example, are
mostly aimed at enabling Agency Design Engineers to properly select, design,
specify, monitor and contract for the construction of GMSE walls and RSS
(reinforce soil slope) embankments. In any case, the Transportation Agency has
the obligation of reviewing the designs.
Basic Considerations in Design Procedure: The procedure takes the following
design elements into serious consideration.
 Load intensity and stress distribution

 Load and Resistance Factors
 Lateral Displacement and Vertical/Differential Settlement
 Type Selection, vertical spacing and length of Geosynthetics Reinforcing Elements
 Comprehensive Internal and Local Stability Analysis
 External, Compound and Global Stability Analysis
Structural Performance Considerations of Reinforced Layers: When carrying out

performance evaluation, the following factors which influence stability of the geo-
structural components of GMSE Walls shall be included in the design check and
analysis.
 The capacity to transfer shear between the reinforcing elements.

 The tensile capacity of the reinforcing elements.
 The capacity of the soil fill to support compression.
Furthermore, in retrospect to structural performance, the ultimate limit state

should be modeled with due consideration of the following assumptions.
 The soil shear strength is based upon the effective angle of internal friction,
𝜙𝑝′ under plane strain conditions for the reinforced and retained backfills using
the appropriate resistance factors contained in Table A1-1 of Appendix A1;
 The friction angle can be determined from plane strain, triaxial or direct shear
tests under Consolidated Drained (CD) conditions. 𝜙𝑝′ can then be computed
using the model Equations 4-1 and 4-1 provided in the subsequent Section 4.2.
 Partial load factors are applied to the characteristic loads for walls to model
collapse.
 Loads are distributed throughout the reinforced soil block in accordance with
the Meyerhof distribution as depicted in Figure A1-5 of Appendix A1 included
in Volume II of this Guideline.
 Reinforcement material resistance factors, for the limit states and selected
design life, are applied to the materials base strength.
 The economic ramifications of collapse are considered by applying a partial
factor, 𝑓𝑛 in accordance with Table A1-6 of Appendix A1 included in Volume
II of this Guideline.
 The tensions in the reinforcement are based on the stresses assumed to occur
in the soil at a short distance from the face of the wall.
Consideration of Limitations of Conventional Methods of Design: Comprehensive

literature review on the State of the Art and State of the Practice international
publications indicates that the Design Guidelines currently adopted by

Transportation and Infrastructure Agencies clearly demonstrate the existence of
certain limitations, which certainly require further Research & Development
(R&D). Some of these limitations, which have been outlined and/or discussed in
detail in some of the State of the Art and State of the Practice international
publications, are presented below.
This KS DG-3 Guideline has been developed taking into account the limitations of
the conventional methods of design. Such considerations formed the basis of
selecting the K-Stiffness Method for the design of internal stability due to the
advances that have been made with the development of this method as outlined
in sub-Section 1.6, Section 4.2 and Section 4.3.
 Hitherto Designs have been undertaken by Manufacturers limiting them to

proprietary philosophies, characteristics, approach and methodologies culminating
in delayed development of generic design procedures.
 Due to the fact that soil-geosynthetics interactive mechanisms have not been well
elucidated, design methods adopt extremely conservative procedures of
determining the design parameters.
 Design methods consider simultaneous failure of both the reinforcing elements and
reinforced backfill soli, which, from a scientific, soil mechanics and geotechnical
engineering perspective, is highly unlikely.
 Design methods do NOT consider the effective structural and serviceability
contribution of the wall facing.
 Design methods do NOT consider the effective structural and serviceability
contribution of incorporating geosynthetics reinforcement within the reinforced fill
soil of GMSEWs.
 Compaction induced stresses are NEVER considered in the design and analysis.
 Development of apparent cohesion and increased confining stress as a result of
frictional, lateral and bearing restraint are NEVER considered in the design and
analysis.
 No definitive models and/or appropriate procedures for determining optimal
LGD/VRS exist.
 Lack of appropriate methods to determine required ultimate tensile and junction
strengths of the reinforcing geosynthetics and/or elements, overtensioning and
structural performance of GMSEWS RWs.
 Practically all designs adopt a Rankine and/or Coulomb failure envelopes which do
NOT consider the effective structural and serviceability contribution of incorporating
geosynthetics reinforcement within the backfill soil of GRW RWs.
 No definitive models and/or appropriate procedures are incorporated for
determining the required design reinforcement length for the base.
 No definitive models and/or appropriate procedures are incorporated for
determining the effects of wall facing inclination.
 No scientific procedure and/or definitive models are incorporated for determining
the required ultimate tensile and junction strengths of the reinforcing geosynthetics
and/or elements.
Design Philosophy Adopted: As per the discussions presented in Section 2.8, the
Limit State Design (LSD) as defined in the BS 8006-1:2010 also known as the Load
and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) as defined in the AASHTO LRFD 2012, 6th
Edition, shall be adopted. In particular, the K-Stiffness Method shall be employed
for the internal stability design within the same LSD/LRFD philosophical
framework. Three limit states, which represent structural performance criteria,
are adopted: i) strength limit states; ii) service limit states; and iii) extreme event
limit states basically controlled by the influence of seismic loading. In this case
strength limit states are generally considered to control the member sizes. Service
limit states may control aspects such as joint width openings and construction
sequence based on the anticipated deformations. Extreme event limit states as
impacted by seismicity are considered to affect both the member sizes as well as
deformations. Note that fatigue limit states are out of the scope of this Guideline.
4.1.2 Systematic Design and Stability Analysis Procedure
A systematic design and stability analysis procedure is summarized in Table 4-2

presented in the subsequent Section 4.3.
4.2 Introduction to the K-Stiffness Method
The K-Stiffness Method, which is to be adopted for internal stability design (Step
7 of the subsequent sub-Section 4.3) is introduced under this sub-Section.
4.2.1 Criteria, Accuracy and Applicability of the K-Stiffness Method
Criteria for Selection of the K-Stiffness Method: There now exists a large and
irrefutable body of physical data that shows that current limit equilibrium- based
design models for the calculation of reinforcement loads under operational
conditions are excessively conservative and inaccurate with respect to the
distribution of reinforcement loads. Current tie-back wedge methods and
variants should be recognized as simple models that are neither rational nor
theoretically consistent within a mechanics’ framework (Bathurst et al., 2010).
Their use is complicated by difficulties relating loads at soil failure (plasticity) to
working stress conditions and the assumption that the soil and reinforcement fail
simultaneously. Furthermore, geosynthetic reinforced soil walls are systems with
complex interactions between the soil, visco-elastic-plastic polymeric
reinforcement elements, discrete structural facing columns and toe boundary
conditions. The notion that accurate closed-form analytical solutions are possible
based on the mechanics of these complex systems is, in the opinion of the
writers, not realistic. Nevertheless, it is recognized that safe designs do result
using current limit equilibrium-based load models if Allowable Stress Design
(ASD) past practice is adopted. Unfortunately, ASD past practice does not provide
the designer with an estimate of the actual margin of safety (or probability of
failure) for each mode of failure. This is not the case for the design of related
engineering structures (e.g. bridge superstructures which are often supported by
retaining wall abutments). However, the excessive conservatism and poor
prediction accuracy of limit equilibrium-based load models renders reliability-

based limit states design calibration for resistance factors impossible. Hence the
use of these load models is an impediment to the migration of internal stability
design for geosynthetic reinforced soil walls to a modern limit states design
framework and future performance based design. The development of properly
formulated limit states design equations with acceptable probabilities of failure
are required if reinforced soil retaining walls structures are to be designed within
the same limit states design framework currently used for piled foundations and
buildings.
The K-stiffness Method, which was empirically developed and calibrated based
on post-construction structural performance of in-service GMSE Walls and first
proposed by Allen et al. in 2003, quantitatively captures the influence of soil
properties, reinforcement properties and structural wall facings on the
magnitude of reinforcement loads under operational conditions, which leads to
reasonable values for load and resistance factors. Currently, the K-Stiffness
Method offers the only framework for reliability-based limit states design
calibration for rupture and pullout internal limits for geosynthetic reinforced soil
walls. The method has been refined from its first variation described by Allen et
al. (2003) to its current form as reported by Bathurst et al. (2008b). The evolution
of the method has occurred as more quantitative wall performance data has
been gathered and the method extended to accommodate cohesive-frictional
backfill soils.
As can be derived from Figure 4-8, in comparison to the American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials/Federal Highway Authorities
(AASHTO/FHWA) Simplified Method (2002), application of this method
culminates in a reduction of more than 60% of the predicted maximum
reinforcement loads an increase of more than 70% in the precision of prediction.
Furthermore, in cases where the K-Stiffness method has been used for design
and construction of GMSE Walls, it has realized a reduction of more than 35% of
the required geosynthetics reinforcement quantities in comparison to the
AASHTO/FHWA Simplified method. Note that the excessively conservative
estimates of reinforcement loads shown in Figure 4-12 can be expected to be
even greater in practice since: (a) partial reduction factors are applied to the
creep-reduced reinforcement tensile capacities; (b) peak friction angles from
triaxial or direct shear tests are used that are lower than the peak secant plane
strain values used here; and (c) the cohesive strength component of the soil is
ignored. Consequently, the reduction in the required geosynthetics
reinforcement quantities could be much larger.
Since 2005, this method has been adopted for the internal stability design by
various Transportation Agencies including the Washington Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) and is becoming increasingly popular in North America

and Japan.
Range of GMSE Wall Types and Material Properties Studied: Key properties and
parameters for each of the case histories referenced in this Guideline, including
facing type, reinforcement geometry, reinforcement type, soil properties, and
construction history, are discussed in detail by Allen et al. (2002). In one of the
studies a total of 11 geosynthetic wall cases were analyzed (the same wall with
and without a surcharge was considered to be one case). These wall cases
included a range of wall facing geometry and materials, surcharge conditions,
and granular backfill. Wall reinforcement products included geotextiles and
geogrids, different polymers (polypropylene (PP), high-density polyethylene
(HDPE), and polyester (PET)), strip and continuous reinforcements, a range of
tensile strengths from 12 to 200 kN/m, and reinforcement stiffness values from
90 to 7400 kN/m. Reinforcement vertical spacing varied from 0.3 to 1.6 m. Wall
facing batter angles varied from 0° (vertical) to 27°, although most of the walls
had facing batter angles of 5° or less. Wall heights varied from 4.0 to 12.6 m, with
surcharge heights of up to 5.3 m of soil. Facing types included geosynthetic
wrapped-face, welded wire, precast concrete panels, and modular concrete
blocks (segmental retaining wall units). Estimated peak plane strain soil friction
angles varied from 42 to 57°. Many of the conditions that are likely to be
encountered in the field are included in the database of case histories described
previously. Plane strain conditions typically exist in reinforced soil walls. Peak
plane strain friction angles for granular soils are larger than values from triaxial
compression or direct shear testing and hence are less conservative for design.
Furthermore, recent work indicates that the peak plane strain soil friction angle
in calculations gives a better estimate of reinforcement loads, at least for
geosynthetic walls (Rowe and Ho 1993; Zornberg et al. 1998a, 1998b; Lee et al.
1999; Allen and Bathurst 2002a). Peak friction angles reported in the source
references from triaxial compression tests (𝜙𝑡𝑥 , in degrees) were corrected to
peak plane strain friction angles using the equation by Lade and Lee (1976):
𝜙𝑃𝑆 = 1.5𝜙𝑡𝑥 17 (4-1)
Based on interpretation of data presented by Bolton (1986) and Jewell and Wroth
(1987) for dense sands, values of 𝜙𝑃𝑆 were calculated from peak direct shear
friction angles, 𝜙𝑑𝑠 , reported in the source references using the following
relationship:
𝜙𝑃𝑆 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (1.2𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝑑𝑠 ) (4-2)
Accuracy of the K-stiffness Method: The same database of measured

reinforcement loads used to investigate the accuracy of the AASHTO Simplified
Method was used by Bathurst et al. (2008c) to quantify the accuracy of the K-
stiffness Method. The results are depicted in Figure 4-1a (LHS) for the AASHTO
Simplified Method and Figure 4-1b (RHS) for the K-stiffness Method. Data for walls
with cohesive-frictional and frictional soil backfills are included in this figure. The
load bias statistics are almost the same for both data sets.
Figure 4-1 Measured reinforcement load versus calculated load using the: a) LHS-
AASHTO/FHWA Simplified Method; and b) RHS- K-stiffness Method
The graphical plots show that the data are distributed much closer to the 1:1
reference line for the K – stiffness Method than the corresponding data using the
current AASHTO (2002) Simplified Method, which also exhibit a wide range of
scatter. The data show that the K – stiffness Method does well in conservatively
capturing the measured load data for a range of wall heights and reasonable
estimates of toe stiffness.
Applicability of the K-Stiffness Method: The K-stiffness Method is empirically

based with parameters that have been determined by calibration against a large
database of carefully constructed, instrumented and monitored GMSE Retaining
Wall structures. An important implication of this approach is that the method can
only be used for structures with properties and boundary conditions that fall
within the envelope of case study properties that were used to perform the
calibration. For example, the wall heights in the database vary from 3 to 12.6 m.
Hence, using the K-stiffness Method to design walls of greater height should be
carried out with caution. A total of 22 walls were built in the field on natural soils
or on a depth of foundation soil in the laboratory. The remaining nine were built
on rigid foundations. Hence, the K-stiffness Method is applicable to walls built on
typical competent foundations where the performance of the structures is not
influenced by excessive settlements or failure of the foundation or wall toe.
Similar foundation criteria apply to the tie-back wedge approach (i.e. Simplified
Method) for the calculation of internal reinforcement loads (e.g. AASHTO 2002;
FHWA 2001; CFEM 2006; NCMA 2009). A total of 21 wall sections were
constructed with a vertical face; the remaining walls were constructed with
facing batter (ω) from 3° to 27°. Most of the walls were constructed with a hard
structural facing. A total of 58 data points were collected from 13 wall sections
built with cohesionless soils and 79 data points from sections built with cohesive-
frictional soils. The K-Stiffness Method in its most current form accounts for the
positive contribution of soil cohesion to reduce geosynthetic reinforcement loads
(Bathurst et al. 2008c). In many parts of the world purely frictional (granular) soils
are not available and ignoring the cohesive component of available cohesive-
frictional soils will lead to uneconomical structures. Nevertheless, the engineer
of record must be familiar with project backfill soils and must decide if the
cohesive component of soil strength used to compute the cohesion influence
factor, Φ𝑐 is available for the life of the structure. If this strength component
′
cannot be guaranteed, the K-Stiffness Method should be used with 𝜙𝑟𝑏𝑓 >0
and 𝑐 = 0 although this will result in a relatively conservative (safe) design.
Finally, it must be recalled that the K-Stiffness Method was developed to
compute reinforcement loads used for the internal stability design of reinforced
soil retaining walls. At present the method applies only to internal rupture (over-
stressing) and pullout failure modes (or limit states) and does not extend to the
design of other structural components of the GMSE Wall system. The method has
also yet to cater for seismic loads.
Consequently, the K-Stiffness Method, as described by Allen and Bathurst (2003),

is to be adopted for the design of internal stability based on the following
conditions.
 Design internal stability for GMSE Walls up to 12m in height (𝑯 ≤ 𝟏𝟐𝒎).
 GMSE Walls designed using this method should be constructed on sound
foundations that are not supporting other structures and whose
anticipated settlement is not greater than 150mm.
 The method should be used for the design of walls with a maximum
facing batter angle of: 𝝎 ≤ 𝟐𝟎°.
 At present the method applies only to internal rupture (over-stressing)
and pullout failure modes (or limit states). Other failure modes related
to facing column stability, external stability and possible failure
mechanisms that pass partially through the reinforced soil mass are
beyond the scope of the method. For these failure modes current limit
equilibrium-based models together with conventional factors of safety
are available.
 The influence of additional loads due to earthquake has yet to be
addressed within the K-stiffness Method framework. Therefore, this
method should not be used for seismic design.
4.2.2 Principal Models of the K-Stiffness Method
Universal Model Defining the Maximum Reinforcement Load: The following key
factors are known to influence the magnitude of the maximum reinforcement
load, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 : ( i) height of the wall, 𝐻 and any surcharge loads, 𝑞; (ii) global stiffness,
𝑆𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 and local stiffness, 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 of the soil reinforcement; (iii) resistance to lateral
movement caused by the stiffness of the facing, 𝑓𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑓 and restraint at the wall toe,
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠. ; (iv) face batter, 𝑓𝑏𝑎𝑡𝑡. (v) shear strength, 𝑠𝑢 and stress–strain, 𝜀 behaviour
which characterizes stiffness defined in terms of elastic modulus, 𝐸0 of the soil;
(vi) unit weight of the soil, 𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 ; and (vii) vertical spacing of the reinforcement, 𝑆𝑣 .
These factors are introduced analytically in the following universal model, which
defines the maximum load per running unit length of wall in a reinforcement layer
𝑖:
𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑆𝑣𝑖 𝜎ℎ 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 Φ (4-3)
where 𝑆𝑣𝑖 is the tributary area (equivalent to the vertical spacing of the
reinforcement in the vicinity of each layer when analyses are carried out per unit
length of wall); 𝜎ℎ is the lateral earth pressure acting over the tributary area;
𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the load distribution factor that modifies the reinforcement load based
on layer location; and Φ is the influence factor that is the product of factors that
account for the effects of local and global reinforcement stiffness, facing stiffness,
face batter and soil cohesion.
On the other hand, the lateral pressure, 𝜎ℎ is calculated as the average value over
the height of the wall according to the conventional earth pressure theories,
hence:
1
𝜎ℎ = 2 𝐾𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 (𝐻 + 𝑆) (4-4)
where 𝐾 is the lateral earth pressure coefficient, 𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 is the unit weight of the
reinforced backfill, 𝐻 is the height of the wall, and 𝑆 is the equivalent height of
uniform surcharge pressure 𝑞 (𝑖. 𝑒. , 𝑆 = 𝑞/𝛾). The coefficient of lateral earth
pressure 𝐾 is calculated for a vertical GMSE Wall, i.e., batter angle equals to zero;
(𝜔 = 0) using the Jaky equation (Holtz and Kovacs 1981):
𝐾 = 𝐾0 = 𝐾𝑎𝑏𝑣 = 1 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜙𝑟𝑏𝑓 ) (4-5a)

𝑃𝑆
where (𝜙𝑟𝑏𝑓 ) is the peak plane strain friction angle of the reinforced backfill
𝑃𝑆
soil. Note that, the use of 𝐾 = 𝐾0 in this proposed method does not imply that at-
rest conditions exist within the reinforced backfill. 𝐾0 is simply used as a familiar
index parameter to characterize soil behaviour. For battered GMSE Walls, a
modified version of the simplified form of the Coulomb model recommended by
AASHTO is adopted. This modified version, defined in Equation 4-5b, is compatible
with the K-Stiffness Method.
𝑐𝑜𝑠2 [(𝜙𝑟𝑏𝑓 ) +𝜔]
𝑃𝑆
𝐾𝑎𝑏ℎ = 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜙𝑟𝑏𝑓 )
(4-5b)
𝑐𝑜𝑠2 𝜔(1+ 𝑃𝑆 )
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜔
Substituting for 𝜎ℎ in Equation 4-3 yields:

1
𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2 𝐾𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 (𝐻 + 𝑆)𝑆𝑣𝑖 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 Φ (4-6)
Equation 4-6 contains an expression for reinforcement loads that is similar to the
conventional expression used in current limit equilibrium methods of analysis but
represents the average load applied to the reinforcement layers rather than a load
that increases linearly as a function of the vertical overburden stress. The empirical
reinforcement load distribution parameter 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 is used to distribute the load as
a function of depth, accounting for the reinforcement properties, load
redistribution among layers, and foundation conditions. It is expressed here as a
function of normalized depth below the top of the wall (𝑧 + 𝑆)/(𝐻 + 𝑆),
including the effect of the soil surcharge 𝑆, and varies over the range 0 ≤ 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤
1.
The modifier Φ is an empirically determined parameter that captures the effect
the major wall components have on reinforcement load development. These
parameters are used to improve the correlation between predicted and measured
reinforcement loads at working stress conditions based on examination of a large
number of case studies and wide range of database. For brevity, the influence
factor Φ in Equation 4-6 is used to represent the product of five factors expressed
in Equation 4-7 as follows:
Φ = Φ𝑔 × Φ𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 × Φ𝑓𝑠 × Φ𝑓𝑏 × Φ𝑐 (4-7)
Substituting for the modifier Φ in Equation 4-6 with the expanded factors from
Equation 4-7 leads to a generalized universal model defined in Equation 4-8.
1
𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2 𝐾𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 (𝐻 + 𝑆)𝑆𝑣𝑖 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 × [Φ𝑔 × Φ𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 × Φ𝑓𝑠 × Φ𝑓𝑏 × Φ𝑐 ] (4-8)
The terms Φ𝑔 , Φ𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 , Φ𝑓𝑠 , Φ𝑓𝑏 𝑎𝑛𝑑 Φ𝑐 are influence factors that account for
the effects of global and local reinforcement stiffness, facing stiffness, face batter
and soil cohesion.
The proposed model captures all qualitative effects due to reinforcement stiffness,
soil strength, facing stiffness and reinforcement arrangement expected by
reinforced soil wall design engineers. Furthermore, the general structure of the
model equation may be familiar to geotechnical engineers using classical earth
pressure theory in combination with a tributary area approach for the distribution
of earth pressures to the internal reinforcement layers. For example, the load
carried by a reinforcement layer will decrease as soil friction angle increases (i.e.
because the magnitude of coefficient of earth pressure 𝐾 decreases). The
reinforcement load will increase as soil unit weight, 𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 and reinforcement
spacing, 𝑆𝑣 increases. Further details of the development of the original K-stiffness
Method can be found in publications by Allen et al. (2003) and Bathurst et al.
(2005). The implementation of the original K-stiffness Method for cohesionless
backfill soils can be found in the Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT, 2005) Design Guidelines and WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual
(GDM). Details of each influence factor and its computational approach are
described next.
Influence of Reinforcement Stiffness: Parameter Φ𝑔 is a global stiffness factor
that accounts for the influence of the stiffness and passively, the spacing of the
reinforcement layers over the entire wall height and is calculated as follows:
𝑆𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 𝛽
Φ𝑔 = 𝛼 [ 𝑃𝑎
] (4-9)
Here, 𝑆𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 is the global reinforcement stiffness whereas 𝛼 and 𝛽 are constant
coefficients equal to 0.25 each. The non-dimensionality of the expression for
global stiffness factor Φ𝑔 is preserved by dividing the global reinforcement
stiffness by 𝑃𝑎 = 101𝑘𝑃𝑎 (atmospheric pressure). The global reinforcement
stiffness 𝑆𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 accounts for the relative stiffness of the walls and is computed as
follows:
∑ 𝐽𝑖 𝑎
𝑆𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 = [ 𝐻
] (4-10)
Here, 𝐽𝑖 = 𝐽2% is the tensile stiffness at the end of wall construction of an

individual reinforcement layer expressed in units of force per unit length of wall:
also note that: 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐽(𝜀, 𝑡) × 𝜀. (see Figures 4-3 and 4-5).
Reinforcement strains in monitored field walls that have behaved well under
operational conditions have stayed the same or strain rates have decreased with
time after about 1000 hours following end of construction. At longer times there
is evidence in some monitored walls of reinforcement load relaxation with time
following construction (Allen and Bathurst 2002; Bathurst et al. 2005; Tatsuoka et
al. 2004; Kongkitkul et al. 2010). Hence, tensile reinforcement loads at the end-of-
construction condition are the maximum loads used in the K-stiffness method
provided original site and boundary conditions for which the wall was designed do
not change.
Figure 4-2 Low-strain secant creep stiffness at t = 3443 h from laboratory constant-load
(creep) tests.
As demonstrated in Figures 2-11 and 2-12 presented in sub-Section 2.5.2, the

method has been calibrated against measured reinforcement loads deduced from
isochronous stiffness values corresponding to 2% strain and elapsed construction
times or 1000 hours. The default time of 1000 hours is reasonable in the absence
of actual project timelines since most walls are constructed within 1000 hours.
Furthermore, results of in-isolation constant load (creep) and constant-rate-of-
strain (CRS) tests on the polyolefin reinforcement products used in the case studies
have shown that the 𝐽2% secant stiffness is a constant value for practical purposes
at or beyond 1000 hours (e.g. Figure 2-12). The practical result of the formulation
for global stiffness factor (Equation 4-10) is that as reinforcement stiffness
increases and all other factors remain the same, reinforcement load (𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 in
Equation 4-8) goes up. Parameter Φ𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 is a local stiffness factor that accounts for
the relative stiffness of the reinforcement layer with respect to the average
stiffness of all reinforcement layers and is expressed as:
𝑎
𝑆
Φ𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 = [𝑆 𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 ] (4-11)
𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙
where “𝑎” is a constant coefficient and 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 is the local reinforcement stiffness
for reinforcement layer i calculated as:
𝐽
𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 = [𝑆 ] (4-12)
𝑣 𝑖
Back-fitting of measured versus predicted reinforcement loads by Allen et al.

(2003) gave 𝑎 = 1 for geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. Local deviations from
overall trends in reinforcement load can be expected when the reinforcement
stiffness and/or spacing of the reinforcement change from average values over the
height of the wall ((𝑖. 𝑒. 𝑆𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 ⁄𝑆𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 ≠ 1); Hatami et al. 2001). This effect is
captured by the local stiffness factor Φ𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 .
Influence of facing batter: Parameter Φ𝑓𝑠 in the K-stiffness equation accounts for
the influence of the facing batter and is computed as:
𝐾 𝑑
Φ𝑓𝑏 = [𝐾𝑎𝑏ℎ ] (4-13)
𝑎𝑣ℎ
where, 𝐾𝑎𝑏ℎ is the horizontal component of active earth pressure coefficient

accounting for wall face batter, 𝐾𝑎𝑣ℎ is the horizontal component of active earth
pressure coefficient (assuming the wall is vertical), and “𝑑” is a constant
coefficient. The form of the equation shows that as the wall face batter angle ω →
0 (i.e. wall facing batter approaches the vertical) the facing batter factor Φ𝑓𝑏 →
1. The value of the coefficient term “𝑑” is taken as 0.5.
Influence of Facing Stiffness: It is conventionally considered that: i) facings are
incorporated to prevent a spill out of the backfill material; ii) earth pressure at the
facing should be as low as possible; and, iii) facings should be flexible enough to
accommodate deformation of supporting ground. However, on the contrary,
Tatsuoka (2005, 2011) reported that: i) facing is a very essential structural
component that actively confines the backfill and develops the necessary large
tensile forces within the reinforcement; ii) earth pressure at facing should be high
enough to provide sufficient confining pressure to the backfill; and, iii) the facing
should be flexible enough to accommodate deformation of supporting ground
during construction but should become rigid before service.
Furthermore, Tatsuoka (1993, 2011) stated that full-height or cast-in-place
concrete facings increase the stability of geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls.
and introduced a coefficient α𝑊𝐹 that defines this correlation as expressed in the
following Equation.
2 𝛾 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝑓 −𝑘ℎ 𝑡
α𝑊𝐹 = [( ) ( 𝑐) ( )] ( ) (4-14)
𝐾𝑎 𝛾 1−𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜙𝑤 ℎ
The unit weight of the concrete, 𝛾𝑐 , is assumed to be 24kN/m3. The wall and
foundation friction angles, 𝜙𝑤 , and 𝜙𝑓 , respectively, are assumed to be 2/3 of the
backfill angle of friction, 𝜙.
Based on these assumptions, it is clear from Equation 1 that the coefficient α𝑊𝐹 is
dependent on only the 𝑡⁄ℎ variable. This equation indicates that as the wall
thickness increases (i.e., α𝑊𝐹 increases), its capacity to carry active earth pressure
increases.
In order to investigate the influence of wall facing stiffness on the structural
performance of GMSE and GRS RW systems and verify and further authenticate
the concept of wall facing contribution, Mukabi et al., 2015 developed several
models within the TACH-MD framework. In particular, two models of interest that
are pertinent to the K-Stiffness Method, designed to quantitatively probe the
structural wall facing contribution are: i) wall facing capacity – global stiffness
model; and ii) universal wall facing stiffness - maximum tensile load – deflection
model. The models are defined in Equations 4-14 and 4-15, whilst the
characteristic curves depicting these correlations are graphically plotted in Figures
4-3 and 4-4 for case i) and case ii), respectively.
[0.7545𝐻 2 +0.3259𝐻−0.625]
𝛿ℎ = [1+α𝑊𝐹 ]
(𝑚𝑚) (4-15)
−3 (1+α
𝐽(𝐶𝐵) = 𝑒.−2.23𝑙𝑛[1.31×10 𝑊𝐹 )𝛿ℎ(𝐶𝐵) ] (𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚) (4-16)
where, 𝛿ℎ is the lateral deflection, α𝑊𝐹 is the wall facing contribution

factor, 𝐻 is height of GMSE Wall and 𝐽(𝐶𝐵) is the required reinforcement
stiffness for modular concrete block.
Influence of Wall Facing Stiffness on Lateral Deflection

for Varying GMSE Wall Heights
700
GMSE: Geosynthetics Mechanically
Stabilized Earth
600 H: Height of Retaining Wall (m)
FSF: Facing Stiffness Factor
Lateral Deflection, δh (mm)
500
𝒕 𝟎.𝟎𝟕𝟖𝟑 𝒓
𝑭𝑺 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟏𝟎𝟔 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏 × 𝒄.
𝑯
400
𝟎.𝟕𝟓 𝟓𝑯𝟐 + 𝟎.𝟑𝟐𝟓𝟗𝑯 𝟎. 𝟔𝟐𝟓

300 𝒉,( )=
𝟏+ 𝑭
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
GMSE Wall Height, H (m)
FSF=0.05 FSF=0.1 FSF=0.2 FSF=0.3 FSF=0.4 FSF=0.5 FSF=0.7 FSF=1
Figure 4-3 Influence of wall facing stiffness on lateral displacement for

varying wall heights (Mukabi et al., 2015).
The results in Figures 4-3 and 4-4 clearly indicate that: i) lateral
deflection (straining deformation) decreases as wall facing stiffness
increases implying that wall facing stiffness decreases deformation; and
ii) wall facing stiffness increases the global stiffness of the retaining
system (required tensile stiffness is reduced).
Influence of Wall Facing Stiffness on Required Geosynthetics Stiffness for Varying Specification
Lateral Deflection Magnitudes
1000
GMSE: Geosynthetics Mechanically
900 Stabilized Earth
Required Geosynthetics Stiffness, Jreq. (kN/m)

H: Height of Retaining Wall (m)
FSF: Facing Stiffness Factor
800
700
𝟎.𝟕𝟓 𝟓𝑯𝟐 + 𝟎.𝟑𝟐𝟓𝟗𝑯 𝟎. 𝟔𝟐𝟓
𝒉,( )=
𝟏+ 𝑭
600
500
400
300
200
100 𝒕 𝟎.𝟎𝟕𝟖𝟑 𝒓
𝑭𝑺 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟏𝟎𝟔 𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟏 × 𝒄.
𝑯
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Lateral Deflection, δh (mm)
FSF=0.05 FSF=0.1 FSF=0.2 FSF=0.3 FSF=0.4 FSF=0.5 FSF=0.7 FSF=1
Figure 4-4 Influence of wall facing stiffness on required tensile stiffness and
lateral displacement (Mukabi et al., 2015).
These results verify and authenticate the incorporation of the contribution of the
wall facing stiffness in the K-Stiffness Method.
Figure 4-5 Example RMC full-scale reinforced soil walls for investigating the Effects of
facing stiffness (Bathurst et al., 2010).
The K-Stiffness influence factor for facing stiffness (rigidity) Φ𝑓𝑠 is computed as:
𝜅
Φ𝑓𝑠 = 𝜂(𝐹𝑓 ) (4-17)
In the latest version of the K-stiffness Method (Bathurst et al. 2008b) the value of
facing column stiffness parameter 𝐹𝑓 is calculated as:
1.5𝐻 3
𝐹𝑓 = ℎ (4-18)
𝐸𝑏3 ( 𝑒𝑓𝑓. 𝐻)
Here, 𝑏 = thickness of the facing column, 𝐻 = height of the facing column (wall),
and 𝐸 = elastic modulus of the “equivalent elastic beam” representing the wall
face. The two expressions used to compute the facing stiffness factor show that as
the wall becomes higher (𝐻) and less stiff (𝐸𝑏 3 ), its rigidity becomes less and
hence more load is carried by the reinforcement layers (i.e. Φ𝑓𝑠 is larger). A
numerical investigation by Rowe and Ho (1997) also predicted that reinforcement
loads will increase in a propped panel wall as the stiffness of the facing decreases.
This effect has been quantitatively demonstrated using measurements from a pair
of full-scale reinforced soil walls tests reported by Bathurst et al. (2006) described
earlier. The 3.6 m-high structures were nominally identical except one was built
with a relatively stiff modular block facing and the other with a very flexible
wrapped-face. The loads in the most heavily loaded reinforcement layers were 3.5
times greater at end of construction than those in the modular block wall. The
term ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓. is the equivalent height of an unjointed facing column that is 100%
efficient in transmitting moment through the height of the facing column. The
ratio (ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓. ⁄𝐻 ) is used to estimate the efficiency of a jointed facing system to
transmit moment along the facing column. Some subjective rules are required to
select the value of ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓. . For example, during calibration for modular block walls,
heff was taken as 2𝑏 where b is the toe to heel dimension of the facing units. For
full height and incremental panel walls ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓. = 𝐻 and panel height, respectively.
For flexible sand-bag face walls, ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓. is taken as 𝑆𝑣 (the primary reinforcement
spacing). However, if the same sand-bag face is wrapped by the primary
reinforcement layers then ℎ𝑒𝑓𝑓. = 𝐻. The non-dimensionality of the facing
stiffness factor equation is preserved by the use of pa = 101 kPa. Based on back-
analyses performed by Bathurst et al. (2008c) the coefficient terms 𝜼 and 𝜿 were
determined to be 0.69 and 0.11, respectively.
Influence of Soil Cohesion: The effect of soil cohesion is captured by the cohesion
(influence) factor Φ𝑐 computed as:
𝑐
Φ𝑐 = 1 𝜆𝛾 (4-19)
𝑟𝑏𝑓 𝐻
where the cohesion coefficient 𝜆 = 6.5. Examination of this equation with 𝜆 = 6.5
reveals that the practical limit 0 ≥ Φ𝑐 ≥ 1 requires 𝑐⁄𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 𝐻 ≤ 0.153. It is
possible that a combination of a short wall height and high cohesive soil strength
could lead to Φ𝑐 = 0. In practical terms this means that no reinforcement is
required for internal stability. However, this does not mean that the wall will be
stable at the facing (e.g. connection over-stressing may still occur).
Characterization of Load Distribution: The load distribution factor, 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 that
features in the principal universal Equations 4-3, 4-6 and 4-8 modifies the
reinforcement load, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 to effectively distribute and locate the appropriate

critical failure surface. This parameter is computed as:
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑇 (4-20)
𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥
where, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum reinforcement load in a particular layer 𝑖, whilst

𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum reinforcement load for the entire system. In other
words: 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ∑𝑛𝑖 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 .
Locating Appropriate Critical Failure Surface: The load distribution factor, 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥
plotted against normalized height of wall in Figure 4-10 is trapezoidal in shape as
originally proposed by Allen et al. (2003) or can be assumed to be bi-linear as
plotted Figure 3. The value of 𝑇𝑚𝑥𝑚𝑥 can be calculated by setting 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1 in the
K-stiffness Method equation. The observation that the distribution of
reinforcement loads is bi-linear is not new. A bi-linear distribution was proposed
by Collin (1986) for geogrid reinforced soil walls. Further discussion regarding the
selection of parameters in the K-stiffness Method equations can be found in the
earlier papers by Allen et al. (2003) and Miyata and Bathurst (2007) and the
WSDOT (2005) design guidance document.
Figure 4-6 Class A, B, and C1 maximum load predictions (Tmax) using AASHTO simplified
method and K-stiffness method compared with measured load values at EOC (H = 10.7
m) deduced from measured strains (Allen and Bathurst, 2013).
′ ′
Notes: For Class A predictions, 𝜙𝑃𝑆 = 41° , 𝜙𝑡𝑥 = 38°, and = 20.4 kN/m3; for class B
′ ′
and C1 predictions, 𝜙𝑃𝑆 = 54° , 𝜙𝑡𝑥 = 47°, and = 22.0 kN/m3 (Allen and Bathurst,
2013)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reinforcement load, Tmax (kN/m) Reinforcement load,Tmax (kN/m)
Figure 4-7. Influence of (constant) toe stiffness on maximum reinforcement loads and
comparison with predictions using: a) LHS - AASHTO Simplified Method and K-stiffness Method
(Bathurst et al., 2010) for wall with polyester (PET) reinforcement. (H = 6 m, S v = 0.6 m, ω = 8
degrees). (after Huang et al. 2010); and b) RHS - K-stiffness Method for modular block wall with
PET reinforcement. (Sv = 0.6 m, ω = 8 degrees).
Calibration: The K-stiffness Method is an empirical-based working stress design

method. The influence factors and coefficients which appear in the equations
introduced above were determined by back-fitting to measured loads using
conventional optimization schemes (see Bathurst et al. 2008b). However, only
reinforcement loads from walls that were judged to exhibit good performance
were considered for the database used for calibration. Good performance was
defined as:
 Reinforcement strains are small (typically less than 3%).
 Creep strains and strain rates decrease with time (i.e. only primary creep
occurs).
 The wall backfill soil does not exhibit signs of failure (cracking, slumping,
etc.).
 For frictional soils, post-construction deformations, which are typically
greatest at the wall top, are less than 30 mm within the first 10,000 h.
 For cohesive-frictional soils, post-construction deformations are not
greater than 300 mm or 3% of the height of the wall, whichever is less
(PWRC 2000).
Internal soil failure limit state: An important and unique feature of the K-stiffness
Method is the introduction of an internal soil failure limit state. The calibration of
the method has been based on the requirement that a contiguous failure
mechanism must not develop through the reinforced soil zone. This has been
achieved by limiting the maximum strain in the reinforcement to 3% based on
load-time-strain performance of the reinforcing layers in geosynthetic reinforced
soil walls. This is an important difference from the Simplified Method and variants
that assume that the soil and reinforcement reach failure simultaneously. The
latter is a rare if not impossible scenario for extensible geosynthetic reinforcement
materials. When wall failure has been generated in RMC full-scale walls
constructed with geosynthetic reinforcement, the granular soil has always failed
first. Hence, designing to prevent soil failure is rational and safe, and at the same
time ensures good performance as defined by the criteria identified earlier. Stated
alternatively, by designing to prevent failure of the soil in the reinforced soil zone
it is not possible to reach a failure limit state for the reinforcement (rupture or
over-stressing).
Selection of target probability of failure Pf: The objective of limit states design
calibration using reliability theory is to select values of resistance factor and load
factor(s) such that a target probability of failure is achieved for the limit state
function. The target probability of failure is taken as 1 in 100 (𝑃𝑓 = 0.01) which
corresponds to a reliability index value 𝛽 = 2.33. This target 𝑃𝑓 value has been
recommended for reinforced soil wall structures because they are redundant load
capacity systems (Allen et al. 2005). If one layer fails in pullout, load is shed to the
neighboring reinforcement layers. Pile groups are another example of a redundant
load capacity system; failure of one pile does not lead to failure of the group
because of load shedding to the remaining piles. In the USA, pile groups are also
designed to a target reliability index value of 𝛽 = 2.33.
Influence of load model on LRFD calibration: Despite the shortcomings of limit
equilibrium based methods for the design of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls
noted above in the context of observed behavior and LSD calibration, the
Simplified Method is the only method currently available in AASHTO (2007, 2009)
and FHWA (2001) guidance documents to estimate tensile loads in geosynthetic
reinforcement layers. However, the poor prediction accuracy of the model renders
proper LSD calibration problematic if calibration is carried out using measured
reinforcement load data. The limit state equation for pullout assuming loads are
due to soil self-weight plus uniformly distributed surcharge can be expressed as:
𝜙𝑃𝑐 𝛾𝑄 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≥ 0 (4-21)
Here, 𝑃𝑐 is pullout capacity and 𝜙 and 𝛾𝑄 are resistance and load factors,
respectively. In current AASHTO (2007, 2009) codes 𝛾𝑄 = 1.35 for loads due to soil
self-weight plus uniformly distributed surcharge. LSD calibration using the
Simplified Method results in a resistance factor 𝜙 > 1 which is not acceptable. The
corresponding limit state equation for reinforcement rupture (over-stressing) can
be written as:
𝜙𝑇𝑎𝑙 𝛾𝑄 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≥ 0 (4-22)
where the (nominal) available long-term tensile strength (Tal) of each geosynthetic
reinforcement layer is computed as follows:
𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡
𝑇𝑎𝑙 = = (𝑅𝐹 (4-23)
𝑅𝐹 𝐼𝐷 ×𝑅𝐹𝐶𝑅 ×𝑅𝐹𝐷 )
In this expression, 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 = ultimate tensile strength of the reinforcement and 𝑅𝐹 =

product of reduction factors to account for potential long-term strength loss due
to installation damage, 𝑅𝐹𝐼𝐷 , creep, 𝑅𝐹𝐶𝑅 and degradation due to
chemical/biological processes, 𝑅𝐹𝐷 .
A non-sensible resistance factor (𝜙 > 1) also results when reliability-based LSD

calibration is carried out using measured loads and measured bias statistics for
strength reduction processes. However, when the K-stiffness Method is used to
compute reinforcement loads at end of construction (i.e. operations conditions),
the computed resistance factor for pullout and rupture limit states are typically
𝜙 = 0.70 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0.55, respectively. There are small variations in these values
depending on the type of geosynthetic, but in all cases the values are judged to be
reasonable since they are less than one.
Applicable Default Parametric Values K-Stiffness Influence Factors: The
applicable values for the various influence factors are summarized in Table 4-1
below.
Table 4-1 Default values for parameters/constants
Parameter 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝛼 𝛽 𝑎 𝑑 𝜂 𝜅 𝜆 𝑃𝑓 𝛽𝑃𝑓 𝜙𝑝𝑜 𝜙𝑟𝑢𝑝
/
Constant
Default 0~1 0.25 0.25 1 0.5 0.69 0.11 6.5 0.01 2.33 0.7 0.55
Value
Equation 4-20 4-9 4- 4- 4-17 4- Text 4-21
No. 1 13 19
1
4.3 Design Methodology
The fundamental structural concepts and design principles are introduced in

Section 2, whilst their application is demonstrated in the Case Examples provided
in Appendix A2 in Volume II of these DG-3 Guidelines.
Summary of Systematic Design and Stability Analysis Procedure: Design

responsibility notwithstanding, each step of the design and stability analysis must
be followed, reviewed and internal stability checks performed.
A procedural design methodology is introduced in this Section. The methodology

covers practically all aspects necessary to realize a sound GMSEW engineering geo-
structural design. Wall design details are covered under the subsequent sub-
Section 4.3.
As summarized in Table 4-2, the design methodology involves 14 main steps from
Step 1 to Step 14 with 15 sub-steps.
Table 4-2 Summary of systematic design procedure
Step Sub- Task Particulars

No. Step
No.
Step 1 Establish Project Requirements: including all geometry, loading conditions (permanent,
transient, seismic, etc.), performance criteria and construction constraints.

No. Step
No.
Step 2 Establish Project Parameters: evaluate existing topography, site subsurface conditions,
reinforced wall fill properties and retained backfill properties.
Step 3 Estimate: wall embedment height, design height(s) and reinforcement length.
Step 4 Define: nominal loads
Step 5 Summarize: load combinations, load factors and resistance factors.
Evaluate External Stability
a. Evaluate sliding
Step 6 b. Evaluate eccentricity
c. Evaluate bearing on foundation ground/soil
d. Carry out settlement analysis at service limit state.
Step 7 Evaluate Internal Stability
a. Select type of soil reinforcement.
b. Define critical failure surface for selected soil reinforcement type.
c. Define unfactored loads.
d. Establish vertical layout of soil reinforcements.
e. Determine appropriate loads and load factors for K-Stiffness Method.
f. Determine appropriate resistance factors for K-Stiffness Method.
g. Determine appropriate load and resistance factors internal stability states for K-
Stiffness Method.
h. Adopt systematic design guidelines for strength limit state design for K-Stiffness
Method.
i. Calculate soil reinforcement resistance as counter-check measure.
j. Estimate lateral wall movements at service limit state.
k. Check connection strength.

No. Step
No.
l. Check lateral movement.
m. Check vertical movements and compression pads.
Step 8 Design: Facing elements
Step 9 Assess: Global stability
Step 10 Assess: Compound stability
Step 11 Design Wall Drainage Systems
a. Subsurface drainage
b. Surface drainage
Step 12 Complete: the GMSE Wall design review checklist.
Step 13 Summarize: Final Design Parameters
Step 14 Establish and Confirm: Design Checklist
Step 1:- Establish Project Requirements: Prior to proceeding with the design, the
following parameters must be defined.
 Geometry: Wall Heights; Wall Batter; Backslope; Toe Slope
 Loading Conditions: Soil Surcharges; Live (Transient) Load Surcharges; Dead

(Permanent) Load Surcharges; Loads from Adjacent Structures that may
influence the Internal and External Stability of GMSE Walls; Spread
Footings; Deep Foundations, among others.
 Performance Criteria: Design Code (e.g., MOTIHUD-MTRD DG-3:2018,

AASHTO LRFD:2012, BS8006:2010); Maximum tolerable differential
settlement; Maximum tolerable horizontal displacement; Design Life (DL);
Construction Constraints
The chosen performance criteria should reflect site conditions and this Guidelines’
code requirements, which are discussed in detail in Sections 2, 3, 4 and Volume II
of this Guideline.
Step 2:- Establish Project Parameters: The following must be defined by the
agency (Owner) and/or its designer:
 Existing and proposed topography
 Subsurface conditions across the site

Engineering properties of foundation
soils (𝛾𝑓 , 𝐶𝑓′ , 𝜙𝑓′ 𝐶𝑢 )
Groundwater conditions
 Reinforced wall fill – engineering properties of the reinforced soil volume
(𝛾𝑟 , 𝜙𝑟′ )
′
 Retained backfill – engineering properties of the retained fill (𝛾𝑏𝑓 , 𝐶𝑏𝑓 ,
′
𝜙𝑏𝑓 ), addressing all possible fills (e.g., in-situ, imported, on-site, etc.).
Cohesion in the retained backfill is usually assumed to be equal to zero.
The reinforced wall fill should be a select granular material, as detailed in Chapter
3 of this manual and in Article 7.3.6.3 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction
Specifications (2004). As per Article 11.10.6.2 (AASHTO, 2007) the minimum
friction angle of the select granular reinforced fill should be ′𝒓𝒃 = 𝟑 °; unless
otherwise the project specific fill is tested for frictional strength by plane strain,
triaxial or direct shear testing methods and approved by the Chief Engneer
(Materials), Materials Testing & Research Department (MTRD). A design friction
angle determined or computed for plane strain conditions should be used.
For the foundation soil, Article 11.10.5.3 (AASHTO, 2007) notes that in absence of
specific data, a maximum friction angle, ′ = 𝟑𝟎° may be used. The use of an
assumed, non-specific parameter is recommended only for preliminary sizing. As
discussed in Chapter 2, a project specific site evaluation, that defines subsurface
conditions and properties, is required for the detailed design of GMSE wall
structures.
Step 3:- Estimate Wall Embedment Depth, Design Height(s), and Reinforcement
Length: The process of sizing the structure begins by determining the required
embedment, established under Performance Criteria (sub-Section 2.3.3), and the
final exposed wall height, the combination of which is the full design height, 𝐻, for
each section or station to be investigated. Use of the full height condition is
required for design as this condition usually prevails in bottom-up constructed
structures, at least to the end of construction.
A preliminary length of reinforcement is chosen to initiate design. The length
should be should be determined based on the application of an appropriate, in the
absence of which it can be estimated to the greater of 0.7H or 2.5m, where H is
the design height of the structure. Structures with sloping surcharge fills or other
concentrated loads, such as abutments, generally require longer reinforcements
for stability, often on the order of 0.8H to 1.1H. This preliminary reinforcement
length is checked in the external and the internal stability calculations.
Generally, the reinforcement length should be uniform throughout the entire

height of the wall. One exception is special structures with shorter reinforcement
lengths at the base of the wall. Another exception is the use of longer layers of
reinforcement at the top of a wall. It is recommended that the upper two layers
of soil reinforcement be extended by 0.9 m beyond the other layers where post-
construction movements at the reinforced zone and retained backfill have been
observed on previous, similar projects or if a seismic loading could lead to tension
cracks in the backfill soil immediately behind the reinforcement. The design can
be completed assuming uniform lengths, and the extra length added to the top
two layers when detailing and specifying.
Step 4:- Define Nominal Loads: The primary sources of external loading on a GMSE
wall are the earth pressure from the retained backfill behind the reinforced zone
and any surcharge loadings above the reinforced zone. Thus, the loads for GMSE
walls may include loads due to horizontal earth pressure (EH), vertical earth
pressure (EV), live load surcharge (LS), and earth surcharge (ES). Water (WA) and
seismic (EQ) should also be evaluated if applicable. Stability computations for
walls with a near vertical face are made by assuming that the GMSE wall acts as a
rigid body with earth pressures developed on a vertical pressure plane at the back
end of the reinforcements, as shown in Figures 4-8, 4-9, and 4-10. Estimation of
earth pressures on GMSE walls for three different conditions (i.e., horizontal
backslope with traffic surcharge, sloping backslope, and broken backslope)
follows.
 Vertical Wall and Horizontal Backslope:
The active coefficient of earth pressure, for external stability analysis, is
calculated for near vertical walls (defined as walls with a face batter of less
than 10 degrees from vertical) and a horizontal backslope from Equation 4-24.
𝜙𝑏 (1−𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙𝑏 )
𝐾𝑎𝑏 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛2 (45 2) = (1+𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜙𝑏 ) (4-24)
Figure 4-8. External analysis: nominal earth pressures; horizontal backslope with traffic surcharge
(after AASHTO, 2007).
 Vertical Wall and a Surcharge Slope:

The active coefficient of earth pressure is calculated for near vertical walls
(defined as walls with a face batter of less than 10 degrees from vertical) and
a sloping backfill from:
𝑠𝑖𝑛2 (𝜃+𝜙𝑏 )
𝐾𝑎𝑏′ = Γ𝑠𝑖𝑛2 (𝜃−𝛿)
(4-25)
where;
2
𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜙𝑏 +𝛿)𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜙𝑏 −𝛽)
Γ = [1 + √ 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃−𝛿)𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃+𝛽)
] (4-26)
Figure 4-9. External analysis: earth pressure; sloping backfill case

(after AASHTO.2007)
Figure 4-10. External analysis: earth pressure; broken backslope case (after AASHTO, 2007).
Figure 4-11. Notation for Coulomb active earth pressures used with wall batters, 𝜽, greater than
100° (after AASHTO, 2007).
 Vertical Wall with Broken Backslope:

The active earth pressure coefficient (𝐾𝑎 ) for this condition is computed using
Equations 4-25 and 4-26 with the design 𝛽 angle and the interface angle 𝛿 =
(𝜃 + 𝛽 90) = (𝜃 + 𝛽 𝜋⁄2) both set equal to I, as defined in Figure 4-10.
 Battered Wall with or without Backslope:

For an inclined front face and reinforced zone (i.e., batter) equal or greater
than 10 degrees from vertical, the coefficient of earth pressure can be
calculated using 4-26 and 4-27 in Section 4-II.5 where 𝜃 is the face inclination
from horizontal, and 𝛽 the surcharge slope angle as shown in Figure 4-13. The
wall friction angle 𝛿 is assumed to be equal to 𝛽.
 Traffic Loads
Traffic loads should be treated as uniform surcharge live load of not less than 0.6
m of earth (Article 11.10.10.2, AASHTO {2007}). For external stability, traffic load
for walls parallel to traffic will have an equivalent height of soil,
𝒉 𝒒. 𝒒𝒖 𝒍 𝒕𝒐 𝟎. 𝟔𝒎. For internal stability, traffic load for walls parallel to traffic
will have a 𝒉 𝒒. 𝒒𝒖 𝒍 𝒕𝒐 𝟎. 𝟔𝒎 unless traffic is allowed within 𝟎. 𝟑𝒎. of the back
of the wall facing. Commonly the wheel path is more then 𝟎. 𝟔𝒎. behind the wall
back face due to the presence of a traffic barrier and, therefore, a
𝒉 𝒒. 𝒗 𝒍𝒖 𝒐 𝟎. 𝟔𝒎 is applicable.
Equivalent heights of soil, ℎ𝑒𝑞. , for uniform surcharge loadings on retaining wall
abutments with traffic running perpendicular to the wall may be taken from Table
DG4-I-4. Linear interpolation is used for intermediate wall heights. Typically, the
abutment ℎ𝑒𝑞. will be acting on the stub abutment that sits on top of the
reinforced soil zone. If a structural approach slab is used and is supported on the
backwall of the abutment (and not by the soil), the load is directly transmitted to
the abutment; in this case 𝒉 𝒒. = 𝟎 is used unless otherwise mandated by an

owner.
If the surcharge is for other than highway vehicular loading, the owner should
specify or approve different surcharge load.
Table 4-3. Equivalent Height of Soil, 𝒉 𝒒. for Traffic Loading on Abutments

Perpendicular to Traffic (Table 3.11.6.4-1, AASHTO {2007}).
Abutment Height (m) 𝒉 𝒒. (𝒎)
1.5 4.0
3 3.0
>6 2.0
 Soil Compaction-Induced Earth Pressures
Compaction stresses are already included in the design model and specified
compaction procedures for GMSE walls (Article C3.11.2, AASHTO {2007}).
Therefore, no additional design considerations are required.
Maximum permanent loads, minimum permanent loads, and total extremes

should be checked for a particular load combination for walls with complex
geometry and/or loadings to identify the critical loading. Examination of only the
critical loading combination, is sufficient for simple walls.
Step 5:- Summarize Load Combinations, Load Factors, and Resistance Factors:
Load combinations typically may include Strength I, Extreme I and/or II, and
Service I limits. Maximum permanent loads, minimum permanent loads, and total
extremes should be checked for a particular load combination for walls with
complex geometry and/or loadings to identify the critical loading.
Refer to the information in Appendix E or Section 3 of AASHTO (2007) for load
factors to use with complex GMSE wall configurations and loadings.
Live loads are not used on specific design steps since they contribute to stability.
These are identified in subsequent design steps.
Step 6:- Evaluate External Stability: As with classical gravity and semi-gravity
retaining structures, four potential external failure mechanisms are usually
considered in sizing GMSE walls; as shown in the figures in sub-Section 2.8. They
include: i) sliding on the base; ii) limiting eccentricity (formerly known as
overturning); iii) bearing resistance; and, iv) overall/global stability (see Step 9).
 Evaluate Sliding Stability
Check the preliminary sizing with respect to sliding of the reinforced zone where
the resisting force is the lesser of the shear resistance along the base of the wall
or of a weak layer near the base of the GMSE wall, and the sliding force is the
horizontal component of the thrust on the vertical plane at the back of the wall.
The live load surcharge is not considered as a stabilizing force when checking
sliding, i.e., the sliding stability check only applies the live load above the
retained backfill, as shown in Figure DG4-I.2. The driving forces generally include
factored horizontal loads due to earth, water, seismic, and surcharges.
Sliding resistance along the base of the wall is evaluated using the same
procedures as for spread footings on soil as per Article 10.6.3.4 (AASHTO, 2007).
The factored resistance against failure by sliding 𝑅𝑅 can be estimated by:
𝑅𝑅 = 𝜙𝜏 𝑅𝜏 (4-27)
where: 𝜙𝜏 = resistance factor for shear resistance between soil and foundation
(equal to 1.0 for sliding of soil-on-soil) and 𝑅𝜏 = nominal sliding resistance
between reinforced fill and foundation soil.
Note that any soil passive resistance at the toe due to embedment is ignored due to the
potential for the soil to be removed through natural or manmade processes during its
service life (e.g. erosion utility installation etc.).
Also passive resistance is usually not available during construction. The shear strength
of the facing system is also conservatively neglected.
Calculation steps and equations to compute sliding for two typical cases,
namely: i) horizontal backslope; and, ii) sloping backfill: follow. These
equations should be extended to include other loads and geometries, for other
cases, such as additional live and dead load surcharge loads.
1) Calculate nominal thrust, per unit width, acting on the back of the
reinforced zone.
 Wall with Horizontal Backslope: (see Figure 4-11)
The retained backfill resultant force, 𝐹1 , is determined by applying Equation 4-

I.5.
𝐹1 = 1 2 𝐾𝑎𝑏 𝛾𝑏 𝐻2 (4-28)
For a uniform surcharge, the resultant is defined by a force, 𝐹2 which is analogous

to Equation 4.4 in Part II.
𝐹2 = 1 2 𝐾𝑎𝑏 𝑞𝐻 (4-29)
where: 𝐾𝑎𝑏 = active earth pressure coefficient for the retained backfill; 𝛾𝑏 = moist
unit weight of the retained backfill soil; 𝐻 = height of the retaining wall; and, 𝑞 =
uniform live load surcharge = 𝛾𝑟 ℎ𝑒𝑞. .
 Wall with Sloping Backfill: (see Figure 4-10)
In the case of a wall with a sloping backfill, calculate nominal retained backfill
force resultant per unit width using the height that includes the additional
surcharge, ℎ. Hence 𝐹𝑇 is computed from Equation 4-30 as:
𝐹1 = 1 2 𝐾𝑎𝑏′ 𝛾𝑏 ℎ2 (4-30)
where: 𝐾𝑎𝑏′ = active earth pressure coefficient for the sloping backfill, see
Equation 4-27; ℎ = total height of wall, which is the sum of 𝐻, and slope at the
back of the reinforced zone = 𝐻 + 𝐿 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛽
Note that for a broken backslope (see Figure 4-10), ℎ 𝐻 should not exceed
the height of the upper crest. If the broken backslope height is defined as “𝑆”,
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑛 (𝐻 + 𝐿 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽) < (𝐻 + 𝑆); 𝑢𝑠𝑒 (𝐻 + 𝑆) 𝑖𝑓 (𝐿 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽) > 𝑆.
2) Calculate the nominal and the factored horizontal driving forces. For a
horizontal backslope and uniform live load surcharge is computed from
Equation 4-31, whilst Equation 4-32 is analogous to the factored horizontal
force defined in Equation 4-30.
∑ 𝐹 = 𝐹1 + 𝐹2 (4-31)
𝑃𝑑 = 𝛾𝐸𝐻 𝐹1 + 𝛾𝐿𝑆 𝐹2 (4-32)
For a sloping backfill condition:
𝐹𝐻 = 𝐹𝑇 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽 (4-33)
𝑃𝑑 = 𝛾𝐸𝐻 𝐹𝐻 = 𝛾𝐸𝐻 𝐹𝑇 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽 (4-34)
In this case, use the maximum EH load factor (= 1.50) in these equations because
it creates the maximum driving force effect for the sliding limit state.
3) Determine the most critical frictional properties at the base. Choose the
minimum soil friction angle, 𝜙 for three possibilities:
i) Sliding along the foundation soil, if its shear strength is based
on:
𝑐𝑓′ + 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙𝑓′ and/or 𝑐𝑢 (4-35)
for cohesive soils) is smaller than that of the reinforced fill

material shear strength ( 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙𝑟′ ).
ii) Sliding along the reinforced fill (𝜙𝑟′ ).
iii) For sheet type reinforcement, sliding along the weaker of the
upper and lower soil-reinforcement interfaces. The soil-
reinforcement friction angle 𝜌, should preferably be
measured by means of interface direct shear tests. In absence
of testing, it may be taken as 2 3 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙𝑟′ .
4) Calculate the nominal components of resisting force and the factored

resisting force per unit length of wall. For a horizontal backslope and uniform
live load surcharge, the live load is excluded since it increases sliding stability:
𝑅𝑟 = 𝛾𝐸𝑉 𝑉1 × 𝜇 (4-36)
For a sloping backfill condition:
𝑅𝑟 = [𝛾𝐸𝑉 (𝑉1 + 𝑉2 ) + 𝛾𝐸𝐻 𝐹𝑇 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛽] × 𝜇 (4-37)
Where: μ = minimum soil friction angle 𝜙 [𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙𝑓′ , 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙𝑟′ , or (for continuous
reinforcement) 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜌]
External loads that increase sliding resistance should only be included if those
loads are permanent. This case requires the use of the minimum EV load factor
(= 1.00) in these equations because it results in minimum resistance for the sliding
limit state.
5) Compare factored sliding resistance, 𝑅𝑟 , to the factored driving force,

𝑃𝑑 , to check that resistance is greater.
6) Check the capacity demand ratio (𝐶𝐷𝑅) for sliding, 𝐶𝐷𝑅 = 𝑅𝑟 ⁄𝑃𝑑 . If the
𝐶𝐷𝑅 < 1.0, increase the reinforcement length, L, and repeat the
calculations.
 Eccentricity Limit Check
The system of forces for checking the eccentricity at the base of the wall is shown
on Figure 4-13. It should be noted that the weight and width of the wall facing is
typically neglected in the calculations. Limiting eccentricity is a strength limit state
check. The eccentricity limit check only applies to the live load above the retained
backfill, as shown in Figure 4-9. The eccentricity, e, is the distance between the
resultant foundation load and the center of the reinforced zone (i.e., L/2), as
illustrated in Figure 4-10. The quantity e is calculated by summing the overturning
and the resisting moments about the bottom, center of the base length, and dividing
by the vertical load.
∑ 𝑀𝐷 −∑ 𝑀𝑅
𝑒= ∑𝑉
(4-38)
Equations to compute eccentricity for two typical cases follow. These equations
should be extended to include other loads and geometries, for other cases.
 Wall with Horizontal Backslope:
Calculation steps for the determination of the eccentricity beneath a wall with a
horizontal backslope and a uniform live load surcharge are as follows, with respect
to Figure 4-12.
Calculate nominal retained backfill and surcharge force resultants per unit width.
See Equations 4.26 and 4.27 for walls with a horizontal backslope and uniform live
load surcharge. See Equation 4.29 for walls with sloping backfill.
For a vertical wall, with horizontal backslope and uniform live load surcharge,
calculate the eccentricity 𝑒 as follows:
𝛾𝐸𝐻−𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐹1(𝐻 )+𝛾 𝐹
3 𝐿𝑆 𝑞−𝐿𝑆(𝐻 )
2
𝑒= 𝛾𝐸𝑉−𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑉1
(4-39)
 Wall with Sloping Backfill:

The eccentricity beneath a wall with a sloping backfill, and no surcharges, is
calculated as follows, with respect to Figure 4-13.
Calculate e with factored loads. For a wall with a sloping backfill the eccentricity
is equal to:
𝛾𝐸𝐻−𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐹𝑇 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽 ℎ
( 3)−𝛾𝐸𝐻−𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐹𝑇 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛽(𝐿 2)+𝛾𝐸𝑉−𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑉2 (𝐿 6)
𝑒= (4-40)
𝛾𝐸𝑉−𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑉1 +𝛾𝐸𝑉−𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑉2 +𝛾𝐸𝐻−𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐹𝑇 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛽
 Eccentricity Check Criteria:
The eccentricity, e, is considered acceptable if the calculated location of the

resultant vertical force (based on factored loads) is within the middle one-half of
the base width for soil foundations (𝑖. 𝑒. , 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐿 / 4) and middle three-fourths
of the base width for rock foundations (𝑖. 𝑒. , 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 3/8 𝐿). Therefore, for each
strength limit load group, 𝑒 must be less than 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 . If 𝑒 is greater, than a longer
length of reinforcement is required.
Examination of only the critical loading combination, (i.e., use the minimum EV
and maximum EH load factors) is sufficient for simple walls. Maximum permanent
loads, minimum permanent loads, and total extremes should be checked for
complex (geometry and/or loadings) walls to identify the critical loading.
Figure 4-12. Calculation of eccentricity and vertical stress for bearing check,
for horizontal backslope with traffic surcharge condition.
Figure 4-13. Calculation of eccentricity and vertical stress for bearing

check, for sloping backslope condition.
 Evaluate Bearing on Foundation

Two modes of bearing capacity failure exist, general shear failure and local
shear failure. Local shear is characterized by a punching or squeezing of the
foundation soil when soft or loose soils exist below the wall.
Bearing calculations require both a strength limit state and a service limit state
calculation. Strength limit calculations check that the factored bearing pressure
is less than the factored bearing resistance. Service limit calculations are used
to compute nominal bearing pressure for use in settlement calculations. It

should be noted that the weight and width of the wall facing is typically
neglected in the calculations. The bearing check applies live load above both
the reinforced zone and the retained backfill, as shown in Figure 4-8.
 General Shear.
To prevent bearing failure on a uniform foundation soil, it is required that the
factored vertical pressure at the base of the wall, as calculated with the uniform
Meyerhof type distribution, does not exceed the factored bearing resistance of
the foundation soil:
𝑞𝑅 ≥ 𝑞𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 (4-41)
The uniform vertical pressure is calculated as:

∑𝑉
𝜎𝑣 = (𝐿−2𝑒 (4-42)
𝐵)
where: ∑ 𝑉 = summation of vertical forces; 𝐿 = width of foundation, which is equal

to reinforcement length; and, 𝑒𝐵 = eccentricity for bearing calculation (not equal
to eccentricity check 𝑒)
 Local Shear, Punching Shear and Lateral Squeeze.

Local shear is a transition between general shear and punching shear,
which can occur in loose or compressible soils, in weak soils under slow
(drained) loading. If local shear or punching shear failure is possible,
Section 10.6.3.1.2b of AASHTO (2007) requires the use of reduced shear
strength parameters for calculating the nominal bearing resistance. The
reduced effective stress cohesion, 𝑐 ∗ 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 0.67𝑐′. The
reduced effective stress soil friction angle, 𝜙* is set equal to
𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (0.67 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝜙𝑓′ ).
Lateral squeeze is a special case of local shear that can occur when bearing
on a weak cohesive soil layer overlying a firm soil layer. Lateral squeeze
failure results in significant horizontal movement of the soil under the
structure.
To prevent local shear of structures bearing on weak cohesive soils it is required

that:
𝛾𝑟 𝐻 ≤ 3𝑐𝑢 (4-43)
where 𝛾𝑟 is the nominal unit weight of the reinforced fill, 𝐻 is the height of the
wall and 𝑐𝑢 is the nominal total stress cohesion of the foundation soil.
If adequate support conditions cannot be achieved either the soft soils should be
removed or ground improvement of the foundation soils is required.
Local shear as well as bearing on two layered soil systems in undrained and drained
loading are addressed in Section 10.6.3.1.2 of AASHTO (2007).
Local shear and lateral squeeze is addressed in detail in NHI course 132012 Soils &
Foundations and reference manual Volume II FHWA NHI-06-088 (Samtani and Nowatzki
2006).
 Settlement Estimate
Conventional settlement analyses should be carried out to ensure that

immediate, consolidation, and secondary settlement of the wall are less than the
performance requirements of the project (see FHWA NHI-06-088 and NHI-06-
089, Soils and Foundations Reference manuals {Samtani and Nowatzki, 2006}).
Settlement is evaluated under bearing pressure computed at a Service I limit
state.
Significant estimated post-construction foundation settlements indicate that the

planned top of wall elevations need to be adjusted. This can be accomplished by
increasing the top of wall elevations during wall design, or by providing height
adjustment within the top of wall coping, and/or by delaying the casting of the top
row of panels to the end of erection. The required height of the top row, would
then be determined with possible further allowance for continuing settlements.
Significant differential settlements (greater than 1/100), indicate the need of slip
joints, which allow for independent vertical movement of adjacent precast panels.
Where the anticipated settlements and their duration, cannot be accommodated
by these measures, consideration must be given to ground improvement
techniques such as wick drains, stone columns, dynamic compaction, the use of
lightweight fill or the implementation of two-phased construction in which the first
phase facing is typically a wire facing.
Step 7:- Evaluate Internal Stability Using the K-Stiffness Method: The following
key factors will influence the magnitude of maximum reinforcement load, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥:
( i) height of the wall and any surcharge loads;
(ii) global and local stiffness of the soil reinforcement;
(iii) resistance to lateral movement caused by the stiffness of the facing and
restraint at the wall toe;
(iv) face batter;
(v) shear strength and stress–strain behaviour (e.g., modulus) of the soil;
(vi) unit weight of the soil; and
(vii) vertical spacing of the reinforcement.
On the other hand, Internal failure of a GMSE wall can occur in two different
ways stipulated below:
The tensile forces (and, in the case of rigid reinforcements, the shear forces) in the
inclusions become so large that the inclusions elongate excessively or break, leading
to large movements and/or possible collapse of the structure. This mode of failure is
called failure by elongation or breakage of the reinforcements.
The tensile forces in the reinforcements become larger than the pullout resistance,
leading to large movements and/or possible collapse of the structure. This mode of
failure is called failure by pullout.
The process of sizing and designing to preclude internal failure, therefore,

consists of determining the maximum developed tension forces, their location
along a locus of critical slip surfaces and the resistance provided by the
reinforcements both in pullout capacity and tensile strength. Internal stability
also includes an evaluation of serviceability requirements such as tolerable
lateral movement of supported structures and control of downdrag stress on
reinforcement connections.
Step 7a:- Select Type of Soil Reinforcement; Soil reinforcements are either
inextensible (i.e., mostly metallic) or extensible (i.e., mostly polymeric materials),
as discussed in Chapter 3. The internal wall design model varies by material type
due to their extensibility relative to soil at failure. Therefore, the choice of material
type should be made at this step of the design. The variations are: whether life
prediction is based on metal corrosion or polymer degradation; critical failure
plane geometry assumed for design; and lateral stress used for design. Distinction
can be made between the characteristics of inextensible and extensible
reinforcements, as follows.
Step 7b:- Define Critical Slip Surface: 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 , which was introduced in model
Equation 4-20 in the preceding sub-Section 4.2.2 (also refer to Figure 4-7), shall be
determined as shown in Figure 4-14. Allen and Bathurst found that as the
reinforcement stiffness increases, the load distribution as a function of depth below
the GMSE Wall top becomes more triangular in shape. Note that the empirical
distributions provided in Figure 4-14 apply to walls constructed on a firm soil
foundation. The distributions that would result for a rock or soft ground foundation
may be different from those shown in this figure, and in general will tend to be more
triangular in shape as the foundation soils become more compressible.
For walls placed on top of sloping ground where the slope is 3H:1V or steeper, 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥
shall remain equal to 1.0 for the entire bottom half of the wall or more.
The factored tensile load applied to the soil reinforcement connection at the wall
face, 𝑇0 , shall be equal to the maximum factored reinforcement tension, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,
for all wall systems regardless of facing and reinforcement type.
Live loads shall be positioned for extreme force effect. In this case, the provisions of
Article 3.11.6 in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications shall apply
(a) 1 <Sglobal < 100 Kips/ft2 (b) 100 <Sglobal < 400 Kips/ft2 (c) 400 <Sglobal < 6,500 Kips/ft2
Figure 4-14 𝑫𝒕𝒎 𝒙 as a function of normalized depth below wall top plus average surcharge
depth: a) generally applies to geosynthetics reinforced walls; b) generally applies to
polymer strap walls and extensible or very lightly reinforced steel systems; and c)
generally applies to steel reinforced systems (WSDOT GDM:2010).
Step 7c:- Define Unfactored Loads: The primary sources of internal loading of an
GMSE wall is the earth pressure from the reinforced fill and any surcharge
loadings on top of the reinforced zone. The unfactored loads for GMSE walls
may include loads due to, vertical earth pressure (EV), live load surcharge (LS),
and earth surcharge (ES). Water, seismic, and vehicle impact loads should also
be evaluated, as appropriate. Research studies (Collin, 1986; Christopher et al.,
1990; Allen et al., 2001) have indicated that the maximum tensile force is
primarily related to the type of reinforcement in the GMSE wall, which, in turn,
is a function of the modulus, extensibility and density of reinforcement. Based
on this research, a relationship between the type of the reinforcement and the
overburden stress has been developed. The 𝐾𝑟 /𝐾𝑎 ratio for metallic
(inextensible) reinforcements decreases from the top of the reinforced wall fill
to a constant value 6 m below this elevation. In contrast to inextensible
reinforcements, the 𝐾𝑟 /𝐾𝑎 for extensible (e.g., geosynthetic) reinforcement is a
constant. The stress, 𝜎2 , due to a sloping backfill on top of an MSE wall can be
determined as shown in Figure 4-18. An equivalent soil height, 𝑆, is computed
based upon the slope geometry. The value of 𝑆𝑒𝑞. should not exceed the slope
height for broken back sloping fills. A reinforcement length of 0.7𝐻 is used to
compute the sloping backfill stress, 𝜎2 , on the soil reinforcement, as a greater
length would only have minimal effect on the reinforcement. The vertical stress
is equal to the product equivalent soil height and the reinforced fill unit weight,
and is uniformly applied across the top of the MSE zone.
Figure 4-15. Calculation of vertical stress for sloping backfill conditions for internal
stability (AASHTO 2007).
Step 7d:- Establish Vertical Layout of Soil Reinforcements: Use of a constant

reinforcement section and spacing for the full height of the wall usually gives
more reinforcement in the upper portion of the wall than is required for
stability. Therefore, a more economical design may be possible by varying the
reinforcement density with depth. However, to provide a coherent reinforced
soil zone, vertical spacing of reinforcement should not exceed 800 mm.
There are generally two practical ways to accomplish this for GMSE walls:
For reinforcements consisting of strips, grids, or mats used with segmental precast
concrete facings, the vertical spacing is maintained constant and the reinforcement
density is increased with depth by increasing the number and/or the size of the
reinforcements. For instance, the typical horizontal spacing of 50 mm) x 4 mm strips
is 0.75 m, but this can be decreased by adding horizontal reinforcement locations.
For continuous sheet reinforcements, made of geotextiles or geogrids, a common

way of varying the reinforcement density 𝑻 𝒍 ⁄𝑺𝒗 is to change the vertical spacing 𝑺𝒗 ,
especially if wrapped facing is used, because it easily accommodates spacing
variations. The range of acceptable spacing is governed by consideration of
placement and compaction of the backfill (e.g., 𝑺𝒗 taken as 1, 2 or 3 times the
compacted lift thickness). The reinforcement density 𝑻 𝒍 ⁄𝑺𝒗 can also be varied by
changing the strength, 𝑻 𝒍 especially if wrapped facing techniques requiring a
constant wrap height are used.
Low-to medium-height walls (𝑒. 𝑔. , < 5 𝑚) are usually constructed with

one strength geosynthetic. Taller walls use multiple strength geosynthetics.
For example the 12.6 m high Seattle preload wall used four strengths of
geotextiles (Allen et al., 1992). A maximum spacing of 400 mm is typical for
wrapped faced geosynthetic walls, although a smaller spacing may be
desirable to minimize bulging.
For walls constructed with modular blocks, the maximum vertical spacing of
reinforcement should be limited to two times the block depth (front face to back face)
or 810 mm, whichever is less, to assure construction and long-term stability. The top
row of reinforcement should be limited to 1.5 the block depth (e.g. one unit plus a cap
unit). (AASHTO 11.10.2.3.1 {AASHTO, 2007}).
For large face units, such as 0.9 m by 0.9 m gabions, a vertical spacing equal to
the face height (i.e., 0.9 m) is typically used. This spacing slightly exceeds the
limit noted above, but this may be offset by the contributions of the large
facing unit to internal (i.e., bulging) stability.
Step 7e:- Determine Appropriate Loads and Load Factors for K-Stiffness
Method: In addition to the load factors provided in Section 3.4.1 of the
AASHTO LRFD Specification and which are summarized in sub-Section 2.7 of
Section 2 of this Guideline, the load factors provided in Table 4-4 Shall be used
as minimum values for the K-Stiffness Method. The load factor, 𝛾𝑃 to be
applied to maximum load carried by the reinforcement, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 due to the
weight of the backfill for reinforcement strength, connection strength and
pullout calculations shall be EV, for vertical earth pressure.
Table 4-4 Load Factors, 𝜸𝑷 for permanent loads for internal stability of MSE walls
designed using the K-Stiffness Method (WSDOT GDM, 2010).
Type of Load Load Factor

Minimum Maximum
EV Vertical Earth Pressure
MSE Wall soil reinforcement loads (K-Stiffness 1.55 N/A
Method, steel strips and grids)
MSE Wall soil reinforcement/facing connection 1.8 N/A
loads (K-Stiffness Method, steel grids
attached to rigid facings)
MSE Wall soil reinforcement loads (K-Stiffness 1.6 N/A
Method, geosynthetics)
MSE Wall soil reinforcement/facing connection 1.85 N/A
loads (K-Stiffness Method, geosynthetics)
Loads carried by the soil reinforcement in GMSE Walls are the result of vertical
and lateral earth pressures which exist within the reinforced soil mass,
reinforcement extensibility, facing stiffness, wall toe restraint and the stiffness
and strength of the soil backfill within the reinforced soil mass. The calculation
method for 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 is empirically derived based on reinforcement strain
measurements converted to load based on the reinforcement stiffness from
full-scale walls at working stress conditions (Allen and Bathurst, 2003).
Essentially therefore, the secant stiffness value used to estimate
reinforcement loads in instrumented walls was selected based on measured
strain (ε) and duration of tensile loading (t) at the point of maximum internal
strain in the wall. Hence, the maximum reinforcement tensile load 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 can
be computed as:
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐽(𝜀, 𝑡) × 𝜀 (4-44)
The accuracy of this approach was confirmed by comparing estimated loads

using the secant stiffness approach with directly measured loads in the
reinforcement where these two sets of measurements were available (Walters
et al 2002; Bathurst et al. 2005).
Furthermore, research by Allen and Bathurst (2003) indicates that the working
loads measured in MSE wall reinforcement remain relatively constant
throughout the wall life provided that the wall is designed for a stable
condition and that the load statistics remain constant up to the point that the
wall begins to fail. As a consequence, the load factors for MSE reinforcement
loads provided in Table 4-4 can be considered valid for a strength or extreme
event limit state.
The load factors provided in Table 4-4 were determined assuming that the
appropriate mean soil friction angle is used for design. In practice, since the
specific source of material for GMSE Wall backfill is typically not available at
the time of design, presumptive design parameters based on previous
experience with the material that is typically supplied to meet the backfill
material specification are used. It is likely that these presumptive design
parameters are lower bound conservative values for the reinforced backfill
material specification selected. Plane strain friction angles should be used with
the K-Stiffness Method in order to be consistent with the empirical derivation
and calibration for this method in particular. The following equations, which
are modified versions of Equations 4-1 and 4-2 presented under sub-Section
4.2.1 in order to broaden the range of application, may be applied to make an
approximate estimate of the plane strain soil friction angle, 𝜙𝑃𝑆 based on
triaxial, 𝜙𝑡𝑥 or direct shear, 𝜙𝑑𝑠 results, respectively.
1.3878
𝜙𝑃𝑆 = 0.2563𝜙𝑡𝑥 ‖𝜙𝑡𝑥 ≥ 34° (4-45)
0.9019
𝜙𝑃𝑆 = 1.6197𝜙𝑑𝑠 ‖ (4-46)
Other loads appropriate to the load groups and limit states to be considered
as specified in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications for wall design are applicable
when using the K-Stiffness Method for design.
Step 7f:- Determine Appropriate Resistance Factors for K-Stiffness Method:

For the service limit state, a resistance factor of 1.0 should be used except for
the evaluation of overall slope stability as prescribed by Section 15.4.2.10 of
the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. For the strength and extreme event limit
states for internal stability using the K-Stiffness Method, the resistance factors
provided in Table 4-5 shall be used as maximum values. These resistance
factors were derived using the data provided in Allen and Bathurst (2003).
Reliability theory using Monte Carlo Method as described in Allen, et al. was
applied to statistically characterize the data and to estimate resistance factors.
The load factors provided in Table 4-4 were used for this analysis.
The resistance factors specified in Table 4-5 are consistent with the use of
select granular backfill in the reinforced zone, homogeneously placed and
carefully controlled in the field for conformance with the specifications
provided in sub-Section 3.6.2 of this DG- Guideline. The resistance factors
provided in Table 4-5 have been developed with consideration to the
redundancy inherent in MSE walls due to the multiple reinforcement layers
and the ability of those layers to share load one with another. This is
accomplished by using a target reliability index of 𝛽 = 2.3 as an approximate
probability of failure, 𝑃𝑓 of 1 in 100 for static conditions and 𝛽 = 1.65 as an
approximate probability of failure, 𝑃𝑓 of 1 in 20 for seismic conditions. A 𝛽 of
3.5 for an approximate 𝑃𝑓 of 1 in 5000 is typically used for structural design
when redundancy is not considered or not present. Because redundancy is
already taken into account through the predesignate target value 𝛽, the factor
𝜂 for redundancy prescribed in the AASHTO LRFD Specifications should be set
to: 𝜂 = 1.0. The target of 𝛽 used herein for seismic loading is consistent with
the overstress allowed in previous practice as described in the AASHTO
Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges (AASHTO 2002)
Table 4-5 Resistance factors for the strength and extreme event limit states for
MSE walls using the K-Stiffness Method (WSDOT GDM, 2010).
Limit State and Reinforcement Type
Resistance
Internal Stability of MSE Walls, K-Stiffness Method Factor
𝜙𝑟𝑟 Reinforcement Rupture Metallic /Geosynthetic 0.85 /0.80(3)
𝜙𝑠𝑓 Soil Failure Metallic /Geosynthetic 0.85 /1.00(1)

Metallic/Geosynthetic 0.85/ 0.80(3)
𝜙𝑐𝑟 Connection rupture
Steel ribbed strips (at z < 2m) 1.10

Steel ribbed strips (at z > 2m 1.00
𝜙𝑝𝑜 Pullout(2) 1.00 0.60
Steel smooth strips Steel grids 0.50
Geosynthetic
Combined static/
earthquake loading
𝜙𝐸𝑄𝑟 Metallic/Geosynthetic 1.00 0.95(3)
(reinforcement and
connector rupture)
Steel ribbed strips (at z < 2m) 1.25 1.15
Combined tatic/
Steel ribbed strips (at z > 1.15 0.75
earthquake
𝜙𝐸𝑄𝑝 Steel smooth strips Steel grids 0.65
loading
& Geosynthetic
pullout)(2)
Notes:
 If thee default value for the critical reinforcement strain of 3.0% or less is used for flexible wall
facings and 2.0% or less for rigid wall facings (for a stiffness facing factor of Φ𝑔 ≤ 0.9).
 Resistance factor values in table for pullout assume that the default values for 𝐹 ∗ and
𝛼 provided in Article 11.10.6.3.2 of the AASHTO LRFD Specifications are used and are
applicable.
 This resistance factor applies if installation damage is not severe (i.e., 𝑅𝐹𝐼𝐷 < 1.7). Severe
installation damage is likely if very light weight reinforcement is used. Note that when
installation damage is severe, the resistance factor required for this limit state can drop to
approximately 0.15 or less due to greatly increased variability in the reinforcement strength,
which is not practical for design.
Step 7g:- Determine Appropriate Load and Resistance Factors for Internal
Stability Limit States for the K-Stiffness Method: Consistent with modern design
practice for MSE walls, load and resistance factors were applied to ultimate limit-
state equations for reinforcement rupture, connection failure, soil failure, and
pullout during the original design. These values are shown in Table 4-6 The load
and resistance factors for the K-stiffness method were computed using
reliability-based theory applied to the original data set of reinforcement loads
from case studies available at that time. A target probability of failure of 1% for
redundant systems (i.e., multiple load-carrying elements) was used based on
recommendations by Allen et al. (2005) and Bathurst et al. (2008a).
Table 4-6. Load and resistance factors for internal stability limit states (Allen and Bathurst 2013a).
Load factor, Resistance factor,
K-stiffness method Simplified

K-stiffness method
Simplified method (WSDOT 2011) method
(WSDOT 2011)
Strength limit state (AASHTO 2012) (AASHTO 2012)
Reinforcement rupture 1.5 1.35 0.80 0.9
Soil failure 1.5 N/A 1.0 N/A
Connection rupture 1.7 1.35 0.80 0.9
Pullout 1.5 1.35 0.55 0.9
Note: N/A indicates not applicable
Evaluate Safety Against Structural Failure (Internal Stability): Safety against

structural failure shall consider all components of the reinforced soil wall
including the soil reinforcement, soil backfill, facing and the connection
between the facing and the soil reinforcement, evaluating all modes of failure
including pullout and rupture of reinforcement.
A preliminary estimate of the structural size of the stabilized soil mass may be
determined on the basis of reinforcement pullout beyond the failure zone, for
which resistance is specified in Article 11.10.6.3 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications.
The load in the reinforcement shall be determined at two critical locations: i)

the zone of maximum stress; and ii) the connection with the wall face.
Potential for reinforcement rupture and pullout are evaluated at the zone of
maximum stress, which is assumed to be located at the boundary between the
active zone and the resistant zone depicted in Figure 2.4 in Section 2 of this
DG-3 Guideline. Potential for reinforcement rupture and pullout are also
evaluated at the connection of the reinforcement to the wall facing. The
reinforcement shall also be designed to prevent the backfill from reaching a
failure condition.
Loads carried by the soil reinforcement in MSE walls are the result of vertical
and lateral earth pressures, which exist within the reinforced soil,
reinforcement extensibility, facing stiffness, wall toe restraint and the stiffness
and the strength of the soil backfill within the reinforced soil mass. The soil
reinforcement extensibility and material type are major factors in determining
reinforcement load. Internal stability failure modes include soil reinforcement
rupture of failure of the backfill soil (strength or extreme event limit state) and
excessive reinforcement elongation under the design load (service limit state).
Internal stability is determined by equating the factored tensile load applied
to the reinforcement to the factored tensile resistance of the reinforcement,
the tensile resistance being governed by reinforcement rupture and pullout.
Soil backfill failure is prevented by keeping the soil shear strain below its peak
shear strain.
The methods used in historical design practice for calculating the load in the
reinforcement to accomplish internal stability design mainly include: i) the
AASHTO Simplified Method; ii) the Coherent Gravity Method; and iii) the
FHWA Structure Stiffness Method. All these methods are empirically derived,
relying on limit equilibrium concepts for their formulation, whereas the K-
Stiffness Method, also empirically derived, relies on the difference in stiffness
of the various wall components to distribute a total lateral earth pressure
derived from limit equilibrium concepts to the wall reinforcement layers and
the facing. Although all of these methods can be used to evaluate the potential
for reinforcement rupture and pullout for the strength and extreme event limit
states, only the K-Stiffness Method can be used to directly evaluate the
potential for soil backfill failure and to design the wall internally for the service
limit state. These other methods used in historical practice indirectly account
for soil failure and the service limit state conditions based on the presumptive
considerations in regard to the successful construction of thousands of
structures including the concept that if the other limit states are met, soil
failure will be prevented and the wall will meet serviceability requirements for
internal stability.
The MSE wall specifications also assume that inextensible reinforcements are
not mixed with extensible reinforcements within the same wall. MSE walls that
contain a mixture of inextensible and extensible reinforcements are not
recommended.
The design specifications provided herein assume that the wall facing
combined with the reinforced backfill acts as a coherent unit to form a gravity
retaining structure. The effect of relatively large spacing of reinforcement on
this assumption is not well known and a vertical spacing greater than 0.9m
should not be used without full scale wall data (e.g., reinforcement loads and
strains as well as overall deflections) which supports the acceptability of larger
vertical spacing. It is important to note that larger vertical spacing can result
in excessive facing deflection both local and global, which could in turn cause
localized elevated stresses in the facing and its connection to the soil
reinforcement.
The factored vertical stress, 𝜎𝑣 , at each reinforcement level shall be:
𝜎𝑣 = 𝛾𝑝 𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 𝐻 + 𝛾𝑝 𝛾𝑏𝑓 𝑆 + 𝛾𝐿𝐿 𝑞 + 𝛾𝑝 ∆𝜎𝑣 (4-47)
where: 𝜎𝑣 = the factored pressure due to resultant of gravity forces from soil
self weight within and immediately above the reinforced wall backfill, and
any surcharge loads present, 𝛾𝑝 = the load factor for vertical earth pressure EV
, 𝛾𝐿𝐿 = the load factor for live load surcharge per the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications, 𝑞 = live load surcharge, 𝐻 = the total vertical wall height at the
wall face, 𝑆 = average soil surcharge depth above wall top, and ∆𝜎𝑣 = vertical
stress increase due to concentrated surcharge load above the wall.
Note that the methods used in historical practice (e.g., the Simplified Method)
calculate the vertical stress resulting from gravity forces within the reinforced
backfill at each level, resulting in a linearly increasing gravity force with depth
and a triangular lateral stress distribution. The K-Stiffness Method instead
calculates the maximum gravity force resulting from the gravity forces within
the reinforced soil backfill to determine the maximum reinforcement load
within the entire wall reinforced backfill, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑚𝑎𝑥 , and then adjusts that
maximum reinforcement load with depth for each of the layers using a load
distribution factor, 𝐷𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 to determine 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 . This load distribution factor was
derived empirically based on a number of full scale wall cases and verified
through many numerical analyses (see Allen and Bathurst, 2003).
Note that sloping soil surcharges are taken into account through an equivalent
uniform surcharge and assuming a level backslope condition. For these
calculations, the wall height “H” is referenced from the top of the wall at the
wall face to the top of the bearing pad, excluding any copings and
appurtenances.
For the K-Stiffness Method, the load in the reinforcements is obtained by

multiplying the factored vertical earth pressure by a series of empirical factors
which take into account the reinforcement global stiffness for the wall, the
facing stiffness, the facing batter, the local stiffness of the reinforcement, the
soil strength and stiffness, and how the load is distributed to the
reinforcement layers.
Step 7h:- Adopt Systematic Design Guidelines for Strength Limit State Design
Using the K-Stiffness Method for GMSE Walls (Washington Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) Geotechnical Design Manual GDM) 15.5.3.1.4 : For
GMSE Walls, four limit states must be considered for internal reinforcement
strength and stiffness design including: i) soil failure; ii) reinforcement failure;
iii) connection failure; and iv) reinforcement pullout.
Systematic guidelines for the design steps and related considerations for the
K-Stiffness Internal Stability Design Method are provided as follows.
Step 7h-1:- Select a Trial Reinforcement Spacing and Stiffness: Select a trial
reinforcement spacing, 𝑆𝑣 and stiffness, 𝐽𝐸𝑂𝐶 based on the concepts
introduced under Step 7d and the preceding Section 4.2, respectively. The
stiffness selection shall be based on the time required to reach the end of
construction (EOC). If the estimated time required to construct the wall is
unknown, an assumed construction time of 1,000 hrs. (One Thousand Hours)
should be adequate. Note that at this point in the design, it does not matter
how one obtains the stiffness. It is considered to be simply a value that one
must recognize as an EOC stiffness determined through isochronous stiffness
curves at a given strain and temperature and that it represents the stiffness of
a continuous reinforcement layer on a per meter of wall width basis.
Use the selected stiffness to calculate the trial global stiffness of the wall,
𝑆𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 based on Equation 4-10 with: 𝐽𝐸𝑂𝐶 = 𝐽𝑖 for each layer. Also select a soil
friction angle for design. Once the design soil friction angle has been obtained,
the lateral earth pressure coefficients required for the computation of the
maximum reinforcement load, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 (refer to Step 7h-4) can then be
determined. Note that if the reinforcement layer is intended to have a
coverage ratio, 𝑅𝑐 of less than 1.0 (i.e., the reifnforcement is to be
discontinuous – strips/straps), the actual product selected based on the K-
Stiffness design must have a stiffness of 𝐽𝐸𝑂𝐶 (1⁄𝑅𝑐 ).
Step 7h-2:- Check the Strength Limit State for Backfill Soil: Select a trial
stiffness that is large enough to prevent the soil from reaching a failure
condition.
Step 7h-3:- Select a target reinforcement strain: Select a target reinforcement

strain, 𝜀𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔. to prevent the soil from reaching its peak shear strain. The worst
condition in this regard is choice of a soil with a very strong, high peak friction
angle; as the peak shear strain for this type of soil will be lower than the peak
shear strain obtained from most backfill soils. The results of full-scale wall
laboratory testing showed that the reinforcement strain at which the soil
begins to exhibit signs of failure is in the order of 3% to 4% for high shear
strength sands (Allen and Bathurst, 2003). This empirical evidence reflects very
high shear strength soils and is probably a worst case for design purposes
since most soils will have larger peak strain values than the soils tested in the
full-scale walls. A default value for the 𝜀𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔. appropriate for granular soils is
3% for flexible walls if a Φ𝑓𝑠 of less than 0.9 is used for design. Lower target
strains could also be used if deemed appropriate.
Step 7h-4:- Compute Factored Load, 𝑻𝒎 𝒙 : Calculate the factored load, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥
for each reinforcement layer based on Equation 4-8. To determine 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 , the
facing type, dimensions and properties must be selected in advance in order
to derive the influence factors defined in Equations 4-9 ~ 4-20. The local
stiffness factor, Φ𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 for each layer can be set to: Φ𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 = 1.0; unless the
reinforcement spacing or stiffness within the design wall section is specifically
planned to be varied. The global wall stiffness, 𝑆𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 and the global stiffness
factor, Φ𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 must be estimated from the 𝐽𝐸𝑂𝐶 determined in Step 7h-1.
Step 7h-5:- Estimate Factored Strain @ EDL, 𝜺𝒓 𝒊𝒏 : Estimate the factored

strain in the reinforcement at the end of the GMSE Wall design life (EDL), 𝜀𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛
using the K-Stiffness Method from model Equation 4-…
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜀𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛 = 𝐽 (4-48)
𝐷𝐿 Φ𝑠𝑓
where, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the factored maximum reinforcement load determined in

Step 7h-4, 𝐽𝐷𝐿 is the reinforcement layer stiffness at the end of the GMSE Wall
design life (typically 75 years for permanent structures) determined with
consideration to the anticipated long-term strain in the reinforcement (i.e.,
𝜀𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔 ), Φ𝑠𝑓 is the resistance factor to account for uncertainties in the
magnitude of the target strain and other variables as previously defined.
Should a default 𝜀𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔 value be used then a resistance factor of 1.0 is likely to
suffice.
Step 7h-6:- Compare 𝜺𝒓 𝒊𝒏 and 𝜺𝒕 𝒓𝒈 : Carry out comparative analysis of 𝜀𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛

and 𝜀𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔 . If 𝜀𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛 > 𝜀𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔 increase the reinforcement layer stiffness, 𝐽𝐸𝑂𝐶 and
re-compute 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 as well as 𝜀𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛 . Note that 𝑱𝑬𝑶 is the principal specification
parameter for procuring the appropriate geosynthetics if the reinforcement
layer is continuous (i.e., 𝒄 = 𝟏. 𝟎). Further note that if the reinforcement
layer is intended to have a coverage ratio less than unity (i.e., 𝒄 < 𝟏. 𝟎) then
the actual product selected, based on the K-Stiffness design must have a
stiffness of 𝑱𝑬𝑶 (𝟏⁄ 𝒄 ). For final product selection, 𝐽𝐸𝑂𝐶 (1⁄𝑅𝑐 ) shall e based
on product specific isochronous creep data obtained I accordance with
WSDOT Standard Practice T925 (WSDOT, 2004) at the estimated wall
construction duration with 1,000 hours as an acceptable default time in the
absence of a specific construction duration of the wall and site temperature.
The appropriate stiffness shall be selected at the anticipated maximum
working strains of the wall as the stiffness will certainly be non-linear strain
level dependent.
For design purposes, a secant stiffness determined at 2% strain at the end of

construction, 𝐽2% shall be the specification value, whilst the 2% strain shall be
the default strain. If strains of significantly less than 2% are anticipated, and
the geosynthetic material to be used is known to exhibit highly non-linear
load-strain characteristics over the strain range of interest i.e., some PET
geosynthetics), then a stiffness value determined at a lower strain level should
be adopted. However, in so doing, the complexities of accurately determining
small strains should be recognized.
For multifilament woven geotextiles the values obtained from laboratory

isochronous creep data should be increased by 15% in order to account for soil
confinement effects. On the other hand, if nonwoven geotextiles are to be
used as the GMSE Wall reinforcement, then the 𝐽𝐸𝑂𝐶 and the 𝐽𝐷𝐿 shall be based
on confined in-soil isochronous creep data and use of the nonwoven
geotextiles shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Engineer Materials
(CEM), Materials Testing and Research Division.
Step 7h-7:- Check the Strength Limit State: Check the strength limit state for
reinforcement rupture and the soil backfill. The focus of this limit state check
is to ensure that the long-term factored rupture strength of the reinforcement
is greater than the factored load calculated from the K-Stiffness Method. 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥
calculated from Step 7h-4 may be a good starting point for evaluating this limit
state. Note that the global wall stiffness for this calculation is based on the
EOC conditions despite the fact that the focus of this computation exercise is
geared to the end of the service life of the GMSE Wall.
Step 7h-8:- Determine the Long-Term Design Strength, 𝑻 𝑻𝑫𝑺 : Compute the
Long-Term Design Strength, 𝑇𝐿𝑇𝐷𝑆 incorporating strength reduction factors for
installation damage, creep and degradation, 𝑅𝐹𝐼𝐷 , 𝑅𝐹𝐶𝑅 , 𝑅𝐹𝐷 for the
reinforcement type selected. This computation is aimed at preventing rupture.
Applying a resistance factor to address uncertainty in the reinforcement
strength, determine the 𝑇𝐿𝑇𝐷𝑆 based on model defined in Equation 4-49
below.
𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝜙𝑟𝑟 𝑅𝑐
𝑇𝑓𝐿𝑇𝐷𝑆 = 𝑅𝐹 (4-49)
𝐼𝐷 𝑅𝐹𝐶𝑅 𝑅𝐹𝐷
where, 𝑇𝑓𝐿𝑇𝐷𝑆 is the factored Long-Term Design Strength (LTDS), 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 is the
ultimate tensile strength, which is usually equated to the MARV and should be
determined from an index wide-width tensile test asper ASTM D4595, ASTM
D6637 or the equivalent, 𝜙𝑟𝑟 is the resistance factor for reinforcement
rupture, 𝑅𝑐 is the reinforcement coverage ratio, 𝑅𝐹𝐼𝐷 = 1.25, 𝑅𝐹𝐶𝑅 = 1.5,
𝑅𝐹𝐷 = 1.2 are reduction factors, which should be determined using product
and site specific data when and where possible.
Step 7h-9:- Determine the Allowable Design Strength, 𝑻 𝒍𝒅 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏 as

Alternative: Step 7h-8 assumes that a specific reinforcement product will be
selected for the GMSE Wall given that the strength reduction factors for
installation damage, creep and durability are predetermined during the design
stage. In case the reinforcement properties are to be generically specified to
allow the contractor or supplier to select the specific reinforcement after
contract award, then Equation 4-50 may be employed to determine the
allowable at Design Strength, 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 .
𝑇
𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 = 𝜙𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑅
(4-50)
𝑟𝑟 𝑐
where, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the factored reinforcement load determined from Step 7h-6.
Step 7h-10:- Determine the Long-Term Connection Strength, 𝑻𝟎 as

Alternative: If the geosynthetic reinforcement is connected directly to the wall
facing (this does not include flexible facings that are formed by simply
extending the reinforcement/wrap-arounds), the reinforcement strength
required to provide the necessary long-term connection strength must be
determined. Determine the connection strength ratio 𝐶𝑅𝑐𝑟 at each
reinforcement level, taking into account the available normal force between
the facing blocks if the connection strength is a function of normal force. 𝐶𝑅𝑐𝑟
can be computed or measured directly as per the AASHTO LRFD Specifications.
Step 7h-11:- Determine the Adequacy of the Long-Term Reinforcement

Strength at the Connection: Using the unfactored reinforcement load from
Step 7h-6 and an appropriate load factor for the connection load to determine
the factored 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 at the connection, determine the long-term reinforcement
strength at the connection. Compare the factored connection load at each
level to the available factored long-term connection strength as follows:
𝜙𝑟𝑟 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝐶𝑅𝑐𝑟 𝑅𝑐
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 𝜙𝑟𝑟 𝑇𝑎𝑐 𝑅𝑐 = 𝑅𝐹𝐷
(4-51)
where, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the factored reinforcement load. Note that for modular
concrete block faced GMSE walls, the connection test data produced and used
for design has typically already been converted to a load per unit width of wall
facing hence, 𝑅𝑐 = 1. For other types of facings e.g., precast concrete panels,
in case discontinuous reinforcement is used, e.g., polymer strips, geobelts,
among others, it is likely that 𝑅𝑐 < 1 hence necessity for adopting Equation 4-
… If the reinforcement strength available is inadequate to provide the needed
connection strength as computed from Equation 4-.., decrease the spacing of
the reinforcement or increase the reinforcement strength. Recalculate the
global wall stiffness and reevaluate all the preceding steps to ensure that the
other strength limit states are met accordingly. If the strength limit state for
reinforcement or connection rupture is controlling the design, then increase
the reinforcement stiffness and check the adequacy of the design, increasing
𝑇𝑎𝑙 or 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡. If necessary.
Step 7h-12:- Carry Out Local Adequacy Checks: It must be recognized that the
strength, 𝑇𝑎𝑙 or 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡. and stiffness, 𝐽𝐸𝑂𝐶 determined from the K-Stiffness
Method is very likely to result in the use of very low density geosynthetics
reinforcement. Reinforcement coverage ratios of: 𝑅𝑐 < 1.0 ma be used
provided that it is evaluated and confirmed that the facing system is fully
capable of transmitting forces from un-reinforced sections laterally to
adjacent reinforced sections through the moment capacity of the facing
elements.
For walls with modular concrete block facings, the gap between soil
reinforcement sections or strips at a horizontal level shall be limited t a
maximum of one block width in accordance the AASHTO LRFD Specifications
in order to limit bulging of the facing between reinforcement levels or whether
there is a build-up of unacceptable stresses that could result in structural
performance problems. Note that vertical spacing limitations specified in the
AASHTO LRFD Specifications for MSE walls do apply to walls designed using
the K-Stiffness Method.
Step 7h-13:- Determine the Design Length of Reinforcement Required in the

Resisting Zone: Determine the length of the reinforcement required in the
resisting zone by comparing the factored 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 value to the factored pullout
resistance available as computed per the AASHTO LRFD Specifications. If the
length of the reinforcement required is greater than the desired (typically, the
top of the wall is most critical), decrease the spacing of the reinforcement,
recalculate the global wall stiffness and reevaluate all previous steps to ensure
that the other strength/stiffness limit states are met accordingly.
Step 7i:- Calculate Soil Reinforcement Resistance as Counter-Check: The

procedure and discussion on definition of nominal long-term reinforcement
design strength (𝑇𝑎𝑙 ), for both steel and geosynthetic reinforcements, are
presented in the earlier sections of this manual. The factored soil resistance
is the product of the nominal long-term strength, coverage ratio, and
applicable resistance factor, 𝜙; (𝑖. 𝑒. ; 𝑆𝑅𝐹 = 𝑇𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑐 𝜙); where 𝑆𝑅𝐹 is the
factored soil resistance. The resistance factors for tensile rupture of GMSE wall
soil reinforcements are summarized in sub-Section 2.7. The factored tensile

resistance, 𝑇𝑟 is equal to:
𝑇𝑟 = 𝜙 𝑇𝑎𝑙 (4-52)
𝑇𝑎𝑙 and 𝑇𝑟 may be expressed in terms of strength per unit width of wall, per
reinforcement element, or per unit reinforcement width.
Step 7j:- Select Grade and/or Number of Soil Reinforcement Elements at Each
Level: The soil reinforcement vertical layout, the factored tensile force at each
reinforcement level, and the factored soil reinforcement resistance were defined
in the previous three steps. With this information, select suitable grades
(strength) of reinforcement, or number of discrete (e.g., strip) reinforcements, for
the defined vertical reinforcement layout. Subsequently, with this layout, check
pullout and, as applicable, extreme event loadings. Adjust layout if/as necessary.
Note that stability with respect to breakage of the reinforcements requires that:
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 𝑇𝑟 (4-53)
where 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum factored load in a reinforcement and 𝑇𝑟 is the
factored reinforcement tensile resistance.
Internal Stability with Respect to Pullout Failure
Stability with respect to pullout of the reinforcements requires that the factored
effective pullout length is greater than or equal to the factored tensile load in the
reinforcement, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 . Each layer of reinforcement should be checked, as pullout
resistance and/or tensile loads may vary with reinforcement layer. Therefore, the
following criteria should be satisfied:
𝑇
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜙𝐿𝑒 ≤ 𝐹∗ 𝛼𝜎 𝑐𝑅
(4-54)
𝑣 𝑐
Where: 𝐿𝑒 =the length of embedment in the resisting zone. Note that the boundary
between the resisting and the active zones may be modified by concentrated
loadings; 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 =maximum reinforcement tension; 𝜙=resistance factor for soil
reinforcement pullout; 𝐹 ∗ =Pullout resistance factor with variation in depth at the
same elevation as that for 𝐾𝑟 ⁄𝐾𝑎 ratio variation; 𝛼=scale correction factor;
𝜎𝑣 =nominal (unfacored) vertical stress at the reinforcement level in the resistant
zone, including distributed dead load surcharges, neglecting traffic loads. See
Figure 4-19 for computing 𝜎𝑣 for sloping backfills; 𝑐=2 for strip, grid and sheet type
reinforcement; and, 𝑅𝑐 =coverage ratio.
Therefore, the required embedment length in the resistance zone (i.e., beyond
the potential failure surface) denoted as 𝐿𝑒 in the equations can be determined
from:
𝑇
𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐿𝑒 ≤ 𝜙𝐹∗ 𝛼𝜎 𝑐𝑅
≥ 1𝑚 (4-55)
𝑣 𝑐
Figure 4-16. Nominal vertical stress at the reinforcement level in the resistant
zone, beneath a sloping backfill (AASHTO, 2007).
If a traffic or other live load is present, it is recommended that 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 be

computed with the live loads and that the pullout resistance be
computed excluding the live loads. This addresses the possibility of the
live loads being present near the front of the wall but not above the
reinforcement embedment length. The pullout resistance and the 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥
can be calculated with the live load excluded (AASHTO {2009 Interims}
specifications) if it can be shown that the live load will be on the active
and resistant zones at the same time or on the resistant zone alone. An
agency should note their pullout calculation requirement, if it varies
from AASHTO, in their specifications.
If the criterion is not satisfied for all reinforcement layers, the reinforcement
length has to be increased and/or reinforcement with a greater pullout
resistance per unit width must be used, or the reinforcement vertical spacing
may be reduced which would reduce 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 .
The total length of reinforcement, L, required for internal stability is then

determined from:
𝐿 = 𝐿𝑎 + 𝐿𝑒 (4-56)
where 𝐿𝑎 is obtained from Figure 4-19 for simple structures not

supporting concentrated external loads such as bridge abutments. Based
on this figure the following relationships can be obtained for 𝐿𝑎 :
For GMSE walls with extensible reinforcement, vertical face and horizontal
backfill:
𝜙′
𝐿𝑎 = (𝐻 𝑍)𝑡𝑎𝑛 (45 2) (4-57)
where 𝑍 is the depth to the reinforcement level.

For construction ease, a final uniform length is commonly chosen, based on the
maximum length required. However, if internal stability controls the length, it
could be varied from the base, increasing with the height of the wall to the
maximum length requirement based on a combination of internal and maximum
external stability requirements.
Step 7k:- Check Connection Strength: The connection of the reinforcements with
the facing, should be designed for 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 for all limit states.
Connections to Concrete Panels

Polyethylene geogrid reinforcements may be structurally connected to segmental
precast panels by casting a tab of the geogrid into the panel and connecting to the
full length of geogrid with a bodkin joint, as illustrated in Figure 4-20. The capacity
of the embedded connector as an anchorage must be checked by tests as required
by Article 5.11.3 AASHTO (2007) for each geometry used. A slat of polyethylene
is used for the bodkin. Care should be exercised during construction to eliminate
slack from this connection.
Polyester geogrids and geotextiles should not be cast into concrete for
connections, due to potential chemical degradation. Other types of geotextiles
also are not cast into concrete for connections due to fabrication and field
connection requirements.
Figure 4-17. Bodkin connection detail (looking at cross section of segmental panel face)
(FHWA-HRT-10-024).
Connections to MBW Units

GMSE walls constructed with MBW units are connected either by (i) a structural
connection subject to verification under AASHTO Article 5.11.3, (ii) friction
between the units and the reinforcement, including the friction developed from
the aggregate contained within the core of the units, or, (iii) a combination of
friction and shear from connection devices. This strength will vary with each
unit depending on its geometry, unit batter, normal pressure, depth of unit, and
unit infill gravel (if applicable). The connection strength is therefore specific to
each unit/reinforcement combination and must be developed uniquely by test
for each combination.
The nominal long-term connection strength, 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑐 developed by frictional and/or

structural means is determined as follows:
𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡. ×𝐶𝑅𝑐
𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑐 = (4-58)
𝑅𝐹𝐷
Where: 𝑇𝑎𝑙𝑐 =nominal long-term reinforcement/facing connection strength per

unit reinforcement width at a specified confining pressure; 𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡. =ultimate tensile
strength of the geosynthetic soil reinforcement defined as the Minimum Average
Roll Value (MARV); 𝐶𝑅𝑐 =long-term connection strength reduction factor to
account for reduced ultimate strength resulting from the connection; and,
𝑅𝐹𝐷 =reduction factor to account for chemical and biological degradation.
Step 7l:- Check Lateral Movements: In general, most internal lateral deformations
of an GMSE wall face usually occur during construction. Post construction
movements, however, may take place due to post construction surcharge loads,
settlement of wall fill, or long-term settlement of the foundation soils. The
magnitude of lateral displacement depends on fill placement techniques,
compaction effects, reinforcement extensibility, reinforcement length,
reinforcement-to-facing connection details, and details of the wall facing. The
rough estimate of probable lateral displacements of simple GMSE walls that
may occur during construction can be estimated based on empirical
correlations. In general, increasing the length-to-height ratio of reinforcement,
from its theoretical lower limit of 0.5H to the AASHTO specified 0.7H, decreases
the deformation by about 50 percent. For critical structures requiring precise
tolerances, such as bridge abutments, more accurate calculations using
numerical modeling may be warranted.
A deformation response analysis allows for an evaluation of the anticipated

performance of the structure with respect to horizontal (and vertical)
displacement. Horizontal deformation analyses are the most difficult and least
certain of the performed analyses. In many cases, they are done only
approximately. The results may impact the choice of facing, facing connections,
or backfilling sequences.
Step 7m:- Vertical Movement and Bearing Pads: Bearing pads are placed in
horizontal joints of segmental precast concrete panels in order to allow the
panel and the reinforcement to move down with the reinforced fill as it is
placed and settles, mitigate downdrag stress, and provide flexibility for
differential foundation settlements. Internal settlement within the reinforced
fill is practically immediate with some minor movement occurring after
construction due to elastic compression in granular materials. The amount of
total movement is the combination of the internal movement and external

differential movement. The bearing/compression pad thickness and
compressibility could be adjusted according to the anticipated movement.
Otherwise concrete panel cracking and/or downdrag on connections resulting
in bending of connections and/or out of plane panel movement can occur.
Normally the internal movement is negligible for well graded, granular fill and
external movement will usually control the compression pad requirements.
However, when using sand type fill and/or marginal fill containing an
appreciable amount of fines, the internal movement can be significant and
should be calculated to evaluate additional thickness requirements of the
bearing pad. Immediate settlement of granular fill can be calculated using the
Schmertmann method, as described in the FHWA NHI-06-088 and NHI-06-089,
Soils and Foundation Reference manuals (Samtani and Nowatzki, 2006).
The stiffness (axial and lateral), size, and number of bearing pads should be sized
such that the final joint opening will be at least 20 ± 3𝑚𝑚, unless otherwise
shown on the plans. A minimum initial joint width of ≅ 20𝑚𝑚is recommended.
The stiffness (axial and lateral), size, and number of bearing pads should be
checked assuming a vertical loading at a given joint equal to 2 to 3 times the weight
of facing panels directly above that level. Laboratory tests in the form of vertical
load-vertical strain and vertical load-lateral strain curves of the bearing pads are
required for this check.
Step 8: Design Facing Elements:
 Design of Concrete, Steel and Timber Facings
Facing elements are designed to resist the horizontal forces developed as

stipulated in in Section 4-I.1. Reinforcement is provided to resist the maximum
loading conditions at each depth in accordance with structural design
requirements in Section 5, 6 and 8 of AASHTO (2007) for concrete, steel and
timber facings, respectively. The embedment of the soil reinforcement to
panel connector must be developed by test, to ensure that it can resist the 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥
loads.
As a minimum, temperature and shrinkage steel must be provided for segmental

precast panel facing. Epoxy protection of panel reinforcement or a minimum of
75 mm of concrete cover is recommended where salt spray is anticipated.
For modular concrete facing blocks (MBW), sufficient inter-unit shear capacity
must be available, and the maximum spacing between reinforcement layers
should be limited to twice the front to back width, Wu of the modular concrete
facing unit or 800 mm, whichever is less. The maximum depth of facing below
the bottom reinforcement layer should typically be limited to the width, Wu of
the modular concrete facing unit used. The top row of reinforcement should be
limited to 1.5 the block depth (e.g. one unit plus a cap unit) (AASHTO 11.10.2.3.1
{2007}).
The factored inter-unit shear capacity as obtained by testing (ASTM D6916) at the
appropriate normal load should exceed the factored horizontal earth pressure at
the facing.
For seismic performance Zones 3 or 4, facing connections in modular block faced

walls (MBW) should use shear resisting devices between the MBW units and soil
reinforcement, and should not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between
the soil reinforcement and facing blocks. Shear resisting devices between the
facing blocks and soil reinforcement such as shear keys, pins, etc. should be used.
For connections partially or fully dependent on friction between the facing blocks
and the soil reinforcement, the nominal long-term connection strength 𝑻 𝒄
should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value. Further, the blocks above the
uppermost layer of soil reinforcement must be secured against toppling under all
seismic events.
 Design of Flexible Wall Facings
Welded wire or similar facing panels should be designed in a manner which prevents
the occurrence of excessive bulging as backfill behind the facing elements
compresses due to compaction stresses, self-weight of the backfill or lack of section
modulus.
Bulging at the face between soil reinforcement elements in both the horizontal and vertical
direction generally should be limited to 25 to 50 mm as measured from the theoretical wall
line. Specification requirements and design detailing to help achieve this tolerance might
include limiting the face panel height to 460 mm or less, the placement of a nominal 0.6 m
wide zone of rockfill or cobbles directly behind the facing, decreasing the vertical and
horizontal spacing between reinforcements, increasing the section modulus of the facing
material, and/or by providing sufficient overlap between adjacent facing panels.
Furthermore, the top of the flexible facing panel at the top of the wall should be
attached to a soil reinforcement layer to provide stability to the top of the facing
panel.
Geosynthetic facing elements generally should not be left exposed to sunlight

(specifically ultraviolet radiation) for permanent walls. If geosynthetic facing
elements must be left exposed permanently to sunlight, the geosynthetic should
be stabilized to be resistant to ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, product specific
test data should be provided which can be extrapolated to the intended design life
and which proves that the product will be capable of performing as intended in an
exposed environment. Alternately a protective facing should be constructed in
addition (e.g., concrete, shotcrete, etc.).
Step 9: Assess Overall Stability: This design step is performed to check the overall,
or global, stability of the wall. Overall stability is determined using rotational or
wedge analyses, as appropriate, to examine potential failure planes passing
behind and under the reinforced zone. Analyses can be performed using a classical
slope stability analysis method with standard slope stability computer programs.
In this step, the reinforced soil wall is considered analogous to a rigid body and
only failure surfaces completely outside a reinforced zone (e.g., global failure
planes) are considered. Computer programs that directly incorporate
reinforcement elements (e.g., ReSSA) can be used for analyses that investigate
both global and compound failure planes. See Chapter 2 for failure planes that pass
partially through the reinforced zone.
Most agencies typically perform global stability assessments for GMSE walls.
Global stability generally is assessed by the agency during feasibility design, which
might result in ground improvement or other wall options, and again after the wall
is designed. The GMSE wall vendors/suppliers typically exclude overall stability
check and responsibility in their package unless contract documents require such
an evaluation by the wall vendor/supplier.
Step 10: Assess Compound Stability: Additional slope stability analyses should be
performed for GMSE walls to investigate potential compound failure surfaces, i.e.,
failure planes that pass behind or under and through a portion of the reinforced
soil zone. For simple structures with rectangular geometry, relatively uniform
reinforcement spacing, and a near vertical face, compound failures passing both
through the unreinforced and reinforced zones will not generally be critical.
However, if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or
reinforcement lengths, high surcharge loads, seismic loading, sloping faced
structures, significant slopes at the toe or above the wall, or stacked (tiered)
structures, compound failures must be considered.
Note, however, that the method of incorporating the soil reinforcement strength
into the stability calculations does affect the magnitude of factor of safety
computed.
The evaluation of compound stability should be performed with reasonable

estimates of short- and long-term water pressures. If the evaluation of compound
stability does not indicate a satisfactory result then the reinforcement length,
reinforcement strength, reinforcement vertical spacing, and/or depth of wall may
have to be increased, or the foundation soil may have to be improved. The design
must be revised according to these changes, and compound stability rechecked as
appropriate.
Compound stability analyses require detailed information on both the subsurface

conditions (typically defined by the agency) and the soil reinforcement layout
(typically vendor defined). Unlike global stability analyses, the responsibility for
this analysis is not clearly defined. Agencies should perform an initial assessment
of a proposed GMSE wall structure with an assumed reinforcement layout to
determine if compound stability is a concern and must be addressed in final
design. Typical geometries where compound stability is of concern are illustrated
in Chapter 2. Generally, GMSE wall vendors/suppliers exclude compound
stability check and responsibility in their package, unless specifically required by

the Owner.
Compound stability can be addressed by selecting one of the following three

options for specifying and bidding the GMSE wall (Schwanz et al., 1997):
1. Agency Design. Agency prepares complete design for the GMSE wall
including external, internal, global, and compound stability analyses.
This requires material specifications for all wall components.
2. Vendor Design. Agency prepares line and grade plans, and allows
approved vendors to supply the complete design and wall components.
Agency is responsible for and must provide detailed subsurface
profile(s), soil shear strength, soil unit weight, and groundwater
information for the vendor to use in external, global, and compound
stability analyses. Agency should perform a feasibility analysis to ensure
global stability can be achieved with the line and grade provided to the
vendors.
3. Combined Design. Agency prepares line and grade plans, assesses global
and compound stability requirements, and specifies/detail
reinforcement requirements for adequate stability resistance. For
example, the agency might specify two layers of reinforcement within a
range of elevations (at bottom of wall) with minimum strength and
minimum lengths required. Wall vendor completes wall design with
incorporation of reinforcement required for adequate compound
stability resistance.
Step 11: Design Wall Drainage Systems: Drainage is a very important aspect in the
design and specifying of GMSE walls. The Agency should detail and specify
drainage requirements for vendor designed walls. Furthermore, the Agency
should coordinate the drainage design and detailing (e.g., outlets) within its own
designers and with the vendor. The Agency is also responsible for long-term
maintenance of drainage features.
 Subsurface Drainage
Subsurface drainage must be addressed in design. The primary component of

an GMSE wall is soil. Water has a profound effect on this primary component of
soil, as it can both decrease the soil shear strength (i.e., resistance) and increase
destabilizing forces (i.e., load). Thus, FHWA recommends drainage features be
required in all walls unless the engineer determines such feature is, or features
are, not required for a specific project or structure.
Drainage design and detailing are addressed in Appendix A8.4 included in

Volume II of these DG-3 Guidelines. Note that GMSE walls using free draining
reinforced fill do not typically need a full drainage system, but do need a method
for discharging water collected within the reinforced wall fill. Also note that GMSE
walls can be designed for water loads, if needed. Basic soil mechanics principles
should be used to determine the effect of phreatic surface on wall loads. See
discussion in Chapter 7 for design of GMSE walls for flood and scour events.
 Surface Water Runoff
Surface drainage is an important aspect of ensuring wall performance and must

be addressed during design and during construction. Appropriate drainage
measures to prevent surface water from infiltrating into the wall fill should be
included in the design of a GMSE wall structure. Surface drainage design and
detailing are addressed in Section 5.3.
 Scour
There are additional detailing considerations for walls that are exposed to
potential scour. The wall embedment depth must be below the Agency
predicted scour depth. Wall initiation and termination detailing should consider
and be design to protect from scour. Riprap may be used to protect the base
and ends of a wall. A coarse stone wall fill may desired to drain rapidly. The
reinforced wall fill at the bottom of the structure may be wrapped with a
geotextile filter to minimize loss of fill should scour exceed design predictions.
These items are discussed in detail in Appendix A8.4 included in Volume II of
these DG-3 Guidelines.
Step 12: Complete the GMSE Wall Design Review Checklist: Agencies should have
an established, or should establish a, protocol for checking designs. This is
particularly important for vendor supplied designs, but should also be used with
in-house designs. The protocol should assign responsibilities for the review and list
items that should be checked. Thus, the protocol can be in the form of a checklist.
Based upon work by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), an
example design checklist is included in Appendix A9 included in Volume II of
these DG-3 Guidelines. This example may be used by agencies to develop their
own checklist with their defined responsibilities and references to the agency’s
standard specifications, standard provisions, etc. Some of the items on the
following checklist are project specific, and others are project and wall structure
specific.
4.4 Design Details for GMSE Wall Elements and Drainage
4.4.1 Overview
Proper attention to details of various components is critical to the successful

implementation of GMSE wall projects. The GMSE wall design details are provided
in Appendix A8 of Volume II of this DG-3 Guideline. This appendix discusses various
details related to the following elements of GMSE walls:
 Top of wall elements such as copings, traffic barriers and geomembrane caps
 Bottom of wall elements such as leveling pads
 Drainage features such as filters, drains and pipes
 Internal elements such as obstructions in reinforced soil mass and slip joints
 Wall initiations and terminations
 Aesthetics
The example details shown in Appendix 8 have been used successfully in actual
projects. However, these details may need modifications to fit the requirements
of specific projects. Therefore, the user should treat the details in this chapter as
initial guidance and modify them as appropriate before actual implementation on
a given project and for a given product.
4.4.2 Internal Drainage
(a) Internal Drainage Systems
There are two specific forms of internal drainage as shown in Figure 5-4, (a)
drainage near wall face due to infiltration of surface water near the wall face,
and (b) drainage behind and under reinforced soil mass from groundwater.
Groundwater may be present at an elevation above the bottom of the wall and
would flow to the GMSE walls from an excavation backcut; or it may be present
beneath the bottom of the GMSE wall. A groundwater surface beneath a GMSE
wall may rise into the reinforced soil mass, depending on the hydrogeology of
the site. Surface water may infiltrate into the reinforced soil mass from above
or from the front face of the wall, for the case of flowing water in front of the
structure.
Figure D1. Potential sources and flowpaths of water.
(b) Internal Drainage Near Face of Wall
A filter is provided at all vertical and horizontal joints in the wall face to prevent
the migration of fines from the reinforced soil mass through the joints. The
location and configuration of the filter is a function of the type of wall facing
units as follows:
• For segmental precast wall facing units, the filter is commonly in the form of
geotextile fabric that is placed across all horizontal and vertical joints as
shown in Figure 8-5. The geotextile should extend a minimum of 100 mm
on either side of the joint and up into the coping to prevent soil from moving
around the geotextile. The geotextile filter characteristics should be such
that it is compatible with the backfill in the reinforced soil mass as discussed
in Section A8.4.6.
Figure D2. Example layout of filter at joints between segmental precast facing
units.
 Modular block wall (MBW) facing units are typically constructed with
a zone of free drainage aggregate adjacent to the back face of the
units. The minimum width of this aggregate zone is typically 1 ft (300
mm). In addition to serving as a back face drain, this aggregate is
required for stiffness of the wall face and constructability, i.e.,
placement and compaction of wall fill may be difficult based on the
configuration of the MBW units. This column of aggregate is often a high
permeability well graded gravel as discussed in Section 5.3.3. The
gradation of the aggregate should be used to determine the maximum
allowable vertical joint opening between MBW units, using slot criterion
given by Equation 5-8 in Section 5.3.3. The configuration of the gravel
filter is a function of whether the modular block unit is solid or with a
hollow-core. For solid modular block units, the well graded gravel
should be at least 1 ft (300 mm) wide as shown in Figure 5-6a. For
hollow-core modular block units, the well graded gravel should be at
least 1 ft (300 mm) wide with a minimum volume of 1 ft3 per ft2 (0.3
m3/m2) of wall face as illustrated in Figure 5-6b. The gradation of the
gravel should be sized to be compatible with the reinforced wall fill
gradation in the reinforced soil mass, i.e. meet soil filter criteria as
discussed in Section 5.3.3. Alternatively, a geotextile may be used
between the gravel and reinforced wall fill to meet filtration
requirements, as illustrated in Figure 5-6b. Finally, the construction
sequence should be specified to ensure a workable drain system.
Figure D3 Layout of drainage fabric and drainage fill at the face for modular
block units.
4.5 Seismic Design for GMSE Walls
Sub-sections 4.5.1 ~ 4.5.3 (Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations)

have been predominantly referenced from Chapter 6 of the Washington
State Department of Transportation Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM)
M46-03:2010 (WSDOT GDM:2010).
On the other hand, the seismic design methodology presented in sub-
Section 4.5.4 (Seismic Design Methodology) is referenced from Articles
11.6.5.2, 11.6.5.5, 11.10.7 ~ 11.10.9 and Appendix A11 of the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: 2010, 6th Edition.
Note that the full contents, of Chapter 6 of the WSDOT GDM, in the original
format, are included as Appendix 13.1 in Volume II of this KS DG-3 Guideline,
whilst the same is performed for the Articles excerpted from AASHTO LRFD:
2010, which are provided as Appendix 13.2.
4.5.1 Seismic Design Responsibility and Policy

Responsibility of the Geotechnical Designer: The geotechnical designer
is responsible for providing geotechnical/seismic input parameters to
the structural engineers for their use in structural design of the
transportation infrastructure (e.g., GMSE Walls, retaining walls, ferry
terminals, etc.). Specific elements to be addressed by the geotechnical
designer include the design ground motion parameters, site response,
geotechnical design parameters, and geologic hazards. The geotechnical
designer is also responsible for providing input for evaluation of soil-
structure interaction (foundation response to seismic loading),
earthquake-induced earth pressures on retaining walls, and an
assessment of the impacts of geologic hazards on the structures.
4.5.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Policies

Seismic Performance Objectives: In general, the AASHTO Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge shall be followed. Design
Specifications shall be followed for structure classification of GMSE
Walls.
In keeping with the current seismic design approaches employed both

nationally and internationally, geotechnical seismic design shall be
consistent with the philosophy for structure design that loss of life and
serious injury due to structure collapse are minimized, to the extent
possible and economically feasible. This performance objective shall be
achieved at a seismic risk level that is consistent with the seismic risk
level required in the AASHTO specifications (e.g., 7 percent probability
of exceedance in 75 years for other structures, or lower probability of
exceedance such as 2 percent in 50 years for critical or essential GMSE
Walls, as determined by the Chief Engineer (Materials) – see Appendix
13.1 this DG-3 GMSEW Design Guideline:2018 Volume II. The definition
of structure collapse is provided in the WSDOT LRFD Bridge Design
Manual M 23-50 (BDM). GMSE Walls, regardless of their AASHTO
classification, may suffer damage and may need to be replaced after a

design seismic event, but they are designed for non-collapse due to
earthquake shaking and geologic hazards associated with a design
seismic event.
In keeping with the no collapse philosophy, bridge approach embankments
and fills including GMSE Walls through which cut-and-cover tunnels are
constructed should be designed to remain stable during the design seismic
event because of the potential to contribute to collapse of the structure
should they fail. The aerial extent of approach abutments constructed of
GMSE Walls seismic design and mitigation (if necessary) should be such that
the structure is protected against instability or loading conditions that could
result in collapse. The typical distance of evaluation and mitigation is within
35m of the abutment or tunnel wall, but the actual distance should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Instability or other seismic hazards such
as liquefaction, lateral spread, downdrag, and settlement may require
mitigation near the abutment or tunnel wall to ensure that the structure is
not compromised during a design seismic event. The geotechnical designer
should evaluate the potential for differential settlement between mitigated
and non-mitigated soils. Additional measures may be required to limit
differential settlements to tolerable levels both for static and seismic
conditions. The bridge interior pier foundations should also be designed to
be adequately stable with regard to liquefaction, lateral flow, and other
seismic effects to prevent the GMSE Wall collapse.
All retaining walls and abutment walls shall be evaluated and
designed for seismic stability internally and externally (i.e. sliding and
overturning). With regard to overall seismic slope stability (often
referred to as global stability) involving a retaining wall, with or
without liquefaction, the geotechnical designer shall evaluate the
impacts of failure due to seismic loading, if failure is predicted to
occur. If collapse of the wall is likely during the design seismic event
(i.e., does not meet minimum slope stability level of safety
requirements during seismic loading in accordance with this DG-3
GMSEW Design Guideline:2018 Volume II Section 6.4.3.1 of
Appendix 13.1), and if that collapse is likely to cause loss of life or
severe injury to the traveling public, the stability of the wall shall be
improved such that the life safety of the traveling public during the
design seismic event is preserved. As a general guide, walls that are
less than 3.5m in height, or walls that are well away from the traveled
way, are not likely to cause loss of life or severe injury to the traveling
public. Therefore, the wall design may allow these lower height
walls, or walls that are well away from the traveled way, to deform,
translate, or rotate during a seismic event and overall stability of
these lower height walls may be compromised.
Note that the policy to stabilize retaining walls for overall stability
due to design seismic events may not be practical for walls placed on
or near large marginally stable landslide areas or otherwise
marginally stable slopes. In general, if the placement of a wall within
a marginally stable slope (i.e., marginally stable for static conditions)

has only a minor effect on the seismic stability of the landslide or
slope, or if the wall has a relatively low risk of causing loss of life or
severe injury to the traveling public if wall collapse occurs, the
requirement of the wall and slope to meet minimum seismic overall
stability requirements may be waived, subject to the approval of the
State Geotechnical Engineer.
Governing Design Specifications and Additional Resources: The
specifications applicable to seismic design of a given project depend upon
the type of facility.
The most current version of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD
Seismic Bridge Design shall be used for geotechnical seismic design, in
addition to the WSDOT BDM, GDM and Appendix 13.1 of this DG-3 GMSEW
Design Guideline:2018. Until the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD
Bridge Seismic Design are fully adopted in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications, the seismic design provisions in the Guide Specifications
regarding foundation design, liquefaction assessment, earthquake hazard
assessment, and ground response analysis shall be considered to supersede
the parallel seismic provisions in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications. Appendix 13.1 of this DG-3 GMSEW Design Guideline:2018
provides specific application of the AASHTO specifications to WSDOT design
policy and practice.
4.5.2 Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations

Overview: Geotechnical parameters required for seismic design depend
upon the type and importance of the structure, the geologic conditions at
the site, and the type of analysis to be completed. For most structures,
specification based design criteria appropriate for the site’s soil conditions
may be all that is required. Unusual, critical, or essential structures may
require more detailed structural analysis, requiring additional geotechnical
parameters. Finally, site conditions may require detailed geotechnical
evaluation to quantify geologic hazards.
Site Characterization and Development of Seismic Design Parameters: As

with any geotechnical investigation, the goal is to characterize the site soil
conditions and determine how those conditions will affect the structures or
features constructed when seismic events occur. In order to make this
assessment, the geotechnical designer should review and discuss the project
with the structural engineer, as seismic design is a cooperative effort
between the geotechnical and structural engineering disciplines. The
geotechnical designer should do the following as a minimum:
• Identify, in coordination with the structural designer, structural
characteristics (e.g., fundamental frequency/period), anticipated
method(s) of structural analysis, performance criteria (e.g., collapse
prevention, allowable horizontal displacements, limiting settlements,
target load and resistance factors, components requiring seismic
design, etc.) and design hazard levels (e.g., 7 percent PE in 75 years).
• Identify, in coordination with the structural engineer, what type of

ground motion parameters are required for design (e.g., response
spectra or time histories), and their point of application (e.g., mudline,
bottom of pile cap, or depth of pile fixity).
• Identify, in coordination with the structural engineer, how foundation
stiffness will be modeled and provide appropriate soil stiffness
properties or soil/foundation springs.
• Identify potential geologic hazards, areas of concern (e.g. soft soils),
and potential variability of local geology.
• Identify potential for large scale site effects (e.g., basin, topographic,
and near fault effects).
• Identify, in coordination with the structural designer, the method by
which risk-compatible ground motion parameters will be established
(specification/code, deterministic, probabilistic, or a hybrid).
• Identify engineering analyses to be performed (e.g. site specific
seismic response analysis, liquefaction susceptibility, lateral
spreading/slope stability assessments).
• Identify engineering properties required for these analyses.
• Determine methods to obtain parameters and assess the validity of
such methods for the material type.
• Determine the number of tests/samples needed and appropriate
locations to obtain them.
It is assumed that the basic geotechnical investigations required for non-

seismic (gravity load) design have been or will be conducted as described in
WSDOT GDM Chapters 2, 5 and the individual project element chapters
(e.g., WSDOT GDM Chapter 8 for foundations, WSDOT GDM Chapter 15 for
retaining walls, etc.). Typically, the subsurface data required for seismic
design is obtained concurrently with the data required for design of the
project (i.e., additional exploration for seismic design over and above what
is required for non-seismic foundation design is typically not necessary).
However, the exploration program may need to be adjusted to obtain the
necessary parameters for seismic design. For instance, a seismic cone might
be used in conjunction with a CPT if shear wave velocity data is required.
Likewise, if liquefaction potential is a significant issue, mud rotary drilling
with SPT sampling should be used. In this case, preference should be given
to drill rigs furnished with energy calibrated automatic SPT hammers.
Hollow-stem auger drilling and non-standard samplers (e.g., down-the-hole
or wire-line hammers) shall not be used to collect data used in liquefaction
analysis and mitigation design, other than to obtain samples for gradation.
The goal of the site characterization for seismic design is to develop the
subsurface profile and soil property information needed for seismic
analyses. Soil parameters generally required for seismic design include:
• Dynamic shear modulus at small strains or shear wave velocity;
• Shear modulus and material damping characteristics as a function of
shear strain;
• Cyclic and post-cyclic shear strength parameters (peak and residual);

• Consolidation parameters such as the Compression Index or Percent
Volumetric Strain resulting from pore pressure dissipation after cyclic
loading, and
• Liquefaction resistance parameters.
Table 4-7 provides a summary of site characterization needs and testing
considerations for geotechnical/seismic design.
The first part of Section 3 of this DG-3:2018 GMSE Walls Design Guideline
covers the requirements for using the results from the field investigation, the
field testing, and the laboratory testing program separately or in combination
to establish properties for static design. Many of these requirements are also
applicable for seismic design.
For routine designs, in-situ field measurements or laboratory testing for
parameters such as the dynamic shear modulus at small strains, shear
modulus and damping ratio characteristics versus shear strain, and residual
shear strength are generally not obtained. Instead, correlations based on
index properties may be used in lieu of in-situ or laboratory measurements
for routine design to estimate these values. However, if a site specific ground
motion response analysis is conducted, field measurements of the shear
wave velocity Vs should be obtained.
If correlations are used to obtain seismic soil design properties, and site- or region-
specific relationships are not available, then the following correlations may be
used:
• Table 4-7, which presents correlations for estimating initial shear modulus
based on relative density, penetration resistance or void ratio.
• Shear modulus reduction and equivalent viscous damping ratio equations
by Darendelli (2001), applicable to all soils, as provided in Figure 4-18, which
presents shear modulus reduction curves and equivalent viscous damping
ratio for sands as a function of shear strain and depth, and, Figures 4-19a
and 4-19b, which present shear modulus reduction curves and equivalent
viscous damping ratio, respectively, as a function of cyclic shear strain and
plasticity index for fine grained soils.
• Figures 4-20 through 4-22, which present charts for estimating equivalent
undrained residual shear strength for liquefied soils as a function of SPT
blowcounts. It is recommended that all these figures be checked to
estimate residual strength and averaged using a weighting scheme. Table
4-8 presents an example of a weighting scheme as recommended by
Kramer (2008). Designers using these correlations should familiarize
themselves with how the correlations were developed, assumptions used,
and any limitations of the correlations as discussed in the source
documents for the correlations before selecting a final weighting scheme
to use for a given project. Alternate correlations based on CPT data may
also be considered.
Other property value correlations may be used, subject to the approval of

the State Geotechnical Engineer. Designers are encouraged to develop
region or project specific correlations for these seismic design properties.
Regarding Figure 4-21, two curves are provided, one in which void
redistribution is likely, and one in which void redistribution is not likely.
Void redistribution becomes more likely if a relatively thick liquefiable
layer is capped by relatively impermeable layer. Sufficient thickness of a
saturated liquefiable layer is necessary to generate enough water for
void redistribution to occur, and need capping by a relatively
impermeable layer to prevent pore pressures from dissipating, allowing
localized loosening near the top of the confined liquefiable layer.
Engineering judgment will need to be applied to determine which curve
in Figure 4-21 to use.
When using the above correlations, the potential effects of variations
between the dynamic property from the correlation and the dynamic
property for the particular soil should be considered in the analysis. The
published correlations were developed by evaluating the response of a
range of soil types; however, for any specific soil, the behavior of any specific
soil can depart from the average, falling either above or below the average.
These differences can affect the predicted response of the soil. For this
reason, sensitivity studies should be conducted to evaluate the potential
effects of property variation on the design prediction. Typical variations are
as follows:
o In situ shear wave velocity: + 10 to 20 percent
o Shear modulus and viscous damping versus shear strain: + 20
percent
o Residual strength: + 20 percent
For those cases where a single value of the property can be used with the
knowledge that the specific property selection will produce safe design
results or for cases when the design is not very sensitive to variations in the
property being considered, a sensitivity analysis may not be required.
Table 4-7 Correlations for estimating initial shear modulus

(adapted from Kavazanjian, et al., 1997).
Reference Correlation Units(1) Limitations
Seed et al. (1984) Gmax = 220 (K2)max (σ’m)½ kPa (K2)max is about 30 for
very loose sands and
(K2)max = 20(N1)601/3 75 for very dense
sands; about 80 to 180
for dense well graded
gravels; Limited to
cohesionless soils
Imai and Tonouchi Gmax = 15,560 N600.68 kPa Limited to
(1982) cohesionless soils
Ohta and Goto Gmax = 20000(N1)60⅓ (σ′60)½ psf Limited to

(1976) cohesionless soils
Mayne and Rix Gmax = kPa(2) Limited to cohesive
(1993) 99.5(Pa)0.305(qc)0.695/(e0)1.13 soils;
Pa = atmospheric
pressure
Notes:
(1) 1 kPa = 20.885 psf
(2) Pa and qc in kPa
Modulus Reduction Curve (Darendelli, 2001): The modulus reduction curve

for soil, as a function of shear strain, should be calculated as shown in
Equations 6-1 and 6-2 of WSDOT GDM:2010.
𝑎
𝐺 1
=[ 𝛾] (4-59)
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 1+
𝛾𝑟
where,
𝐺= shear modulus at shear strain 𝛾, in the same units as 𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝛾 = shear strain (%), and
𝑎 = 0.92
𝛾𝑟 is defined in Equation 4-60 as:
′𝜙4
𝛾𝑟 = ((𝜙1 + 𝜙2 × 𝑃𝐼 × 𝑂𝐶𝑅 𝜙3 ) × 𝜎0 (4-60)
where,
𝜙1 = 0.0352; 𝜙2 = 0.0010; 𝜙3 = 0.3246; 𝜙4 = 0.3483

(from regression),
𝑂𝐶𝑅 = overconsolidation ratio for soil
𝜎0′ = effective vertical stress, in atmospheres, and
𝑃𝐼 = plastic index, in %
Damping Curve (Darendelli, 2001): The damping ratio for soil, as a function of
shear strain, should be calculated as shown in Equations 4-61 through 4-65.
Initial step: Compute closed-form expression for Massing Damping for a = 1.0
(standard hyperbolic backbone curve):
100 𝛾−𝛾𝑟 𝑙𝑛[(𝛾+𝛾𝑟 )]

𝐷𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔,𝑎 = 1(𝛾)[%] = 𝜋
[4 (𝛾+𝛾𝑟 )
2] (4-61)
𝐷𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔,𝑎 (𝛾)[%] = 𝑐1 (𝐷𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔,𝑎=1 ) + 𝑐2 (𝐷𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔,𝑎=2 )𝑐3 (𝐷𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔,𝑎=3 ) (4-62)
Where,
𝑐1 = 0.2523 + 1.861𝑎 1.1143𝑎2
𝑐2 = 0.0095 0.0710𝑎 0.0805𝑎2
𝑐3 = 0.0003 + 0.0002𝑎 0.0005𝑎2
Final step: Compute damping ratio as a function of shear strain:
𝐺 0.1
𝐷(𝛾) = 𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑏𝐷𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝛾) [𝐺 ] (4-63)
𝑚𝑎𝑥
where;
′𝜙8
𝐷𝑚𝑖𝑛 = (𝜙5 + 𝜙6 × 𝑃𝐼 × 𝑂𝐶𝑅 𝜙7 ) × 𝜎0 × [1 + 𝜙9 𝑙𝑛(𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞. )] (4-64)
𝑏 = 𝜙10 + 𝜙11 𝑙𝑛(𝑁) (4-65)
where; 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑞. = frequency of loading, in Hz, 𝑁 = number of loading cycles,

𝜙5 = 0.8005; 𝜙6 = 0.0129; 𝜙7 = 0.1069; 𝜙8 = 0.2889; 𝜙9 =
0.2919; 𝜙10 = 0.329; 𝜙11 = 0.005
Table 4-8 Weighting factors for residual

strength estimation (Kramer, 2008).
Model Weighting Factor
Idriss 0.2
Olson-Stark 0.2
Idriss-Boulanger 0.2
Hybrid 0.4
Figure 4-18 Shear modulus reduction and

damping ratio curves for sand (EPRI, 1993).
Figure 4-19 Strain level dependency for fine grained soils of: a) shear modulus reduction
curves; and b) equivalent viscous damping ratio (Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
Figure 4-20 Estimation of residual strength from SPT resistance

(Idriss and Boulanger, 2007).
Figure 4-21 Estimation of residual strength ratio from SPT

resistance (Olson and Stark, 2002)
Figure 4-22 a) Estimation of Residual Strength Ratio from SPT Resistance (Idriss and
Boulanger, 2007); and b) Variation of Residual Strength Ratio with SPT Resistance and
Initial Vertical Effective Stress Using Kramer-Wang Model (Kramer, 2008).
Information for Structural Design: The geotechnical designer shall recommend a

design earthquake ground motion, and shall evaluate geologic hazards for the
project. For code based ground motion analysis, the geotechnical designer shall
provide the Site Class B spectral accelerations at periods of 0.2 and 1.0 seconds, the
PGA, the site class, and the multipliers to the PGA and spectral accelerations to
account for the effect of the site class on the design accelerations. Note that the site
class should be determined considering the soils up to the ground surface, not just
soil below the foundations. In addition, the geotechnical designer should evaluate
the site and soil conditions to the extent necessary to provide the following input for
structural design:
• Foundation spring values for dynamic loading (lateral and vertical), as well
as geotechnical parameters for evaluation of sliding resistance applicable
to the foundation design. If liquefaction is possible, spring values for
liquefied conditions should also be provided (primarily applies to deep
foundations, as in general, shallow footings are not used over liquefied
soils).
• Earthquake induced earth pressures (active and passive) for retaining
structures and below grade walls, and other geotechnical parameters,
such as sliding resistance, needed to complete the seismic design of the
wall.
• If requested by the structural designer, passive soil springs to use to model
the abutment fill resistance to seismic motion of the bridge.
• Impacts of seismic geologic hazards including fault rupture, liquefaction,
lateral spreading, flow failure, and slope instability on the structure,
including estimated loads and deformations acting on the structure due to
the effects of the geologic hazard.
• If requested by the structural designer, for long GMSE Walls, potential for
incoherent ground motion effects.
• Options to mitigate seismic geologic hazards, such as ground
improvement. Note that seismic soil properties used for design should
reflect the presence of the soil improvement.
4.5.3 Seismic Hazard and Site Ground Motion Response Requirements

For most projects, design code/specification/ based seismic hazard and
ground motion response (referred to as the “General Procedure” in the
AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design) are appropriate
and should be used. However, a site specific hazard analysis should be
considered in the following situations:
• The facility is identified as critical or essential and a more accurate
assessment of hazard level is desired, or
• Information about one or more active seismic sources for the site has
become available since the USGS/AASHTO Seismic Hazard Maps were
developed (USGS 2002), and the new seismic source information may
result in a significant change of the seismic hazard at the site.
If the site is located within 10 kilometers of a known active fault capable of

producing a magnitude 5 earthquake and near fault effects are not
modeled in the development of national ground motion maps, directivity
and directionality effects should be considered as described in Article
3.4.3.1 of the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design
and its commentary (refer to Appendix 13.2 of Volume II of this DG-3
GMSEW Guideline).
A site specific ground motion response analysis should be performed in the
following situations:
• The facility is identified as critical or essential,
• Sites where geologic conditions are likely to result in un-conservative
spectral acceleration values if the generalized code response spectra is
used, or
• Site subsurface conditions are classified as Site Class F.
A site specific ground motion response analysis should also be considered,
subject to the approval of the Chief Engineer (Materials), for sites where the
effects of liquefaction on the ground motion could cause the ground motion
response to be overly conservative or un-conservative, or where the
AASHTO site classes do not fit the subsurface conditions adequately.
If a site specific hazard analysis is conducted, it shall be conducted in
accordance with AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge
Design and WSDOT GDM Appendix 6-A included in Appendix 13.1 of
Volume II of this DG-3 GMSEW Guideline. Note that where the response
spectrum is developed using a site-specific hazard analysis, a site specific
ground motion response analysis, or both, the AASHTO specifications
require that the spectrum not be lower than two-thirds of the response
spectrum at the ground surface determined using the general procedure of
the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, Article
3.4.1, adjusted by the site coefficients, 𝐹𝑝𝑔𝑎 in Article 3.4.2.3 in the region
of 0.5𝑇𝐹 𝑡𝑜 2𝑇𝐹 of the spectrum, where 𝑇𝐹 is the bridge fundamental period.
For other analyses such as liquefaction assessment and retaining wall design,
the free field acceleration at the ground surface determined from a site
specific analysis should not be less than two-thirds of the 𝑃𝐺𝐴 multiplied by
the specification based site coefficient 𝐹𝑝𝑔𝑎 .
When estimating the minimum ground surface response spectrum using

two-thirds of the response spectrum from the specification based
procedures provided in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD
Seismic Bridge Design, there are no site coefficients for liquefiable sites
or for sites that fall in Site Class F. No consensus currently exists regarding
the appropriate site coefficients for these cases. Unless directed
otherwise by the State Geotechnical Engineer and the State Bridge
Engineer, the following approach should be used:
• For liquefiable sites, use the specification based site coefficient for soil
conditions without any modifications for liquefaction. This approach is
believed to be conservative for higher frequency motions (i.e., 𝑇𝐹 <
1.0𝑠𝑒𝑐). If a site specific ground response analysis is conducted, the
response spectrum should be no lower than two-thirds of the non-liquefied
specification based spectrum, unless specifically approved by the State
Bridge and Geotechnical Engineers to go lower. However, when accepting a
spectrum lower than two-thirds of the specification based spectrum, the
uncertainties in the analysis method should be carefully reviewed,
particularly for longer periods (i.e., 𝑇𝐹 > 1.0𝑠𝑒𝑐) where increases in the
spectral ordinate may occur. Because of this, for structures that are
characterized as having a fundamental period, 𝑇𝐹 , greater than 1.0 sec., a
site specific ground response analysis should be considered if liquefiable
soils are determined to be present.
• For Site Class F soils, conduct a site specific ground response analysis. In
previous guidance documents, the suggestion was made to use a Site Class
E site coefficient for Site Class F soils. Use of 𝐹𝑝𝑔𝑎 , 𝐹𝑎 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝑦 from Site
Class E for Site Class F soils appears to be overly conservative and is not
recommended.
If a site specific analysis to establish a response spectrum that is lower than two-
thirds of the specification based spectrum is approved by the State Geotechnical
and Bridge Engineers, the site specific analysis should be independently peer
reviewed by someone with expertise in the site specific ground response analysis
technique used to conduct the analysis.
For further details on this subject with reference to: i) determination of seicmic
hazard level; ii) site ground motion response analysis; iii) adjusting ground
surface acceleration to other site classes; and iv) earthquake magnitude, refer to
sub-Sections 6.3.1 ~ 6.3.5 of the WSDOT GDM:2010 included as Appendix 13.1
in Volume II of this DG-3 GMSEW Guideline.
Section 6.4 of the WSDOT GDM:2010 (Appendix 13.1 of this DG-3) provides
details on seismic geologic hazards.
Liquefaction: Liquefaction has been one of the most significant causes of
damage to bridge structures during past earthquakes (ATC-MCEER Joint
Venture, 2002). Liquefaction can damage GMSE Walls and structures in
many ways including:
• Modifying the nature of ground motion;
• Bearing failure of shallow foundations founded above liquefied soil;
• Changes in the lateral soil reaction for deep foundations;
• Liquefaction induced ground settlement;
• Lateral spreading of liquefied ground;
• Large displacements associated with low frequency ground motion;
• Increased earth pressures on subsurface structures;
• Floating of buoyant, buried structures; and

• Retaining wall failure.
Liquefaction refers to the significant loss of strength and stiffness resulting
from the generation of excess pore water pressure in saturated,
predominantly cohesionless soils. Kramer (1996) provides a detailed
description of liquefaction including the types of liquefaction phenomena,
evaluation of liquefaction susceptibility, and the effects of liquefaction.
All of the following general conditions are necessary for liquefaction to
occur:
• The presence of groundwater, resulting in a saturated or nearly
saturated soil.
• Predominantly cohesionless soil that has the right gradation and
composition. Liquefaction has occurred in soils ranging from low
plasticity silts to gravels. Clean or silty sands and non-plastic silts are
most susceptible to liquefaction.
• A sustained ground motion that is large enough and acting over a long
enough period of time to develop excess pore-water pressure, equal to
the effective overburden stress, thereby significantly reducing effective
stress and soil strength,
• The state of the soil is characterized by a density that is low enough for
the soil to exhibit contractive behavior when sheared undrained under
the initial effective overburden stress.
Methods used to assess the potential for liquefaction range from empirically
based design methods to complex numerical, effective stress methods that
can model the time-dependent generation of pore-water pressure and its
effect on soil strength and deformation. Furthermore, dynamic soil tests
such as cyclic simple shear or cyclic triaxial tests can be used to assess
liquefaction susceptibility and behavior to guide input for liquefaction
analysis and design.
Liquefaction hazard assessment includes identifying soils susceptible
to liquefaction, evaluating whether the design earthquake loading
will initiate liquefaction, and estimating the potential effects of
liquefaction on the planned facility. Liquefaction hazard assessment
is required in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic
Bridge Design if the site Seismic Design Category (SDC) is classified as
SDC C or D, and the soil is identified as being potentially susceptible
to liquefaction (see WSDOT GDM Section 6.4.2.1). The SDC is defined
on the basis of the site-adjusted spectral acceleration at
1 second (i.e., SD1 = Fv S1) where SDC C is defined as 0.30 ≤SD1 < 0.5
and SDC D is defined as SD1 ≥ 0.50. Where loose to very loose,
saturated sands are within the subsurface profile such that
liquefaction could impact the stability of the structure, the potential
for liquefaction in SDC B (0.15 ≤ SD1 < 0.3) should also be considered
as discussed in the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic

Bridge Design.
To determine the location of soils that are adequately saturated for
liquefaction to occur, the seasonally averaged groundwater elevation
should be used. Groundwater fluctuations caused by tidal action or
seasonal variations will cause the soil to be saturated only during a
limited period of time, significantly reducing the risk that liquefaction
could occur within the zone of fluctuation.
For sites that require an assessment of liquefaction, the potential effects of
liquefaction on soils and foundations shall be evaluated. The assessment
shall consider the following effects of liquefaction:
• Loss in strength in the liquefied layer(s) with consideration of potential
for void redistribution due to the presence of impervious layers within
or bounding a liquefiable layer
• Liquefaction-induced ground settlement
• Flow failures, lateral spreading, and slope instability.
During liquefaction, pore-water pressure build-up occurs, resulting in
loss of strength and then settlement as the excess pore-water
pressures dissipate after the earthquake. The potential effects of
strength loss and settlement include: i) slope failure, flow failure or
lateral spreading; ii) reduced foundation bearing resistance; iii)
reduced soil stiffness and loss of lateral support for deep foundations;
and iv) vertical ground settlement as excess pore-pressures induced by
liquefaction dissipate, resulting in downdrag loads on and loss of
vertical support for deep foundations.
Further details on liquefaction in regard to the methods to evaluate
potential susceptibility of soil to liquefaction including: i) preliminary
screening; ii) liquefaction susceptibility of silts and gravels; iii)
assessment of liquefaction potential; and iv) can be referenced from
Section 6.4.2.1 of the WSDOT GDM:2010 included as Appendix 13.1 in
Volume II of this DG-3 GMSEW Guideline. Refer to Sections 6.4.2.2 ~
6.4.2.8 of the WSDOT GDM:2010 provided in the same Appendix 13.1
for: i) the assessment of liquefaction potential employing procedures
for evaluating liquefaction susceptibility using SPT, CPT, Vs; and BPT
and using simple procedures and nonlinear effective stress methods; ii)
minimum factor of safety against liquefaction; iii) liquefaction induced
settlement; iv) residual strength parameters and effects of using
laboratory test data; v) assessment of liquefaction potential; vi)
weakening instability due to liquefaction; and vii) combining seismic
inertial loading with analyses using liquefied soil strength.
On the other hand, reference can be made from Section 6.5 of the
WSDOT GDM:2010 included in Appendix 13 of this DG-3 GMSEW
Guideline for the input information and parameters for seismic
structural design including mitigation alternatives.
Mitigation Alternatives: The two basic options to mitigate the lateral spread
induced loads on the foundation system are to design the structure to
accommodate the loads or improve the ground such that the hazard does
not occur.
 Structural Options (design to accommodate imposed loads). See
WSDOT GDM Sections 6.5.4.1 included in Appendix 13 of this DG-3
GMSEW Guideline (displacement based approach) and 6.5.4.2
(force based approach) for more details on the specific analysis
procedures. Once the forces and/or displacements caused by the
lateral spreading have been estimated, the structural designer
should use those estimates to analyze the effect of those forces
and/or displacements will have on the structure to determine if
designing the structure to tolerate the deformation and/or lateral
loading is structurally feasible and economical.
 Ground Improvement. It is often cost prohibitive to design the bridge
foundation system to resist the loads and displacements imposed by
liquefaction induced lateral loads, especially if the depth of
liquefaction extends more than about 6m below the ground surface
and if a nonliquefied crust is part of the failure mass. Ground
improvement to mitigate the liquefaction hazard is the likely
alternative if it is not practical to design the foundation system to
accommodate the lateral loads.
The primary ground improvement techniques to mitigate liquefaction fall

into three general categories, namely densification, altering the soil
composition, and enhanced drainage. A general discussion regarding these
ground improvement approaches is provided below. WSDOT GDM:2010
Chapter 11, Ground Improvement, should be reviewed for a more detailed
discussion regarding the use of these techniques.
 Densification and Reinforcement: Ground improvement by
densification consists of sufficiently compacting the soil such that it
is no longer susceptible to liquefaction during a design seismic
event. Densification techniques include vibro-compaction, vibro-
flotation, vibro-replacement (stone columns), deep dynamic
compaction, blasting, and compaction grouting. Vibro-replacement
and compaction grouting also reinforce the soil by creating columns
of stone and grout, respectively. The primary parameters for
selection include grain size distribution of the soils being improved,
depth to groundwater, depth of improvement required, proximity
to settlement/vibration sensitive infrastructure, and access
constraints.
For those soils in which densification techniques may not be fully

effective to densify the soil adequately to prevent liquefaction, the
reinforcement aspect of those methods may still be used when
estimating composite shear strength and settlement characteristics of
the improved soil volume. See WSDOT GDM:2010 Chapter 11 for details
and references that should be consulted for guidance in establishing
composite properties for the improved soil volume.
If the soil is reinforced with vertical structural inclusions (e.g., drilled
shafts, driven piles, but not including the structure foundation
elements) but not adequately densified to prevent the soil from
liquefying, the design of the ground improvement method should
consider both the shear and moment resistance of the reinforcement
elements. For vertical inclusions that are typically not intended to have
significant bending resistance (e.g., stone columns, compaction grout
columns, etc.), the requirement to resist the potential bending
stresses caused by lateral ground movement may be waived,
considering only shear resistance of the improved soil plus inclusions,
if all three of the following conditions are met:
• The width and depth of the improved soil volume are equal to or
greater than the requirements provided in Figure 6-18 (refer to
Appendix 13.1 in Volume II of this DG-3),
• three or more rows of reinforcement elements to resist the forces
contributing to slope failure or lateral spreading are used, and
• the reinforcement elements are spaced center-to-center at less
than 5 times the reinforcement element diameter or 3m,
whichever is less.
Figure 4-26 shows the improved soil volume as centered around the
wall base or foundation. However, it is acceptable to shift the soil
improvement volume to work around site constraints, provided
that the edge of the improved soil volume is located at least 1.5m
outside of the wall or foundation being protected. Greater than
1.5m may be needed to insure stability of the foundation, prevent
severe differential settlement due to the liquefaction, and to
account for any pore pressure redistribution that may occur during
or after liquefaction initiation.
For the case where a “collar” of improved soil is placed outside and
around the foundation, bridge abutment or other structure to be
protected from the instability that liquefaction can cause, assume
“B” in Figure 6-18 (Appendix 13.1 of Volume II of this DG-3) is equal
to zero (i.e., the minimum width of improved ground is equal to D +
4.5m, but no greater than “Z”).
If the soil is of the type that can be densified through the use of stone
columns, compaction grout columns, or some other means to improve the
soil such that it is no longer susceptible to liquefaction within the improved
soil volume, Figure 6-18 (Appendix 13.1 of Volume II of this DG-3) should
also be used to establish the minimum dimensions of the improved soil.
If it is desired to use dimensions of the ground improvement that are less
than the minimums illustrated in Figure 4-23, more sophisticated analyses
to determine the effect of using reduced ground improvement dimensions

should be conducted (e.g., effective stress two dimensional analyses such
as FLAC). The objectives of these analyses include prevention of soil shear
failure and excessive differential settlement during liquefaction. The
amount of differential settlement allowable for this limit state will depend
on the tolerance of the structure being protected to such movement
without collapse. Use of smaller ground improvement area dimensions
shall be approved of the WSDOT State Geotechnical Engineer.
Another reinforcement technique that may be used to mitigate the
instability caused by liquefaction is the use of geosynthetic reinforcement as
a base reinforcement layer. In this case, the reinforcement is designed as
described in WSDOT GDM Chapter 9, but the liquefied shear strength is used
to conduct the embankment base reinforcement design.
Figure 4-23 Minimum Dimensions for Soil Improvement Volume Below

Foundations and Walls
Altering Soil Composition: Altering the composition of the soil typically

refers to changing the soil matrix so that it is no longer susceptible to
liquefaction. Example ground improvement techniques include permeation
grouting (either chemical or micro-fine cement), jet grouting, and deep soil
mixing. These types of ground improvement are typically morecostly than
the densification/reinforcement techniques, but may be the most effective
techniques if access is limited, construction induced vibrations must be kept
to a minimum, and/or the improved ground has secondary functions, such
as a seepage barrier or shoring wall.
 Drainage Enhancements: By improving the drainage properties of
soils susceptible to liquefaction, it may be possible to prevent the
build-up of excess pore water pressures, and thus liquefaction.
However, drainage improvement is not considered adequately
reliable by WSDOT to prevent excess pore water pressure buildup

due to liquefaction due to drainage path time for pore pressure to
dissipate, and due to the potential for drainage structures to
become clogged during installation and in service. In addition, with
drainage enhancements some settlement is still likely. Therefore,
drainage enhancements shall not be used as a means to mitigate
liquefaction. However, drainage enhancements may provide some
potential benefits with densification and reinforcement techniques
such as stone columns.
Reference on the following topics can be made from Appendices 6-

A.1 ~ 6-A.4 provided in WSDOT GDM:2010, and included in
Appendix 13.1 of Volume II of this DG-3 GMSEW Guideline.
6-A.1: Background information for performing site specific analyses.
6-A.2: Design earthquake magnitude.
6-A.3: Probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard analysis.
6-A.4: Selection of attenuation relationships.
4.5.4 Seismic Design Methodology
Estimation of Acceleration Acting on Wall Mass: The seismic lateral wall

acceleration coefficient, 𝑘ℎ , shall be determined considering the effects
of wave scattering or ground motion amplification within the wall and
the ability of the wall to displace laterally. For wall heights less than
18.5m, simplified pseudo-static analyses may be considered acceptable
for use in determining the design wall mass acceleration. For wall heights
greater than 18.5m, special dynamic soil structure interaction design
analyses should be performed to assess the effect of spatially varying
ground motions within and behind the wall and lateral deformations on
the wall mass acceleration. The height of wall, 𝐻, shall be taken as the
distance from the bottom of the heel of the retaining structure to the
ground surface directly above the heel. If the wall is free to move
laterally under the influence of seismic loading and if lateral wall
movement during the design seismic event is acceptable to the Owner,
𝑘ℎ0 should be reduced to account for the allowed lateral wall
deformation. The selection of a maximum acceptable lateral
deformation should take into consideration the effect that deformation
will have on the stability of the wall under consideration, the desired
seismic performance level, and the effect that deformation could have
on any facilities or structures supported by the wall. Where the wall is
capable of displacements of 1.0 to 2.0 in. or more during the design
seismic event, 𝑘ℎ may be reduced to 0.5kh0 without conducting a
deformation analysis using the Newmark
Commentary: The designer may use 𝑘ℎ for wall design without
accounting for wave scattering and lateral deformation effects;
however, various studies have shown that the ground motions in the
mass of soil behind the wall will often be lower than 𝑘ℎ0 at the ground
surface, particularly for taller walls. However, in some cases, it is possible
to have amplification of the ground motion in the wall relative to the
wall base ground motion. The desired performance of walls during a
design seismic event can range from allowing limited damage to the wall
or displacement of the wall to requiring damage-free, post-earthquake
conditions. In many cases, a well-designed GMSE wall could slide several
centimeters and perhaps even a 0.3m or more, as well as tilt several
degrees, without affecting the function of the wall or causing collapse,
based on past performance of walls in earthquakes. However, the effect
of such deformation on the facilities or structures located above, behind,
or in front of the wall must also be considered when establishing an
allowable displacement. Recent work completed as part of NCHRP
Report 611 (Anderson et al., 2008) concluded that, when using the
Newmark method, the amount of permanent ground displacement
associated with 𝑘ℎ = 0.5𝑘ℎ0 will in most cases be less than 2.5 to 5cm.
(i.e., use of 𝑘ℎ = 0.5𝑘ℎ0 provides conservative results). Details of
specific simplified procedures that may be used to estimate wave
scattering effects and lateral wall deformations to determine 𝑘ℎ are
provided in method (Newmark, 1965) or a simplified version of it. This
reduction in 𝑘ℎ shall also be considered applicable to the investigation
of overall stability of the wall and slope. A Newmark sliding block analysis
or a simplified form of that type of analysis should be used to estimate
lateral deformation effects, unless the Owner approves the use of more
sophisticated numerical analysis methods to establish the relationship
between 𝑘ℎ and the wall displacement. Simplified Newmark analyses
should only be used if the assumptions used to develop them are valid
for the wall under consideration.
Calculation of Seismic Active Earth Pressures: Seismic active and
passive earth pressures for gravity and semigravity retaining walls shall
be determined following the methods described in this Article. Site
conditions, soil and retaining wall geometry, and the earthquake ground
motion determined for the site shall be considered when selecting the
most appropriate method to use. The seismic coefficient (𝑘ℎ ) used to
calculate seismic earth pressures shall be the site-adjusted peak ground
surface acceleration identified in Article 11.6.5.2.1 of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications:2012 6th Edition included in Volume II
Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3 GMSEW Guideline (i.e., As) after adjustments
for 1) spectral or wave scattering effects and 2) limited amounts of
permanent deformation as determined appropriate for the wall and
anything the wall movement could affect (Article 11.6.5.2.2-Appendix
13). The vertical acceleration coefficient (𝑘𝑣 ) should be assumed to be
zero for design as specified in Article 11.6.5.2.1-Appendix 13. For seismic
active earth pressures, either the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) Method or
the Generalized Limit Equilibrium (GLE) Method should be used (refer to
Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3 GMSEW Guideline). For wall geometry or site
conditions for which the M-O Method is not suitable, the GLE Method
should be used. The M-O Method shall be considered acceptable for
determination of seismic active earth pressures only where:
• The material behind the wall can be reasonably approximated as a

uniform, cohesionless soil within a zone defined by a 3H:1V wedge from
the heel of the wall, • The backfill is not saturated and in a loose enough
condition such that it can liquefy during shaking, and
Commentary: The suitability of the method used to determine active and
passive earth seismic pressures should be determined after a review of
features making up the static design, such as backfill soils and slope
above the retaining wall. These conditions, along with the ground
motion for a site, will affect the method selection. The complete M-O
equation is provided in Appendix A11 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications:2012 6th Edition included in Volume II Appendix
13.2 of this DG-3 GMSEW Guideline. The M-O equation for seismic
active earth pressure is based on the Coulomb earth pressure theory and
is therefore limited to design of walls that have homogeneous, dry
cohesionless backfill. The M-O equation has been shown to be most
applicable when the backfill is homogenous and can be characterized as
cohesionless. Another important limitation of the M-O equation is that
there are combinations of acceleration and slope angle in which real
solutions to the equation are no longer possible or that result in values
that rapidly approach infinity. The contents of the radical in this equation
must be positive for a real solution to be possible. In past practice, when
the combination of acceleration and slope angle results in a negative
number within the radical in the equation, rather than allowing that
quantity to become negative, it was artificially set at zero. While this
practice made it possible to get a value of 𝐾𝐴𝐸 , it also tended to produce
excessively conservative results. Therefore, in such cases it is better to
use an alternative method.
The combination of peak ground acceleration and backslope angle do
not exceed the friction angle of the soil behind the wall, as specified in
Equation 4-66 (Eq. 11.6.5.3-1).
𝑘
ϕ′𝑟𝑏𝑓 = 𝑖 + 𝜃𝑀𝑂 = 𝑖 + 𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛 [(1−𝑘
ℎ
)
] (4-66)
𝑣
where:
ϕ′𝑟𝑏𝑓 = the reinforced wall backfill friction angle 𝑖 = backfill slope angle
(degrees) 𝑘ℎ = the horizontal acceleration coefficient 𝑘𝑣 = the vertical
acceleration coefficient
Once 𝐾𝐴𝐸 is determined, the seismic active force, 𝑃𝐴𝐸 , shall be
determined as:
𝑃𝐴𝐸 = 0.5𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 𝐻2 𝐾𝐴𝐸 (4-67)
where:
KAE = seismic active earth pressure coefficient (dim) 𝛾𝑟𝑏𝑓 = the soil unit
weight behind the reinforced wall (𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚3 ) 𝐻 = the total wall height,
including any soil surcharge present, at the back of the wall
The external active force computed from the generalized limit

equilibrium method, distributed over the wall height h, shall be used as
the seismic earth pressure. The equivalent pressure representing the
total static and seismic active force (𝑃𝐴𝐸 ) as calculated by either method
should be distributed using the same distribution as the static earth
pressure used to design the wall when used for external stability
evaluations, but no less than H/3. For the case when a sloping soil
surcharge is present behind the wall face this force shall be distributed
over the total height, H.
Calculation of Seismic Passive Earth Pressure: For estimating seismic
passive earth pressures, wall friction and the deformation required to
mobilize the passive resistance shall be considered and a log spiral
design methodology shall be used. The M-O Method shall not be used
for estimating passive seismic earth pressure. Seismic passive earth
pressures shall be estimated using procedures that account for the
friction between the retaining wall and the soil, the nonlinear failure
surface that develops in the soil during passive pressure loading, and for
wall embedment greater than or equal to 1.5m, the inertial forces in the
passive pressure zone in front of the wall from the earthquake. For wall
embedment depths less than 1.5m, passive pressure should be
calculated using the static methods provided in Section 3 of the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications:2012 6th Edition. In the absence of
any specific guidance or research results for seismic loading, a wall
interface friction equal to two-thirds of the soil friction angle should be
used when calculating seismic passive pressures.
External Stability: External stability evaluation of MSE walls for seismic
loading conditions shall be conducted as specified in Article 11.6.5 of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications:2012 6th Edition included in
Appendix 13.2 of Volume II of this DG-3 GMSEW Guideline except as
modified in this Article for MSE wall design. Wall mass inertial forces
(PIR) shall be calculated based on an effective mass having a minimum
width equal to the structural facing width (𝑊𝑢) plus a portion of the
reinforced backfill equal to 50 percent of the effective height of the wall.
For walls in which the wall backfill surface is horizontal, the effective
height shall be taken equal to 𝐻 in Figure 4-29. For walls with sloping
backfills, the inertial force, 𝑃𝐼𝑅 , shall be based on an effective mass
having a height 𝐻2 and a base width equal to a minimum of 0.5𝐻2, in
which 𝐻2 is determined as follows:
0.5𝐻𝑡𝑎𝑛(𝛽)
𝐻2 = 𝐻 + [1−0.5𝑡𝑎𝑛(𝛽)] (4-68)
where:
β = slope of backfill (degrees)
𝑃𝐼𝑅 for sloping backfills shall be determined as:
𝑃𝐼𝑅 = 𝑃𝑖𝑟 + 𝑃𝑖𝑠 (4-69)
where:
𝑃𝑖𝑟 = the inertial force caused by acceleration of the reinforced backfill

(𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚), 𝑃𝑖𝑠 = the inertial force caused by acceleration of the sloping
soil surcharge above the reinforced backfill (𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚).
PIR shall act at the combined centroid of reinforced wall mass inertial
force, 𝑃𝑖𝑟 , and the inertial force resulting from the mass of the soil
surcharge above the reinforced wall volume, 𝑃𝑖𝑠 . 𝑃𝑖𝑟 shall include the
inertial force from the wall facing. The determination of the MSE wall
inertial forces shall be as illustrated in Figure 4-27.
Mass for Resisting Forces
(b) Sloping Backfill Condition
Figure 4-24 Seismic External Stability of an MSE Wall (AASHTO LRFD:2010)

Commentary: Since the reinforced soil mass is not really a rigid block, the
inertial forces generated by seismic shaking are unlikely to peak at the
same time in different portions of the reinforced mass when reinforcing
strips or layers start becoming very long, as in the case of MSE walls with
steep backslopes in moderately to highly seismic areas. This introduces
excessive conservatism if the full length of the reinforcing strips is used
in the inertia determination. Past design practice, as represented in
previous editions of these Specifications, recommended that wall mass
inertial force be limited to a soil volume equal to 50 percent of the
effective height of the wall.
Internal Stability: Reinforcements shall be designed to withstand

horizontal forces generated by the internal inertia force, 𝑃𝑖 , and the
static forces. The total inertia force, 𝑃𝑖 , per unit length of structure shall
be considered equal to the mass of the active zone times the wall
acceleration coefficient, 𝑘ℎ , reduced for lateral displacement of the wall
during shaking. The reduced acceleration coefficient, 𝑘ℎ , should be
consistent with the value of 𝑘ℎ used for external stability.
Commentary: In past design practice, as presented in previous editions
of these Specifications, the design method for seismic internal stability
assumes that the internal inertial forces generating additional tensile
loads in the reinforcement act on an active pressure zone that is
assumed to be the same as that for the static loading case. A bilinear
zone is defined for inextensible reinforcements such as metallic strips
and a linear zone for extensible strips.
For walls with extensible reinforcement, this inertial force shall be
distributed uniformly to the reinforcements on a load per unit width of
wall basis as follows:
𝑃
𝑇𝑚𝑑 = 𝛾 [ 𝑛𝑖] (4-70)
where:
𝑇𝑚𝑑 = factored incremental dynamic inertia force at Layer 𝑖 𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
𝛾 = load factor for EQ loads from Table 2.7 in sub-Section 2.7 of Section
2 of this DG-3 GMSEW Guideline.
𝑃𝑖 = internal inertia force due to the weight of backfill within the active
zone, i.e., the shaded area on Figure 4-29 (𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚)
𝑘ℎ 𝑊𝑎 = where 𝑊𝑎 is the weight of the active zone and 𝑘ℎ is calculated
as specified in Article 11.6.5.1 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications:2012, 6th Edition (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3).
𝑛 = total number of reinforcement layers in the wall (dim)
This pressure distribution should be determined from the total inertial
force using 𝑘ℎ (after reduction for wave scattering and lateral
displacement). The total factored load applied to the reinforcement on
a load per unit of wall width basis as shown in Figure 4-29 is determined
as follows:
𝑇𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑇𝑚𝑑 (4-71)
where:
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = the factored static load applied to the reinforcements
determined using Equation 4-8 presented in Section 4.2 of this DG-3
Guideline.
angle of active zone boundary as

determined
Figure 4-25 Seismic Internal Stability of an MSE Wall (AASHTO LRFD:2010)
Whereas it could reasonably be anticipated that these active zones

would extend outwards for seismic cases, as for M-O analyses, results
from numerical and centrifuge models indicate that the reinforcement
restricts such outward movements and only relatively small changes in
location are seen. In past design practice, as presented in previous
editions of these Specifications, the total inertial force is distributed to
the reinforcements in proportion to the effective resistant lengths, 𝐿𝑒𝑖 .
This approach follows the finite element modeling conducted by
Segrestin and Bastick (1988) and leads to higher tensile forces in lower
reinforcement layers. In the case of internal stability evaluation,
Vrymoed (1989) used a tributary area approach that assumes that the
inertial load carried by each reinforcement layer increases linearly with
height above the toe of the wall for equally spaced reinforcement layers.
A similar approach was used by Ling et al. (1997) in limit equilibrium
analyses as applied to extensible geosynthetic reinforced walls. This
concept would suggest that longer reinforcement lengths could be
needed at the top of walls with increasing acceleration levels, and the
AASHTO approach could be un-conservative, at least for geosynthetic
reinforced walls. Numerical modeling of both steel and geosynthetic
reinforced walls by Bathurst and Hatami (1999) shows that the
distribution of the reinforcement load increase caused by seismic
loading tends to become more uniform with depth as the reinforcement
stiffness decreases, resulting in a uniform distribution for geosynthetic
reinforced wall systems and a triangular distribution for typical steel
reinforced wall systems. Hence, the Segrestin and Bastick (1988) method
has been preserved for steel reinforced wall systems and, for
geosynthetic reinforced wall systems, a uniform load distribution

approach is specified. With regard to the horizontal acceleration
coefficient, 𝑘ℎ , past editions of these Specifications have not allowed 𝑘ℎ
to be reduced to account for lateral deformation.
Based on the excellent performance of MSE walls in earthquakes to date,

it appears that this is likely a conservative assumption and it is therefore
reasonable to allow reduction of 𝑘ℎ for internal stability design
corresponding to the lateral displacement permitted in the design of the
wall for external stability.
For geosynthetic reinforcement rupture, the reinforcement shall be
designed to resist the static and dynamic components of the load
determined as:
For the static component:
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑅𝐹
𝑆𝑟𝑠 ≥ 𝜙𝑅𝑐
(4-72)
For the dynamic component:

𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑅𝐹𝐼𝐷 𝑅𝐹𝐷
𝑆𝑟𝑡 ≥ (4-73)
𝜙𝑅𝑐
where:
𝜙 = resistance factor for combined static/earthquake loading from Table
2-8 in sub-Section 2.7 of Section 2 of this DG-3 (dim.)
𝑆𝑟𝑠 = ultimate reinforcement tensile resistance required to resist static
load component (𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚)
of this DG-3 dynamic load component (𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚)
𝑅𝑐 = reinforcement coverage ratio specified in Article 11.10.6.4.1
(Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3) (dim.) 𝑅𝐹 = combined strength reduction
factor to account for potential long-term degradation due to installation
damage, creep, and chemical aging specified in Article 11.10.6.4.3b
(Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3) (dim.)
𝑅𝐹𝐼𝐷 = strength reduction factor to account for installation damage to
reinforcement specified in Article 11.10.6.4.3b (Appendix 13.2) (dim.)
𝑅𝐹𝐷 = strength reduction factor to prevent rupture of reinforcement due
to chemical and biological degradation specified in Article 11.10.6.4.3b
The required ultimate tensile resistance of the geosynthetic
reinforcement shall be determined as:
𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑆𝑟𝑠 + 𝑆𝑟𝑡 (4-74)
For pullout of steel or geosynthetic reinforcement:
𝑇𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝐹𝐼𝐷 𝑅𝐹𝐷
𝐿𝑒 ≥ 𝜙0.8𝐹 ∗ 𝛼𝜎𝑣 𝐶𝑅𝑐
(4-75)
where:
𝐿𝑒 = length of reinforcement in resisting zone (m)

𝑇𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = maximum factored reinforcement tension from Equation 4-71
𝑘𝑁⁄𝑚
𝜙 = resistance factor for reinforcement pullout from Table 2-8 (dim.) 𝐹 ∗
= pullout friction factor (dim.)
α = scale effect correction factor (dim.)
𝜎𝑣 = unfactored vertical stress at the reinforcement level in the resistant
zone (kPa)
𝐶 = overall reinforcement surface area geometry factor (dim.)
𝑅𝑐 = reinforcement coverage ratio specified in Article 11.10.6.4.1
The reinforcement must be designed to resist the dynamic component
of the load at any time during its design life. Design for static loads
requires the strength of the reinforcement at the end of the design life
to be reduced to account for creep and other degradation mechanisms.
Strength loss in polymeric materials due to creep requires long term,
sustained loading. The dynamic component of load for seismic design is
a transient load and does not cause strength loss due to creep. The
resistance of the reinforcement to the static component of load, 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,
must, therefore, be handled separately from the dynamic component of
load, Tmd. The strength required to resist Tmax must include the effects
of creep, but the strength required to resist 𝑇𝑚𝑑 should not include the
effects of creep.
For seismic loading conditions, the value of 𝐹 ∗ , the pullout resistance
factor, shall be reduced to 80 percent of the value used for static design,
unless dynamic pullout tests are performed to directly determine the 𝐹 ∗
value.
Facing Reinforcement Connections: Facing elements shall be designed
to resist the seismic loads determined as specified in Article on Internal
Stability, i.e., 𝑇𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 . Facing elements shall be designed in accordance
with applicable provisions of Sections 5, 6, and 8 of the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications:2012, 6th Edition for reinforced concrete,
steel, and timber, respectively, except that for the Extreme Event I limit
state, all resistance factors should be 1.0, unless otherwise specified for
this limit state. For segmental concrete block faced walls, the blocks
located above the uppermost backfill reinforcement layer shall be
designed to resist toppling failure during seismic loading. For
geosynthetic connections subjected to seismic loading, the factored
long-term connection strength, 𝜙𝑇𝑎𝑐 , must be greater than 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝑇𝑚𝑑 .
If the connection strength is partially or fully dependent on friction
between the facing blocks and the reinforcement, the connection
strength to resist seismic loads shall be reduced to 80 percent of its static
value as follows:
For the static component of the load:
𝑇
𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑅𝐹𝐷
𝑆𝑟𝑠 ≥ 𝜙0.8𝐶𝑅 (4-76)
𝑐𝑟 𝑅𝑐
For the dynamic component of the load:

𝑇
𝑚𝑑 𝑅𝐹𝐷
𝑆𝑟𝑡 ≥ 𝜙0.8𝐶𝑅 (4-77)
𝑢 𝑅𝑐
where:
𝐶𝑅𝑐𝑟 = long-term connection strength reduction factor to account for

reduced ultimate strength resulting from connection (dim.)
𝐶𝑅𝑢 = short-term reduction factor to account for reduced ultimate
strength resulting from connection as specified in Article C11.10.6.4.4b
For mechanical connections that do not rely on a frictional component,
the 0.8 multiplier may be removed from Equations 4-76 and 4-77. The
required ultimate tensile resistance of the geosynthetic reinforcement
at the connection is:
𝑇𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝑆𝑟𝑠 + 𝑆𝑟𝑡 (4-78)
For structures in seismic performance Zones 3 or 4, facing connections
in segmental block faced walls shall use shear resisting devices between
the facing blocks and soil reinforcement such as shear keys, pins, etc.,
and shall not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between the soil
reinforcement and facing blocks.
The connection capacity of a facing/reinforcement connection system
that is fully dependent on the shear resisting devices for the connection
capacity will not be significantly influenced by the normal stress between
facing blocks. The percentage of connection load carried by the shear
resisting devices relative to the frictional resistance to meet the
specification requirements should be determined based on past
successful performance of the connection system. Some judgment may
be required to determine whether or not a specific shear resisting device
or combination of devices is sufficient to meet this requirement in
Seismic Performance Zones 3 and 4. The ability of the shear resisting
device or devices to keep the soil reinforcement connected to the facing,
should vertical acceleration significantly reduce the normal force
between the reinforcement and the facing blocks, should be evaluated.
Note that in some cases, coarse angular gravel placed within the hollow
core of the facing blocks, provided that the gravel can remain interlocked
during shaking, can function as a shear restraining device to meet the
requirements of this Article.
Wall Details for Improved Seismic Performance: Details that should be
addressed for gravity and semigravity walls in seismically active areas,
defined as Seismic Zone 2 or higher, or a peak ground acceleration As
greater than 0.15g, include the following:
Commentary: These recommended details are based on previous

experiences with walls in earthquakes (e.g., Yen et al., 2011). Walls that
did not utilize these details tended to have a higher frequency of
problems than walls that did utilize these details.
• Vertical Slip Joints, Expansion Joints, and Vertical Joints between an
Abutment Curtain Wall and the Free-Standing Wall: Design to prevent
joint from opening up and allowing wall backfill to flow through the open
joint without sacrificing the joint’s ability to slip to allow differential
vertical movement. This also applies to joints at wall corners.
Compressible joint fillers, bearing pads, and sealants should be used to
minimize damage to facing units due to shaking. The joint should also be
designed in a way that allows a minimum amount of relative movement
between the adjacent facing units to prevent stress build-up between
facing units during shaking (Extreme Event I), as well as due to
differential deformation between adjacent wall sections at the joint for
the service and strength limit states.
• Coping at Wall Top: Should be used to prevent toppling of top facing
units and excessive differential lateral movement of the facing.
• Wall Corners and Abrupt Facing Alignment Changes: Should be
designed for the potential for higher loads to develop during shaking
than would be determined using two-dimensional analysis. Wall corners
and short radius turns are defined as having an enclosed angle of 120
degrees or less.
• Wall Backfill Stability: Backfill should be well graded and angular
enough to interlock/bind together well to minimize risk of fill spilling.
With regard to preventing joints from opening up during shaking, this
can be addressed through use of a backup panel placed behind the joint,
a slip joint cover placed in front of the joint, or the placement of the
geotextile strip behind the facing panels to bridge across the joint. The
special units should allow differential vertical movement between facing
units to occur while maintaining the functionality of the joint. The
amount of overlap between these joint elements and the adjacent facing
units is determined based on the amount of relative movement between
facing units that is anticipated in much the same way that the bridge seat
width is determined for GMSE Walls. Little guidance on the amount of
overlap between the backing panel and the facing panels is available for
walls but past practice has been to provide a minimum overlap of 50 to
10mm. A geotextile strip may also be placed between the backfill soil
and the joint or joint and backing panel combination. Typical practice has
been to use a minimum overlap of the geotextile beyond the edges of
the joint of 150 to 225mm. and the geotextile is usually attached to the
back of the panel using adhesive. Typically, a Class 1 or Class 2 high
elongation (>50 percent strain at peak strength) drainage geotextile in
accordance with AASHTO M 288 is used. Similarly, this technique may
be applied to the joint between the facing units and protrusions through
the wall facing. For wall corners, not cast monolithically, a special facing
unit formed to go across the corner, providing overlap with adjacent
panels, should be used. Regarding the design of wall corners and abrupt
changes in the facing alignment, both static and seismic earth pressure
through open wall joints.
• Wall Backfill Silt and Clay Content: Wall backfills classified as a silt or
clay should in general not be used in seismically active areas.
• Structures and Foundations within the Wall Active Zone: The effect of
these structures and foundations on the wall seismic loading shall be
evaluated and the wall designed to take the additional load.
loading may be greater than what would be determined from two-
dimensional analysis. Historically, corners and abrupt alignment changes
in walls have had a higher incidence of performance problems during
earthquakes than relatively straight sections of the wall alignment, as
the corners tend to attract dynamic load and increased earth pressures.
This should be considered when designing a wall corner for seismic
loading.
• Protrusions through the Wall Face: The additional seismic force
transmitted to the wall, especially the facing, through the protruding
structure (e.g., a culvert or drainage pipe) shall be evaluated. The effect
of differential deformation between the protrusion and the wall face
shall also be considered. Forces transmitted to the wall face by the
protruding structure should be reduced through the use of compressible
joint filler or bearing pads and sealant.
Note that the corner or abrupt alignment change enclosed angle as
defined in the previous paragraph can either be internal or external to
the wall. With regard to wall backfill materials, walls that have used
compacted backfills with high silt or clay content have historically
exhibited more performance problems during earthquakes than those
that have utilized compacted granular backfills. This has especially been
an issue if the wall backfill does not have adequate drainage features to
keep water out of the backfill and the backfill fully drained. Also, very
uniform clean sand backfill, especially if it lacks angularity, has also been
problematic with regard to wall seismic performance. The issue is how
well it can be compacted and remain in a compacted state. A backfill soil
coefficient of uniformity of greater than 4 is recommended and, in
general, the backfill particles should be classified as subangular or
angular rather than rounded or subrounded. The less angular the backfill
particles, the more well graded the backfill material needs to be. For
additional information on good wall details, see Berg et al. (2009). While
this reference is focused on GMSE wall details, similar details could be
adapted for gravity and semigravity walls.
Second Stage Fascia Panels: The connections used to connect the fascia
panels to the main gravity wall structure should be designed to minimize
movement between panels during shaking.
• Soil Reinforcement Length: A minimum soil reinforcement length of
0.7𝐻 should be used. A greater soil reinforcement length in the upper
0.6 to 1.2m of wall height (a minimum of two reinforcement layers)
should also be considered to improve the seismic performance of the
wall. If the wall is placed immediately in front of a very steep slope,
existing shoring, or permanent wall, the reinforcement within the upper
0.6m to 1.2m of wall height (a minimum of two reinforcement layers,
applicable to wall heights of 3m or more) should be extended to at least

1.5m behind the steep slope or existing wall.
• Wall Corners and Abrupt Facing Alignment Changes: Should be
designed using specially formed facing units to bridge across the corner
and overlap with the adjacent wall facing units to prevent the corner
from opening up during shaking. Wall corners should also be designed
for the potential for higher loads to develop than would be determined
using two-dimensional analysis. Wall corners and short radius turns are
defined as having an enclosed angle of 120 degrees or less.
Commentary: These recommended details are based on previous
experiences with walls in earthquakes (e.g., see Yen et al., 2011). Walls
that did not address these details tended to have a higher frequency of
problems than walls that did consider these details. With regard to
preventing joints from opening up during shaking, corners details, and
details for addressing protrusions through the wall face, Article
C11.6.5.6 (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3) applies. For panel-faced MSE
walls placed against a cast-in-place (CIP) concrete curtain wall or similar
structure, a 100mm lip on the CIP structure to cover the joint with the
MSE wall facing has been used successfully. Regarding the design of wall
corners and abrupt changes in the facing alignment (e.g., corners and
short radius turns at an enclosed angle of 120 degrees or less), both
static and seismic earth pressure loading may be greater than what
would be determined from two dimensional analyses. Historically,
corners and abrupt alignment changes in walls have had a higher
incidence of performance problems during earthquakes than relatively
straight sections of the wall alignment, as the corners tend to attract
dynamic load and increased earth pressures. This should be considered
when designing a wall corner for seismic loading. For that portion of the
corner or abrupt wall facing alignment change where the soil
reinforcement cannot achieve its full length required to meet internal
stability requirements, the end of the reinforcement layer should be
structurally tied to the back of the adjacent panel. Reinforcement layers
should be placed in both directions. In addition, the special corner facing
element should also have reinforcement layers attached to it to provide
stability for the corner panel. The reinforcement layers that are tied to
both sides of the corner should be designed for the higher earth
pressures considering the corner as a bin structure. Note that the corner
or abrupt alignment change enclosed angle as defined in the previous
paragraph can either be internal or external to the wall. With regard to
wall backfill materials, the provisions of Article 11.6.5.6 (Appendix 13.2
of this DG-3) shall apply. When structures and foundations within the
active zone of the reinforced wall backfill are present significant wall
movements and damage have occurred during earthquakes due to
inadequate reinforcement length behind the facing due to the presence
of a foundation, drainage structure, or other similar structure. The
details provided in Article 11.10.10.4 (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3) are
especially important to implement for walls subjected to seismic loading.
Past experience with second stage precast incremental facing panels
indicates that performance problems can occur if the connections
between the panels and the first stage wall can rotate or otherwise have
some looseness, especially if wall settlement is not complete. Therefore,
incremental second stage facia panels should be avoided for walls
located in seismically active areas. Full height second stage precast or
cast-inplace concrete panels have performed more consistently,
provided the panels are installed after wall settlement is essentially
complete. A minimum soil reinforcement length of 0.7𝐻 has been shown
to consistently provide good performance of GMSE walls in earthquakes.
Extending the upper two layers of soil reinforcement a few feet behind
the 0.7𝐻 reinforcement length has in general resulted in modest
improvement in the wall deformation in response to seismic loading,
especially if higher silt content backfill must be used. If GMSE walls are
placed in front of structures or hard soil or rock steep slopes that could
have different deformation characteristics than the GMSE wall
reinforced backfill, there is a tendency for a crack to develop at the
vertical or near-vertical boundary of the two materials. Soil
reinforcements that extend an adequate distance behind the boundary
have been shown to prevent such a crack from developing. It is especially
important to extend the length of the upper reinforcement layers if
there is inadequate room to have a reinforcement length of 0.7𝐻 in the
bottom portion of the wall, provided the requirements of Article
11.10.2.1 (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3) and commentary are met. For
additional information on good wall details for GMSE walls, see Berg et
al. (2009).
Drainage: Internal drainage measures shall be considered for all
structures to prevent saturation of the reinforced backfill and to
intercept any surface flows containing aggressive elements. GMSE walls
in cut areas and side-hill fills with established groundwater levels shall
be constructed with drainage blankets in back of, and beneath, the
reinforced zone. For GMSE walls supporting roadways which are
chemically deiced in the winter, an impervious membrane may be
required below the pavement and just above the first layer of soil
reinforcement to intercept any flows containing deicing chemicals. The
membrane shall be sloped to drain away from the facing to an
intercepting longitudinal drain outletted beyond the reinforced zone.
Typically, a roughened surface PVC, HDPE or LLDPE geomembrane with
a minimum thickness of 30 mils. should be used. All seams in the
membrane shall be welded to prevent leakage.
Subsurface Erosion: The provisions of Article 11.6.3.5 (Appendix 13.2 of
this DG-3) shall apply.
Special Loading Conditions - Concentrated Dead Loads: The distribution
of stresses within and behind the wall resulting from concentrated loads
applied to the wall top or behind the wall shall be determined in
accordance with Article 3.11.6.3 (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3). Figure 4-
29 illustrates the combination of loads using superposition principles to
evaluate external and internal wall stability. Depending on the size and
location of the concentrated dead load, the location of the boundary

between the active and resistant zones may have to be adjusted.
Figure 4-26 Superposition of Concentrated Dead Loads for External

and Internal Stability Evaluation (AASHTOLRFD:2010)
Notes on Figure 4-26:
These equations assume that concentrated dead load #2 is located within the active zone
behind the reinforced soil mass.
For relatively thick facing elements, (e.g., segmental concrete facing blocks), it is
acceptable to include the facing dimensions and weight in sliding, overturning, and bearing
capacity calculations (i.e., use B in lieu of L).
PV1, PH1, Δσv1, Δσv2, ΔσH2, and I2 are as determined from Figures 3.11.6.3-1 and 3.11.6.3-2
(Appendix 13), and Fp results from PV2 (i.e., KΔσv2 from Figure 3.11.6.3-1 (Appendix 13). H
is the total wall height at the face. hp is the distance between the centroid of the
trapezoidal distribution shown and the bottom of that distribution.
Special Loading Conditions - Traffic Loads and Barriers: Traffic loads
shall be treated as uniform surcharge loads in accordance with the
criteria outlined in Article 3.11.6.2 (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3). The live
load surcharge pressure shall not be less than 0.6m of earth. Parapets
and traffic barriers, constructed over or in line with the front face of the
wall, shall be designed to resist overturning moments by their own mass.
Base slabs shall not have any transverse joints, except construction
joints, and adjacent slabs shall be joined by shear dowels. The upper
layer(s) of soil reinforcements shall have sufficient tensile capacity to
resist a concentrated horizontal load of 𝛾𝑃𝐻 where 𝑃𝐻 = 4.5𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠
distributed over a barrier length of 1.5m. This force distribution accounts
for the local peak force in the soil reinforcements in the vicinity of the
concentrated load. This distributed force would be equal to 𝛾𝑃𝐻1 where
𝑃𝐻1 = 14𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠⁄𝑚 and is applied as shown in Figure 3.11.6.3-2a

(Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3). γPH1 would be distributed to the
reinforcements assuming bf equal to the width of the base slab.
Adequate space shall be provided laterally between the back of the
facing panels and the traffic barrier/slab to allow the traffic barrier and
slab to resist the impact load in sliding and overturning without directly
transmitting load to the top facing units. For checking pullout safety of
the reinforcements, the lateral traffic impact load shall be distributed to
the upper
Commentary: The force distribution for pullout calculations is different
than that used for tensile calculations because the entire base slab must
move laterally to initiate a pullout failure due to the relatively large
deformation required.
soil reinforcement using Figure 3.11.6.3-2a (Appendix 13.2), assuming
bf equal to the width of the base slab. The full-length of reinforcements
shall be considered effective in resisting pullout due to the impact load.
The upper layer(s) of soil reinforcement shall have sufficient pullout
capacity to resist a horizontal load of 𝛾𝑃𝐻1 where 𝑃𝐻1 = 4.5𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠 kips
distributed over a 6m base slab length. Due to the transient nature of
traffic barrier impact loads, when designing for reinforcement rupture,
the geosynthetic reinforcement must be designed to resist the static and
transient (impact) components of the load as follows:
For the static component, see Equation 4-71.
For the transient components:
𝜙𝑆𝑟𝑡 𝑅𝑐
∆𝜎ℎ 𝑆𝑣 ≤ 𝑅𝐹 (4-79)
𝐼𝐷 𝑅𝐹𝐷
where:
∆𝜎ℎ = traffic barrier impact stress applied over reinforcement tributary
area per Article 11.10.10.1 (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3) (kPa)
𝑆𝑣 = vertical spacing of reinforcement (m)
Refer to C11.10.7.2 (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3), which applies to
transient loads, such as impact loads on traffic barriers, as well as
earthquake loads.
The reinforcement strength required for the static load component must
be added to the reinforcement strength required for the transient load
component to determine the required total ultimate strength using
Equation 4-77. Parapets and traffic barriers shall satisfy crash testing
requirements as specified in Section 13 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications:2012, 6th Edition. The anchoring slab shall be
strong enough to resist the ultimate strength of the standard parapet.
Flexible post and beam barriers, when used, shall be placed at a
minimum distance of 1m from the wall face, driven 1.5m below grade,
and spaced to miss the reinforcements where possible. If the
reinforcements cannot be missed, the wall shall be designed accounting
for the presence of an obstruction as described in Article 11.10.10.4

(Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3). The upper two rows of reinforcement shall
be designed for an additional horizontal load 𝛾𝑃𝐻1, where PH1 = 45kgs
per linear m of wall, 50 percent of which is distributed to each layer of
reinforcement.
Hydrostatic Pressures: For structures along rivers and streams, a
minimum differential hydrostatic pressure equal to 1m of water shall be
considered for design. This load shall be applied at the high-water level.
Effective unit weights shall be used in the calculations for internal and
external stability beginning at levels just below the application of the
differential hydrostatic pressure.
Commentary: Situations where the wall is influenced by tide or river
fluctuations may require that the wall be designed for rapid drawdown
conditions, which could result in differential hydrostatic pressure
considerably greater than 1m, or alternatively rapidly draining backfill
material such as shot rock or open graded coarse gravel can be used as
backfill. Backfill material meeting the gradation requirements in the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications for MSE structure
backfill is not considered to be rapid draining.
Obstructions in the Reinforced Soil Zone: If the placement of an
obstruction in the wall soil reinforcement zone such as a catch basin,
grate inlet, signal or sign foundation, guardrail post, or culvert cannot be
avoided, the design of the wall near the obstruction shall be modified
using one of the following alternatives:
Commentary:
1) Assuming reinforcement layers must be partially or fully severed in
the location of the obstruction, design the surrounding reinforcement
layers to carry the additional load which would have been carried by the
severed reinforcements.
2) Place a structural frame around the obstruction capable of carrying
the load from the reinforcements in front of the obstruction to
reinforcements connected to the structural frame behind the
obstruction as illustrated in Figure 11.10.10.4-1 (Appendix 13.2 of this
DG-3.2 of this DG-3). Field cutting of longitudinal or transverse wires of
metal grids, e.g., bar mats, should not be allowed unless one of the
alternatives in Article 11.10.10.4 (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3) is
followed and compensating adjustment is made in the wall design. 3)
If the soil reinforcements consist of discrete strips and depending on the
size and location of the obstruction, it may be possible to splay the
reinforcements around the obstruction.
For Alternative 1, the portion of the wall facing in front of the
obstruction shall be made stable against a toppling (overturning) or
sliding failure. If this cannot be accomplished, the soil reinforcements
between the obstruction and the wall face can be structurally connected
to the obstruction such that the wall face does not topple, or the facing
elements can be structurally connected to adjacent facing elements to

prevent this type of failure. Typically, the splay of reinforcements is
limited to a maximum of 15 degrees. For the second alternative, the
frame and connections shall be designed in accordance with Section 6
for steel frames. For the third alternative, the splay angle, measured
from a line perpendicular to the wall face, shall be small enough that the
splaying does not generate moment in the reinforcement or the
connection of the reinforcement to the wall face. The tensile resistance
of the splayed reinforcement shall be reduced by the cosine of the splay
angle.
Note that it may be feasible to connect the soil reinforcement directly
to the obstruction depending on the reinforcement type and the nature
of the obstruction.
If the obstruction must penetrate through the face of the wall, the wall
facing elements shall be designed to fit around the obstruction such that
the facing elements are stable, i.e., point loads should be avoided, and
such that wall backfill soil cannot spill through the wall face where it joins
the obstruction. To this end, a collar next to the wall face around the
obstruction may be needed. If driven piles or drilled shafts must be
placed through the reinforced zone, the recommendations provided in
Article 11.10.11 (Appendix 13.2 of this DG-3) shall be followed.
Figure 4-27 Structural Connection of Soil Reinforcement around Backfill Obstructions

(AASHTO LRFD: 2010)
4.6 GMSE Walls Computer Aided Design (CAD)
The repetitive nature of the computations required at each level of

reinforcement lends itself to computer-assisted design. The computer program
GMSEW (ADAMA, 2000) developed under FHWA sponsorship analyzes and/or
designs GMSE walls using any type of metallic or geosynthetic reinforcement in
conjunction with any type of facing (precast concrete, MBW, etc.). Version 1.0
has been designated exclusively for use by U.S. State Highway Agencies and by
U.S. Federal agencies and performs computations in compliance with the ASD
design methods in FHWA (Elias et al., 2001) and AASHTO (2002). Version 3.0 is
available for purchase through ADAMA Engineering (www.GMSEW.com) and
includes LRFD-based computations. Alternatively, spreadsheet based solutions
can be developed. The design examples are provided in Appendix 2.2 and 2.3 of
this DG-3 Guideline using geostraps and segmental concrete panels and
geobelts combined with modular concrete blocks, respectively. These are
provided comprehensively with step-by-step solutions that can be easily
programmed into a spreadsheet.
Other GMSE wall analysis and design programs are available. Many wall vendors
have their own programs that are tailored to their system, and may have
additional features for estimating quantities and costs. Agency personnel should
understand the features and finer points of the computer program and
spreadsheets that they use to design or check vendor designs. Likewise, wall
vendors and design consultants should understand the features and finer points
of computer programs and spreadsheets they use. This is particularly important
with the recent change to an LRFD design platform.
Section 5: Monitoring and Evaluation (ME)
5.1 Criteria for Performance Evaluation

The fundamental criteria that should be adopted for structural performance
evaluation, is developed on the basis of the following concepts.
 The role of geosynthetics reinforcement in RE-Walls is to effectively expand the width

of the wall thereby enhancing the structural stability accordingly.
 The dry stacked column of the RE-Wall units and the reinforced soil acts together to
form a larger gravity mass that actively contributes in resisting the forces generated by
the backfill and surcharge loadings.
 Stability within a reinforced structure is achieved by the reinforcing elements carrying
tensile forces and transferring them by friction, friction and adhesion, or friction and
bearing to the resistant zone.
 The internal stability is concerned with the integrity of the reinforced volume implying
that the structure has the potential to fail by rupture or loss of bond of the
reinforcement.
 The arrangement and layout of reinforcing elements should be chosen to provide
stability and to suit the size, shape and detail of the facing ensuring strong connection
with facing.
5.2 Comprehensive Measurements

The fundamental The first step in planning a monitoring program is to define the
purpose of the measurements. Every instrument on a project should be
selected and placed to assist in answering a specific question.
If there is no question, there should be no instrumentation. Both the questions
that need to be answered and the clear purpose of the instrumentation in
answering those questions should be established. The most significant parameters
of interest should be selected, with care taken to identify secondary parameters
that should be measured if they may influence primary parameters.
Important parameters that may be considered include:

 Horizontal movements of the face (for GMSEW structures).
 Vertical movements of the surface of the overall structure.
 Local movements or deterioration of the facing elements.
 Drainage behavior of the backfill.
 Performance of any structure supported by the reinforced soil, such as
approach slabs for bridge abutments or footings.
 Horizontal movements within the overall structure.
 Vertical movements within the overall structure.
 Lateral earth pressure at the back of facing elements.
 Vertical stress distribution at the base of the structure.
 Stresses in the reinforcement, with special attention to the magnitude and

location of the maximum stress.
 Stress distribution in the reinforcement due to surcharge loads.
 Relationship between settlement and stress-strain distribution.
 Stress relaxation in the reinforcement with time.
 Aging condition of reinforcement such as metal losses due to corrosion or
degradation of polymeric reinforcements.
 Pore pressure response below structure.
 Temperature which often is a cause of real changes in other parameters, and
also may affect instrument readings.
 Rainfall which often is a cause of real changes in other parameters.
 Barometric pressure, which may affect readings of earth pressure and pore
pressure measuring instruments.
The characteristics of the subsurface, backfill material, reinforcement, and facing

elements in relation to their effects on the behavior of the structure must be
assessed prior to developing the instrumentation program. It should be
remembered that foundation settlement will affect stress distribution within the
structure. Also, the stiffness of the reinforcement will affect the anticipated lateral
stress conditions within the retained soil mass.
Horizontal and vertical movements can be monitored by surveying methods,
using suitable measuring points on the retaining wall facing elements or on the
pavement or surface of the retained soil. Permanent benchmarks are required
for vertical control. For horizontal control, one horizontal control station should
be provided at each end of the structure
The maximum lateral movement of the wall face during construction is
anticipated to be on the order of H/250 for inextensible reinforcement and H/75
for extensible reinforcement. Tilting due to differential lateral movement from
the bottom to the top of the wall would be anticipated to be less than 4 mm per
1.5m of wall height for either system. Post-construction horizontal movements
are anticipated to be very small. Post construction vertical movements should
be estimated from foundation settlement analyses, and measurements of actual
foundation settlement during and after construction should be made.
criteria that should be adopted for structural performance evaluation, is
developed on the basis of the following concepts.
5.3 Limited Measurements

Limited observations and monitoring that should be performed on practically all
structures will typically include:
 Horizontal and vertical movements of the face (for GMSEW structures).

 Vertical movements of the surface of the overall structure.
 Local movements or deterioration of the facing elements.
 Performance of any structure supported by the reinforced soil, such as approach
slabs for bridge abutments or footings.
Horizontal and vertical movements can be monitored by surveying methods,

using suitable measuring points on the retaining wall facing elements or on the
pavement or surface of the retained soil. Permanent benchmarks are required
for vertical control. For horizontal control, one horizontal control station should
be provided at each end of the structure.
The maximum lateral movement of the wall face during construction is anticipated
to be on the order of H/250 for inextensible reinforcement and H/75 for extensible
reinforcement. Tilting due to differential lateral movement from the bottom to
the top of the wall would be anticipated to be less than 4 mm per 1.5m of wall
height for either system. Post-construction horizontal movements are anticipated
to be very small. Post construction vertical movements should be estimated from
foundation settlement analyses, and measurements of actual foundation
settlement during and after construction should be made.
5.4 Comprehensive Procedure/Program

Comprehensive studies involve monitoring of surface behavior as well as
internal behavior of the reinforced soil. A comprehensive program may involve
the measurement of nearly all of the parameters enumerated above and the
prediction of the magnitude of each parameter at working stress to establish the
range of accuracy for each instrument.
Whenever measurements are made for construction control or safety purposes,
or when used to support less conservative designs, a predetermination of
warning levels should be made. An action plan must be established, including
notification of key personnel and design alternatives so that remedial action can
be discussed or implemented at any time.
A comprehensive program may involve all or some of the following key purposes:
 Deflection monitoring to establish gross structure performance and as an

indicator of the location and magnitude of potential local distress to be
more fully investigated.
 Structural performance monitoring to primarily establish tensile stress
levels in the reinforcement and or connections. A second type of
structural performance monitoring would measure or establish
degradation rates of the reinforcements.
 Pullout resistance proof testing to establish the level of pullout resistance
within a reinforced mass as a function of depth and elongation.
The proposed comprehensive monitoring and evaluation procedure is depicted in

flowchart format in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1 Comprehensive performance monitoring and evaluation procedure
5.5 Main Aspects Considered for Effective Performance Evaluation

The main aspects are:
 Load factor analysis including the influence of initial loading within the linear elastic and recoverable range.
 Constructive intensity of loading and stress distribution that contributes to enhancement of vital
geotechnical properties of the geo-structures through progressive consolidation.
 Comprehensive characterization of the basic physical, consolidation, shear and initial stiffness parameters
of the geomaterials used for the fill.
 Bearing capacity analysis and determination of limiting tangent depth of the critical slip surface of the
foundation ground.
 Evaluation of the geosynthetics used for reinforcement of the fill material/structural layers.
 Contribution of wall facing to the structural stability in response to dynamic vibrational loading.
 Magnitude of vertical and differential settlement vis a vis the international criteria of acceptance and
allowance.
 Magnitude of lateral displacement and bulging vis a vis the international criteria of acceptance and
allowance.
 Impact of crack progression on the overall performance of the RE-Walls and the role of the geosynthetics
adopted in mitigating propagation of the same.
 Reinforcement tension and distribution characteristics as criteria of determining the efficiency and
contribution of geosynthetics to the stability and performance of the RE-Walls.
 Individual structural performance of reinforced layers of the retained soil.
 Evaluation of global structural performance of the structures based on the two-wedge failure mechanisms.
 Comparative analysis of performance of the structures evaluated and similar ones monitored and evaluated
from other studies.
5.6 Evaluation of Design Adopted

In order to establish the appropriate criteria, principles and philosophy for
undertaking the analysis and evaluation of the structural performance of the
structures, the available design documents should be reviewed and the design
philosophy, method, procedure and structural computations evaluated.
5.7 Performance Evaluation Based on Conditions Surveys

5.7.1 Basic Methodology Adopted
The basic methodology adopted in carrying out visual conditions surveys and
measurements is summarized as follows.
 Review of materials reports, design documents, particular (special)
specifications, as-built drawings and any other relevant documents.
 Visual condition survey and simple measurements of lateral wall displacement
by observing outward bulging or in-ward caving of retaining walls.
 Visual condition survey and measurements of vertical and differential
settlement by observing differential (“bump”) between approaching roadway
embankment and flyover highway as well as mode and degree of cracking of
retaining walls and modular block panels.
5.7.2 Measurements
Main objectives: The main objectives of carrying out the measurements are:
i) Confirm whether displacements and settlements are within
allowable/tolerable/acceptable limits.
ii) Apply measurement data in analyzing consolidation and shear stress

characteristics.
iii) Characterize impact of initial loading.
Modes of measurements and example: The Figures 5-2 ~ 5-5 are a pictorial
depiction of some examples used in carrying out the measurements and basic
theorem applied in analyzing the deformation characteristics.
Figure 5-2 Mode of measurement of vertical and differential settlement
①Lateral (horizontal) displacement measurements Mode of Projected measurements

Trigonometric Ratio Rule
𝛿ℎ :Horizontal (Lateral) displacement
𝛿ℎ2 𝛿ℎ1
= ;
𝐻𝑇 𝐻1
For 10m GMSE Wall for example;
𝛿ℎ1 = 33𝑚𝑚, 𝐻1 = 1000𝑚𝑚 and 𝐻𝑇 =

2575𝑚𝑚 are measured values. Hence,
𝛿ℎ1 33
𝛿ℎ2 = × 𝐻𝑇 = × 2575
𝐻1 1000
∴ 𝛿ℎ2 = 84.97 ≃ 85𝑚𝑚
Checked and counter-checked by protractor

measurements, trigonometry and Pythogras
Theorem
𝛿ℎ1 𝛿ℎ2
𝜃𝐿𝑎𝑡. = tan−1 ( ) = tan−1 ( )
𝐻1 𝐻𝑇
𝜃𝐿𝑎𝑡. = 1.89°
𝐻ℎ𝑦𝑝. = √𝐻𝑇2 + 𝛿ℎ2
2
= 1000.544
𝐻1 = 𝐻ℎ𝑦𝑝. cos 𝜃𝐿𝑎𝑡. = 1000.544 × cos(1.89)
∴ 𝐻1 = 1000𝑚𝑚(confirmed correct)
Figure 5-3 Mode of lateral displacement measurements Trigonometric computation
Photometric analysis approach for measurement of bulging Trigonometric measurement of bulging

Figure 5-4 Measurement of bulging of the RE concrete retaining wall
1. 𝒉 : 𝐔𝐩𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 vertical displacement

2. 𝒉 :Downward vertical displacement
3. 𝒉 :Horizontal displacement to the Right
4. 𝒉 :Horizontal displacement to the Left
Figure 5-5 Example of Theorem of analyzing deformation
Figure 5-6 Example of instrumentation installation during the construction of a GRS

Bridge abutment for consistent ME (monitoring & evaluation) of the structural
performance
5.8 Programme Implementation

Selection of instrument locations involves three steps. First, sections containing
unique design features are identified. For example, sections with surcharge or
sections with the highest stress. Appropriate instrumentation is located at these
sections. Second, a selection is made of cross sections where predicted behavior
is considered representative of behavior as a whole. These cross sections are then
regarded as primary instrumented sections, and instruments are located to
provide comprehensive performance data. There should be at least two "primary
instrumented sections." Third, because the selection of representative zones may
not be representative of all points in the structure, simple instrumentation should
be installed at a number of "secondary instrumented sections" to serve as indices
of comparative behavior. For example, surveying the face of the wall in secondary
cross sections would examine whether comprehensive survey and inclinometer

measurements at primary sections are representative of the behavior of the wall.
Table 5-1 Possible Instruments for Monitoring Reinforced Soil Structures .

PARAMETERS POSSIBLE INSTRUMENTS
Horizontal movements of face Visual observation
Surveying methods
Horizontal control stations
Tiltmeters
Vertical movements of overall Visual observation
structure Surveying methods
Benchmarks Tiltmeters
Local movements or
Visual observation Crack
deterioration of facing
gauges
elements
Drainage behavior of backfill Visual observation at
outflow points Open
standpipe piezometers
Horizontal movements within Surveying methods
overall structure Horizontal control stations
Probe extensometers Fixed
embankment
extensometers
Inclinometers Tiltmeters
Vertical movements within Surveying methods
overall structure Benchmarks Probe
extensometers Horizontal
inclinometers Liquid level
gauges
Numerous possible
Performance of structure
instruments (depends on
supported by reinforced soil
details of structure)
Lateral earth pressure at the Earth pressure cells Strain
back of facing elements gauges at connections Load
cells at connections
Stress distribution at base of
Earth pressure cells
structure
Stress in reinforcement Resistance strain gauges
Induction coil gauges
Hydraulic strain gauges
Vibrating wire strain gauges
Multiple telltales
Stress distribution in Same instruments as for
reinforcement due to stress in reinforcement
surcharge loads
PARAMETERS POSSIBLE INSTRUMENTS

Relationship between Same instruments as for: C
settlement and stress-strain vertical movements of
distribution surface of overall
structure vertical
movements within
C mass of overall
structure C stress in
reinforcement Earth
pressure cells
Stress relaxation in Same instruments as for
reinforcement stress in reinforcement
Total stress within backfill and Earth pressure cells

at back of reinforced wall
section
Pore pressure response below Open standpipe
structures piezometers Pneumatic
piezometers Vibrating wire
piezometers
Temperature Ambient temperature
record Thermocouples
Thermistors Resistance
temperature devices Frost
gauges
Rainfall Rainfall gauge
Barometric pressure Barometric pressure gauge
Access to instrumentation locations and considerations for survivability during

construction are also important. Locations should be selected, when possible,
to provide cross checks between instrument types. For example, when
multipoint extensometers (multiple telltales) are installed on reinforcement to
provide indications of global (macro) strains, and strain gauges are installed to
monitor local (micro) strains, strain gauges should be located midway between
adjacent extensometer attachment points.
Most instruments measure conditions at a point. In most cases, however,
parameters are of interest over an entire section of the structure. Therefore, a
large number of measurement points may be required to evaluate such
parameters as distribution of stresses in the reinforcement and stress levels
below the retaining structure. For example, accurate location of the locus of the
maximum stress in the reinforced soil mass will require a significant number of
gauge points, usually spaced on the order of 300 mm apart in the critical zone.
Reduction in the number of gauge points will make interpretation difficult, if not
impossible, and may compromise the objectives of the program.
In preparing the installation plan, consideration should be given to the
compatibility of the installation schedule and the construction schedule. If
possible, the construction contractor should be consulted concerning details
that might affect his operation or schedule.
Step-by-step installation procedures should be prepared well in advance of
scheduled installation dates for installing all instruments. Detailed guidelines for
choosing instrument types, locations and installation procedures are given in
FHWA RD 89-043 (Christopher et al., 1989) and FHWA HI-98-034 (Duncliff,
1998).
5.9 Data Interpretation

Monitoring programs have failed because the data generated was never used.
If there is a clear sense of purpose for a monitoring program, the method of data
interpretation will be guided by that sense of purpose. Without a purpose, there
can be no interpretation.
When collecting data during the construction phase, communication channels
between design and field personnel should remain open so that discussions can
be held between design engineers who planned the monitoring program and
field engineers who provide the data.
Early data interpretation steps should have already been taken, including
evaluation of data, to determine reading correctness and also to detect changes
requiring immediate action. The essence of subsequent data interpretation
steps is to correlate the instrument readings with other factors (cause and effect
relationships) and to study the deviation of the readings from the predicted
behavior.
After each set of data has been interpreted, conclusions should be reported in
the form of an interim monitoring report and submitted to personnel
responsible for implementation of action. The report should include updated
summary plots, a brief commentary that draws attention to all significant
changes that have occurred in the measured parameters since the previous
interim monitoring report, probable causes of these changes, and
recommended action.
A final report is often prepared to document key aspects of the monitoring
program and to support any remedial actions. The report also forms a valuable
bank of experience and should be distributed to the owner and design consultant
so that any lessons may be incorporated into subsequent designs.
Volume II: Appendices
List of Appendices
Appendix A1
A1 Tables and Diagrams for Design of GMSE Walls
Appendix A2
A2.1 Case Example of Webuye Interchange GMSE Wall Design Based on First Principles
A2.2 Design Example for GMSE Walls with ADAMA MSEW 3.0 Software Using Geotraps and SCPs
A2.2 Design Example for GMSE Walls with ADAMA MSEW 3.0 Software Using Geobelts and MCBs
Appendix A3
A3 List of Standards Relevant to Geosynthetics
Appendix A4
A4 Geosynthetics Specification for GMSE Walls
Appendix A5
A5 Representative List of Accredited Geosynthetics Suppliers
Appendix A6
A6 Evaluation of Pullout Resistance Based on FHWA R&D
A6.1 Earth Reinforcement Interaction
A6.2 Procedures for Evaluating Laboratory Tests
Appendix A7
A7 Fundamental Criteria for Application of Test Results
A7.1 Criteria for Physical/Index Parameters
A7.2 Criteria for Compaction and Consolidation Parameters
A7.3 Criteria for Mechanical (Strength & Stiffness) Parameters
Appendix A8
A8 GMSE Wall and Drainage Design Details
Appendix A9
A9 Brief Introduction to Vendor and Standard Designs
Appendix A10
A10 Example of Specifications for GMSEW Construction
Appendix A11
A11 Field Inspection
Appendix A12
A12 Contracting Method
Appendix A13
A13 Seismic Design for GMSE Walls
A13.1 Geotechnical Seismic Design Considerations
Excerpts from Chapter 6 of the Washington State Department of Transportation Geotechnical

Design Manual (GDM) M46-03:2010 (WSDOT GDM:2010)
A13.2 Seismic Design Methodology for GMSE Walls
Excerpts from Articles 11.6.5.2, 11.6.5.5, 11.10.7.4 ~ 11.10.9 and Appendix A11 of the AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications: 2010, 6th Edition.
Appendix A14
A14 Templates and Checklists
A14.1 Standard Bill of Quantities (BoQs) Template
A14.2 Checklists for Geotechnical Investigations
A14.3 Checklists for Design of GMSE Walls
A14.4 Checklists for Field Inspection

Final Review - Oct. 2018 - Kenya GMSEW Design Guideline DG-3 2018 With Seismic Design - Vol. I PDF

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

Final Review - Oct. 2018 - Kenya GMSEW Design Guideline DG-3 2018 With Seismic Design - Vol. I PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

D-1.11 Inferior Material Ingression

D-2 Geosynthetics Related Terminology

D-2.29 Interface Shear Layer Thickness

AGEF: Asphalt Geosynthetics Effectiveness factor

Aggregate Interlocking Factor (AIF) – A quantitative geo-mathematical method of

Include definitions for:

GMSEW Mechanically Stablized Earth Wall

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

SGIP Soil-Geosynthetic Interactive Performance

2.12 Stability Considerations ............................................................................................................. 68

4.5 Seismic Design for GMSE Walls ..................................................................................................... 164

[ Blank Transition Page]

1.2 Brief Historical Background

Currently, most process patents covering soil-reinforced system construction or

1.3 Source Documents

ii) Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT): Geotechnical

1.4 Salient Terms and definitions

Geosynthetics is a generic term that encompasses flexible polymeric materials used in

Generic cross sections of MSE structures are shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1 Generic cross sections of GMSE structures

1.5 Main Purpose of GMSEW Guideline

This code of practice embodies the experience of engineers successfully engaged

In using this guideline it must be interpreted that a code of practice represents

The scope is sufficiently broad to be of value for specifications specialists,

1.6 Brief Background of GMSE-GRS Walls

example, have established Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (GMSEWs)

1.7 Introduction to Geosynthetics Products

Guideline for Geosynthetics Reinforced/Improved Materials – Structural Design,

1.8 K-Stiffness (Working Stress) Method of Design

Section 2: Design Criteria, Philosophy and fundamental principles

2.1 Main Applications

Temporary MSE wall structures have been especially cost-effective for

Figure 2-3. MSE wall used to temporarily support a permanent roadway

2.2 Advantages and Potential Disadvantages

2.2.1 Major Advantages

Pre-manufactured materials, rapid construction, and, competition among

 Do not require special skills for construction.

 Require less site preparation than other alternatives.

 Need less space in front of the structure for construction operations.

 Reduce right-of-way acquisition.

 Do not need rigid, unyielding foundation support because MSE

 Are cost effective.

 Are technically feasible to heights in excess of 30 m.

Other benefits include:

The following general potential disadvantages may be associated with all

 Require a relatively large space (e.g., excavation if in a cut) behind the

2.3 Relative Costs and Method of Costing

2.3.1 Relative Costs

Site specific costs of a soil-reinforced structure are a function of many factors,

Figure 2-5. Cost comparison for retaining walls (after US DOT-FHWA)

In accordance with the US DOT-FHWA: NHI No. FHWA-NHI-10-024, November

 Facing system - 20 to 40 percent of total cost.

2.3.2 Method of costing

ENG. SIRMOI TO FINALIZE THIS SECTION

2.4.1 Systems Differentiation

2.4.2 Types of MSE Systems

Mechanically Stabilized Earth/Reinforced Soil Slope (MSE/RSS) systems can be

Reinforcement Material: Distinction can be made between the characteristics of

The performance and durability considerations for these two classes of

2.4.3 Facing Systems

 Segmental precast concrete panels: The various shapes and

Figure 2-6. Example MSE wall facing treatments (FHWA-10-024).