Evaluation of Bearing Capacity on

Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Structures

Considering Multiple Failure Mechanisms
Yonggui Xie, Ph.D., S.M.ASCE 1; Ben Leshchinsky, M.ASCE 2; and Jie Han, F.ASCE 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This study proposes a limit equilibrium approach to estimating the bearing capacity of strip footings placed on geosynthetic-
reinforced soil structures (GRSSs). To assess the multiple mechanisms that may govern the ultimate resistance sustained by GRSSs,
logarithmic-spiral, two-part wedge, two-sided general shear, one-sided general shear, and failure above the uppermost geosynthetic layer
are proposed. Each of these mechanisms is assessed considering geometry, geotechnical properties, and geosynthetic rupture, whereupon an
algorithm selects the minimum, critical bearing capacity and associated failure mechanism for design. Additionally, the effects of foundations
placed near the transition between reinforced and unreinforced soil are evaluated. Considering these factors, both the failure mechanism
and bearing capacity attained from this analysis are compared with rigorous numerical models, demonstrating agreement. The multimechan-
ism approach is then extended to assess bearing capacity considering various geometric configurations and material properties.
Finally, a set of dimensionless charts are presented for convenient assessment of the ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings placed
on GRSSs. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002072. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction
Geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures (GRSSs) are a proven, eco-
nomical means of earth retention, slope stabilization, and, in recent
years, foundation support. Limited space may dictate the need
to place bridge decks or building foundations on geosynthetic-
reinforced soil. The design of GRSSs includes evaluation of the
service limit state (SLS), ultimate limit state (ULS), and extreme
event limit state (EELS) (Nicks et al. 2016). The use of GRSSs
with closely spaced reinforcements has shown good performance
under serviceability conditions attributed to the composite behavior
of the reinforced mass (Ketchart 1997; Abu-Hejleh et al. 2000,
2002; Elias et al. 2001). However, evaluation of the ULS is conven-
tionally evaluated through limit equilibrium (LE) or limit analysis
(LA) approaches. Evaluating the ULS requires the assessment of
various potential failure mechanisms, particularly when consider-
ing reinforced soil or proximity to a slope (Leshchinsky 2015;
Leshchinsky and Xie 2017). When considering the ULS on a
GRSS, one must consider the contributions of structure geometry,
reinforcement spacing, soil–reinforcement interaction, mobiliza-
tion of reinforcement tension, footing location, and footing size.
To date, research that has focused on the ULS of bearing resistance
of GRSSs includes semiempirical approaches (Adams et al. 2014),
experimental testing (Selvadurai and Gnanendran 1989; Yoo 2001;
Xiao et al. 2016), and numerical modeling (Yoo and Kim 2008).
1
Staff Geotechnical Engineer, Earth Engineers, Inc. 2411 SE 8th Ave.,
Camas, WA 98607.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forest Engineering, Resources and
Management, Oregon State Univ., 280 Peavy Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331
(corresponding author). Email: ben.leshchinsky@oregonstate.edu
3
Professor, Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering Dept.,
Univ. of Kansas, 2150 Learned Hall, 15th St., Lawrence, KS 66045.
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3137-733X
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 12, 2018; approved on
January 16, 2019; published online on June 26, 2019. Discussion period
open until November 26, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
However, there are few analytical solutions for evaluating bearing
capacity on reinforced structures considering multiple failure
mechanisms and the relationship between footing location and
reinforced structure geometry.
Numerous laboratory-scale experimental studies have been per-
formed to evaluate the load-carrying behavior of reinforced soil.
Selvadurai and Gnanendran (1989) conducted a test with a footing
located at the crest of a 400-mm-tall slope reinforced with one layer
of geogrid, demonstrating that reinforcement properties (stiffness,
tensile tension) and location affect bearing capacity. Huang et al.
(1994) performed scaled tests where reinforced and unreinforced
slopes were loaded to failure with a strip footing, observing that
the bearing capacity was improved by reinforcement location.
Lee and Manjunath (2000) demonstrated that bearing capacity
decreased with increasing slope angle and decreasing clearance be-
tween the crest and footing. Yoo (2001) performed laboratory-scale
tests on a geogrid-reinforced slope to validate finite-element analy-
ses and concluded that the zone of shear for reinforced slope was
wider and deeper than the unreinforced case and that the footing
location and reinforced extents influence realized bearing capacity.
Similar tests on marginal backfills, such as soft clay (El Sawwaf
2007) and fly ash (Choudhary et al. 2010; Gill et al. 2013), have
demonstrated similar trends. Xiao et al. (2016) conducted a series
of tests on small-scale, vertical geogrid-reinforced walls with a seg-
mental block facing, investigating the relationship between bearing
capacity, footing location, footing width, reinforcement length,
and connection type. This study observed a transition in failure
mechanism as the footing location was placed further from the
GRSS face, transitioning from a two-part wedge to a log-spiral and
eventually a general shear failure when the clearance was suffi-
ciently large.
Owing to the constraints in labor, material needs, and loading
capacity, few large-scale loading tests have been performed on re-
inforced slope or wall-supported foundations. Bathurst et al. (2003)
performed an experimental investigation evaluating bearing capac-
ity of a strip footing placed on unreinforced and geosynthetic-
reinforced slopes with a height of 3.4 m. The reinforced slope

© ASCE 04019040-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040

 exhibited a bearing capacity of approximately double that of the
unreinforced, control case. Yoo and Kim (2008) tested a 5-m-tall,
geogrid-reinforced wall with a distributed surcharge load. Their
results were further extrapolated using three-dimensional finite-
element models. With these numerical models, they demonstrated
that the current design guidelines (i.e., AASHTO 2016) tend to
overestimate surcharge-induced reinforcement loading. AASHTO
(2016) accounts for increased reinforcement loading by considering
the added vertical pressure stemming from the surcharge (calculated
using the 2:1 method) and superposing it toward lateral earth pres-
sures within the prism of loading.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Due to the complexity associated with the ULS of reinforced
soil, few analytical methods evaluate the bearing capacity of shal-
low foundations on reinforced soil structures. Zhao (1996a) devel-
oped slip-line solutions for reinforced soils to calculate the limit
loads on geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes, treating the reinforced
mass as a composite. Within this study, stress characteristic fields
were investigated to better understand developed regions of plas-
ticity within the reinforced mass. Zhao (1996b) built on this work,
presenting a kinematically admissible limit analysis approach that
assessed the internal stability of geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes
considering rotational and translational mechanisms. Jahanandish
and Keshavarz (2005) extended the slip-line method to analyze
the bearing capacity of spread footings on geosynthetic-reinforced
soil structures under seismic loading. Wu and Pham (2013) devel-
oped an analytical solution to evaluate the load-carrying capacity
of closely spaced geosynthetic-reinforced soil, treating the rein-
forced structure as a composite. The composite behavior of the re-
inforced soil was evaluated with a modified cohesive shear strength
representative of the effects of closely spaced reinforcements. Sim-
ilar to the work of Wu and Pham (2013), studies by Zhao (1996a, b)
and Jahanandish and Keshavarz (2005) treated reinforced soil as
a single, composite material. However, few analytical methods
can be used to evaluate the multiple failure mechanisms associated
with the interaction of GRSS geometry, soil properties, and discrete
reinforcements.
The bearing capacity of foundations placed upon GRSSs has
conventionally been assessed using slope stability analyses. Using
Janbu’s generalized slope stability analysis, Huang and Tatsuoka
(1994) developed an analytical method that considers composite
failure surfaces to evaluate the stability of reinforced sand slopes.
Haza et al. (2000) used a LE-based double-wedge method to evalu-
ate the stability of a GRSS subject to localized loading from a strip
footing. Blatz and Bathurst (2003) adopted the conventional two-
part wedge LE approach to predict the bearing capacity of a strip
footing placed on the crest of geosynthetic-reinforced slopes based
on comparisons with large-scale experimental results (Bathurst
et al. 2003). Luo and Bathurst (2018) used finite-element modeling
to consider the effects of compaction and spatial variability on bear-
ing capacity on reinforced slopes. Ausilio (2014) used upper-bound
limit analysis to develop the seismic bearing capacity of strip
footings placed close to the crest of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
structures using a log-spiral mechanism. Within AASHTO (2016)
guidelines, a bilinear failure mechanism is proposed, consisting of
vertical block and underlying active wedge underneath a footing
placed on reinforced soil (Berg et al. 2009), exhibiting a slip surface
that, in an average sense, is similar to that of a log-spiral. Xiao
et al. (2016) compared rotational and two-part wedge stability
analyses, finding that the latter often governed. They noted that
bearing capacity increased with footing setback, but dropped as
the footing reached the transitional zone between the reinforced fill
and retained soil. Xie and Leshchinsky (2015) used computational
upper-bound limit analysis to evaluate the bearing capacity of
spread footings on soil with varying reinforcement spacing and
© ASCE 04019040-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040
reinforcement strength, noting a log-spiral mechanism when the
footing was placed close to the slope face, transitioning to more
complex, two-sided or one-sided mechanisms when the footing
was sufficiently distant from the wall facing. As footing setback
increases, the failure mechanism transitions to an asymmetrical
two-sided or one-sided general shear failure mechanism, as ob-
served in experiments (Turker et al. 2014).
There is no unified approach to evaluating bearing capacity of
GRSSs because the mechanism for failure depends on footing lo-
cation, soil properties, GRSS geometry, soil–reinforcement interac-
tion, and mobilization of reinforcement tension. For example, the
log-spiral mechanism has been observed under various numerical
and physical experiments on bearing capacity, particularly when
the footing is close to the slope face or the slope inclination is
steep (e.g., Selvadurai and Gnanendran 1989; Huang et al. 1994;
Sommers and Viswanadham 2009). However, a two-part wedge
failure surface has been observed in other relevant studies, particu-
larly apparent when the footing is close to the slope and the incli-
nation of the GRSS would classify it as a slope (i.e., inclinations
less than 70°) according to AASHTO (2016) guidelines (Gourc
et al. 1995; Bathurst et al. 2003; Xiao et al. 2016). Xie and
Leshchinsky (2015) observed a transition from a log-spiral to
asymmetrical two-sided, general shear mechanism with increasing
clearance from a GRSS face. Failure above the uppermost reinforce-
ment has also been recognized as a common failure mechanism of
strip footing located at the reinforced soil (Binquet and Lee 1975;
Wayne et al. 1998). In this study, five different failure mechanisms—
two-part wedge, log-spiral, two-sided, one-sided general shear
mechanisms, and failure above the uppermost geosynthetic layer—
were considered simultaneously to evaluate the bearing capacity on
a GRSS. The results of this analysis are presented in a series of nor-
malized design charts with varying reinforcement tensile tension,
footing location, footing width, GRSS height, and GRSS slope.
By accounting for these parameters, the transition in failure mecha-
nism and bearing capacity can be defined for various design scenar-
ios. The observed transition in mechanism is important because it
captures the influence of the proximity of shallow foundations near
a GRSS face or near the retained soil.
Theoretical Framework
In this study, a rigid strip footing of width B is placed at a distance
of Sb from the top of a slope with a clearance of St from the
transition between reinforced and retained backfill (Fig. 1). The
GRSS has a height of H and an inclination of β. Geosynthetic rein-
forcements with tensile strength T i are evenly placed throughout
the height of the GRSS at a vertical spacing of Sv and length
Lreinf . The distance from footing to the top layer of reinforcement
is u. For a given failure mechanism, the convention for reinforce-
ment numbering in the analysis begins with 1 at the top of the wall
and increases with distance from the footing. The footing supports
a surcharge pressure of q (or Q as a resultant force). Both the
reinforced and retained soils are cohesionless materials with an in-
ternal angle of friction ϕ 0 and unit weight γ. The effects of footing
embedment, footing shape, and cohesion are ignored in the pre-
sented analysis, which generally provides more conservative re-
sults. Furthermore, the influence of facing elements, often used
in steeper GRSSs (i.e., walls), is ignored in this study because it
is a conservative and common practice in design. Consistent with
current practice, the mechanical effects of facing elements are
ignored for conservatism but would influence observed bearing
capacity and its corresponding mechanism. The influence of
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Fig. 2. Forces and notation for log-spiral mechanism.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Notation and conventions used in analysis.

reinforcement near the retained soil. For log-spiral and two-part
wedge analyses, pullout might be critical for global failures when
reinforcement lengths are exceedingly short, but for the dimensions
different facing elements (of which many systems exist) on bearing
used in this study, it was not found to be critical. The reinforce-
capacity would be an excellent consideration for future research.
ments at the limit state were considered to be horizontal because
To characterize bearing capacity and its associated mode of fail-
stability shows little sensitivity to reinforcement orientation when
ure for particular geometric conditions, an algorithm that optimized
considering friction angles commensurate with those for soil used
multiple failure mechanisms was developed. This approach evalu-
as reinforced backfill (Leshchinsky and Boedeker 1989).
ated five potential failure modes: a logarithmic spiral, a two-part
wedge, an asymmetric two-sided general shear failure, a failure
above the uppermost geosynthetic layer, and a one-sided general Log-Spiral Mechanism
shear failure (Fig. 1). The bearing capacity and associated mecha-
nism are determined incrementally for increasing depth from the A log-spiral failure surface was employed to assess a curvilinear,
one-sided, compound-slope stability mechanism that may govern
base of the footing downward throughout the GRSS. For each sce-
when a surcharge is significant, the facing inclination is steep,
nario considering the influence of the GRSS face, the minimum
or available tensile strength in the reinforcements is small. This
bearing capacity resultant (Qult ) is determined from the four mech-
mode of failure, which satisfies both force and moment equilib-
anisms (log-spiral, Qult-ls ; two-part wedge, Qult-tpw ; two-sided
rium, is assumed to initiate at the far edge of the footing and exit
general shear failure, Qult-tsgs ; failure above the uppermost
through a critical point on the GRSS face. The reinforced soil mass
reinforcement, Qult-faur ). Similarly, the bearing capacity was cal-
rotates as a rigid body about the log-spiral center O (Fig. 2).
culated for a one-sided general shear mechanism in consideration
The geometry of the failure surface is described by the log-spiral
of the transition between reinforced and retained soil. The bearing
equation as
capacity (Qult-crit ) for a given geometric and material configuration
is determined as the minimum (Qult ) determined from the five
mechanisms. Pullout was evaluated for the log-spiral and two-part r ¼ ro eðθ−θo Þ tan ϕ ð1Þ
wedge mechanisms through calculation of friction acting along
both sides of each reinforcement considering both overburden
and incremental loading stemming from the overlying footing. where ro = radius at initial angle θo (Fig. 2); and ϕ 0 = internal angle
However, it was not considered for general shear mechanisms or of friction.
failure above the uppermost reinforcement layer. Pullout may be The moment induced by soil weight can be written
important for general shear mechanisms near the facing (if connec-
tion capacity is insufficient) or near the retained soil. However, M W ¼ γr3o ðf 1 − f 2 − f 3 Þ ð2Þ
pullout was not considered for these mechanisms in this study ow-
ing to the common application of mechanical connections at the top
facing elements and lack of bearing capacity sensitivity to soil where γ = unit weight of soil; and f1 , f 2 , and f 3 can be defined as

ð3 tan ϕ 0 cos θh þ sin θh Þ expð3ðθh − θo Þ tan ϕ 0 Þ − 3 tan ϕ 0 cos θo − sin θo

f1 ¼ ð3aÞ
3ð1 þ 9tan2 ϕ 0 Þ


1L L where L ¼ Sb þ B. The moment induced by the surcharge load q is
f2 ¼ 2 cos θo − sin θo ð3bÞ
6 ro ro

B
M Q ¼ qB ro cos θo − ð4Þ
2
 
1 L
f 3 ¼ exp½ðθh − θo Þ tan ϕ 0  sinðθh − θo Þ − sin θh The moment due to reinforcement is calculated as
6 ro
  X
N

L zi
× cos θo − þ cos θh exp½ðθh − θo Þ tan ϕ 0  ð3cÞ M D ¼ ro T i sin θo þ ð5Þ
ro i¼1
ro

© ASCE 04019040-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040

 Fig. 3. Forces and notation for two-part wedge mechanism.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where T i = available reinforcement tensile tension; and zi = depth

of reinforcement.
By equating the moment induced by the footing and soil weight
to the moment due to reinforcement, the bearing capacity of strip
footing can be expressed as
P
ro Ni¼1 T i ðsin θo þ rzoi Þ − γr3o ðf1 − f2 − f3 Þ
qult-ls ¼ ð6Þ
Bðro cos θo − B2 Þ

Two-Part Wedge Mechanism

Like the log-spiral mechanism, a two-part wedge mechanism was
used to evaluate bearing capacity that manifested as a one-sided
slope failure, albeit along the reinforcement–soil interface. The
two-part wedge failure surface, which satisfies force equilibrium,
exhibits a bilinear shape and is assumed to initiate at the far edge of
the footing at an angle α1 while exiting horizontally along a given
reinforcement layer (Fig. 3). Using the force equilibrium of a driv-
ing wedge (Wedge 1), the interwedge force P, acting at an angle δ
from the horizontal, can be determined. The interwedge force is
a driving force on the resisting wedge (Wedge 2) that can be
expressed as
Q þ W1
P¼
cos δðA1 B1 þ tan δÞ
where Q = surcharge load applied on top of structure; W 1 = weight
of Wedge 1; δ = interwedge friction angle; and the terms A1 and B1
are defined as
1
A1 ¼
sin α1 − tan ϕ 0 cos α1
0
B1 ¼ cos α1 þ tan ϕ sin α1
The interwedge friction angle of δ should be between zero and
ϕ 0 , which may have a significant effect on the outcome of the
analysis. Blatz and Bathurst (2003) assumed δ was zero. Leshchin-
sky (1997) recommended a value of δ r between 2=3ϕ 0 and ϕ 0 , cor-
responding to different types of geosynthetic reinforcement. In this
study, δr was assumed to be 2=3ϕ 0 , a common assumption in
design (AASHTO 2016). Lower interface friction may result in
more dominance of the two-part wedge mechanism, while higher
interface friction may result in other mechanisms governing bear-
ing capacity. The horizontal force required to satisfy the equilib-
rium of Wedge 2, PA , is calculated as
X
N
PA ¼ P cos δ − tan δr ðW 2 þ P sin δÞ − Ti
i¼1
where W 2 = weight of Wedge 2; δ r = friction angle between soil
and reinforcement; and T i = mobilized reinforcement tensile
Fig. 4. Forces and notation for two-sided general shear mechanism.
tension in layer i, which is assumed to act in the horizontal direc-
tion. For a prescribed bilinear failure mechanism, the required mini-
mum Qult-tpw corresponds to the solution attained when PA ¼ 0.
The critical Qult-tpw can be captured by searching all possible
ð7Þ bilinear failure mechanisms at a given height. Then the expression
for bearing capacity of the strip footing can be defined as
Qult-tpw
qult-tpw ¼ ð11Þ
B
ð8Þ
Two-Sided General Shear Mechanism
ð9Þ A two-sided general shear mechanism was considered for bearing
failures that mobilize shear resistance on both sides of footing. This
mechanism, which satisfies moment equilibrium, is assumed to be
symmetrical for horizontal ground conditions but may exhibit
asymmetrical geometry based on the proximity to the GRSS face
(Fig. 4). For the symmetric case, the base angle of active Wedge
ABC is commonly assumed to be ϕ 0 (Terzaghi 1943) or 45° þ ϕ 0 =2
(Meyerhof 1963; Vesic 1973). In this study, the active wedge under
the footing is not assumed to be symmetrical. To capture potential
asymmetry, a search function is adopted for the base angle of ABC,
enabling a search range from ϕ 0 to 45° þ ϕ 0 =2 for both α1 and α2 .
For a pair of α1 and α2 , the failure surface closer to the GRSS face
is a log-spiral CD that spans between AC and AD. The pole of this
surface (O1 ) lies on the projection of AD at a length d from Point A
(Fig. 4). Likewise, the log-spiral that fails away from the GRSS
ð10Þ
face follows similar geometric constraints.
By considering moment equilibrium about O1 and O2 for the
left and right sides [Fig. 4(b)], the passive forces on Edge AC and
BC are derived as follows:

© ASCE 04019040-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040

 W 1 lW1 þ Pd1 lPd1
P1 ¼ ð12Þ
lP1

W 2 lW2 þ Pd2 lPd2

P2 ¼ ð13Þ
lP2
where W 1 and W 2 = weights of Wedges ACDE and BCGH, respec-
tively; Pd1 and Pd2 = passive forces acting on Edges DE and GH;
lW1 and lW2 = distances from O1 to direction of W 1 and from O2 to
direction of W 2 ; lPd1 and lPd2 = distances from O1 to direction of
Pd1 and from O2 to direction of Pd2 ; and lP1 and lP2 = distances
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

from O1 to direction of P1 and from O2 to direction of P2 .

If the slope face intersects with the passive region at the left
side of DE [Fig. 4(c)], the expression for passive resistance Pd1
is defined as



1 ϕ0 ϕ0
Pd1 ¼ γDE2 tan2 45° þ − γSFIJ tan 45° þ ð14Þ
2 2 2
Fig. 5. Bearing capacity ratio (BCR) due to failure above the upper-
where SFIJ = area of Triangle FIJ. If the slope face intersects with most reinforcement. (Reprinted from Wayne et al. 1998, © ASCE.)
the passive region to the right of DE [Fig. 4(d)], Pd1 is zero and W 1
is the weight for Region ACIJ.
The influence of reinforcement layers are incorporated by con-
sidering the intersection within a zone of influence beneath the high-strength reinforcements may encounter failure above the
footing. Huang and Tatsuoka (1990) demonstrated that bearing uppermost reinforcement layer. When a strong reinforcement layer
capacity in sand can be increased by reinforcing the zone immedi- is sufficiently close to the overlying footing, the slip surface for
ately beneath the footing with a reinforcement length equal to, or bearing failure is constrained. In this scenario, the theoretical sol-
slightly greater than, the footing width. Yoo (2001) demonstrated ution based on upper-bound limit analysis proposed by Mandel and
that significant improvements in bearing capacity are attained pri- Salencon (1972) for bearing capacity above a rigid basal layer was
marily from reinforcements directly underneath a footing. Hence, applied, consistent with other studies focusing on bearing capacity
reinforcements intersecting a potential failure surface are only in- above reinforced soil (Fig. 5) (Wayne et al. 1998). The results pre-
corporated when they are within a zone of influence, in this case sented in Fig. 5 were adopted in this study to calculate bearing
composed of a width B [Fig. 4(a)]. Here, PT1 and PT2 represent the capacity for failure above the uppermost geosynthetic. In this fig-
resisting forces on Edges AC and BC, defined as ure, soil strength ϕ 0 , footing width B, and distance from footing to
PN uppermost reinforcement u are required.
Tz
PT1 ¼ i¼1 i i1 ð15Þ For a given scenario, if the normalized distance from footing to
lPT1
uppermost reinforcement u=B and soil shear strength (ϕ 0 ) are
PN known and the bearing capacity ratio (BCR) can be derived from
T i zi2
PT2 ¼ i¼1
ð16Þ Fig. 5, then the bearing capacity of reinforced soil for this failure
lPT2 mechanism can be calculated by qult-faur ¼ BCR  quðunreinfÞ,
where zi1 = distance from Pole O1 to a specified reinforcement where quðunreinfÞ is the bearing capacity derived from Eq. (17) for
layer; and zi2 = distance from Pole O2 to a specified reinforcement the unreinforced case. The proposed results from Wayne et al.
layer; lPT1 and lPT2 = distances from O1 to direction of PT1 and (1998) were found to be valid when ϕ 0 was greater than 30°, usu-
from O2 to direction of PT2 . The assumptions governing the ally representative of the soil shear strengths found in reinforced
distribution and magnitude of mobilized reinforcement tensions backfills.
are described in further detail later in this study. Using Eqs. (12)–
(16), the bearing capacity for the two-sided mechanism is One-Sided General Shear Mechanism
defined as
The final bearing capacity mechanism considered in this analysis is
ðP þ PT1 Þ cosðα1 − δÞ þ ðP2 þ PT2 Þ cosðα2 − δÞ that of a one-sided failure, observed when a footing is located near
qult-tsgs ¼ 1 the transition between retained and reinforced soil (Fig. 6). This
B
ð17Þ mechanism satisfies moment equilibrium and assumes that shear

A minimization process is performed to find the critical combi-

nation of α1 , α2 , and pole location by minimizing qult-tsgs . When
the process is completed, both the critical bearing capacity and its
corresponding failure geometry are determined.

Failure above the Uppermost Geosynthetic Layer

The potential for a bearing failure above the uppermost geosyn-
thetic is considered, observed previously by Binquet and
Lee (1975). When the distance between the footing and the upper-
Fig. 6. Forces and notation for one-sided general shear mechanism.
most reinforcement is sufficiently large, a footing placed over

© ASCE 04019040-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040

 strength is mobilized on both sides of an active wedge underneath
the footing. Due to the increased strength of reinforced soil, the
shear mechanism has a propensity to exit through the weaker, un-
reinforced retained soil. In this scenario, P1 , P2 , and PT2 are ac-
counted for through the same definitions shown in Eqs. (12), (13),
and (16). The expression for bearing capacity considering a
one-sided general shear mechanism is defined as
P1 cosðα1 − δÞ þ ðP2 þ PT2 Þ cosðα2 − δÞ
qult-osgs ¼ ð18Þ
B mechanism may occur based on the stress-strain response of the
Knowing the geometric configuration of the GRSS ðH; β; u;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sv ; Lreinf Þ, the backfill ðγ; ϕ 0 Þ, the footing ðB; Sb ; St Þ, and the mo-
bilized reinforcement tensions (T i ), the bearing capacity consider-
ing a log-spiral, two-part wedge, asymmetric two-sided general
shear mechanism, one-sided general shear mechanisms, and failure
above the uppermost geosynthetic layer can be estimated. Of the
bearing capacities determined from the log-spiral, two-part wedge,
asymmetric two-sided general shear and failure above the upper-
most geosynthetic mechanisms, the lowest estimated bearing
capacity, and its associated mode of failure will govern in consid-
eration of bearing failure influenced by the slope face. The bearing
capacity derived from the one-sided general shear mechanism will
govern when in the range of influence of the retained soil. The
lower value of these two cases yields the ultimate bearing capacity
for a given configuration. However, there are various assumptions
associated with the required distribution and magnitude of mobi-
lized reinforcement tensions, described in further detail in the
following section.
Mobilized Reinforcement Tensile Resistance
The described approach presents a means of evaluating the bearing
capacity of strip footings on a GRSS; however, implicit in the
appropriate application of this method is the use of a reasonable
estimation of the mobilized reinforcement tensile tension, T i .
Assessing the distribution of mobilized reinforcement resistance
is a function of surcharge load, material extensibility, interaction
with surrounding soil, and soil properties (Hatami and Bathurst
2006). For limit state analyses, it is often held that the reinforcement
rupture capacity (T ult ) may be assumed for each reinforcement layer
(Leshchinsky and Boedeker 1989; Blatz and Bathurst 2003).
However, it is apparent that geosynthetic reinforcements, par-
ticularly when placed in multiple layers, do not always reach rup-
ture as the surrounding soil reaches the critical state at smaller
strains in comparison to those required to rupture geosynthetic rein-
forcements (Sommers and Viswanadham 2009; Allen and Bathurst
2013). This is particularly relevant for localized, general shear fail-
ures. One conservative means of estimating the distribution of ten-
sion within reinforcements is to assume that mobilized tension has
an inverse relationship with increasing quantities of reinforcement
layers with depth. Thus, the approach of Binquet and Lee (1975) is
adopted for the assessment of one- and two-sided shear mecha-
nisms owing to its simplicity and its agreement with physical tests
evaluating bearing capacity on reinforced soil (e.g., Yoo and Kim
2008). General agreement with numerical models presented in the
following section supports this assumption. This approach states
that for N layers of reinforcement, the mobilized tension in a
reinforcement is defined as
T1
Ti ¼ ð19Þ
i
where i = number of layers within failure zone; and T 1 = mobilized
reinforcement force in top reinforcement layer. Because this study
© ASCE 04019040-6
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040
is focused on strength limit state conditions, it is assumed that T 1
may be equivalent to T ult as the strains beneath the footing are
generally large enough to rupture the reinforcement layer near the
footing before layers beneath it. This assumption may not be
conservative if the soil yields prior to full mobilization of reinforce-
ment strength; however, in the context of the strength limit state
condition, significant tensions may still be mobilized in the upper-
most reinforcement, albeit less than rupture strength. Thus, it is im-
portant to carefully consider the value of T 1 because a change in
reinforcements and the reinforced soil mass (Blatz and Bathurst
2003). Future work may better consider the stress-strain response
and the role of soil deformation in the calculation of these limit state
conditions. Another approach is that of Sharma et al. (2009), which
considers elastic settlement and corresponding reinforcement mo-
bilization under loading through modification of the Schmertmann
et al. (1978) approach. However, this approach necessitates knowl-
edge of the soil stiffness and correction factors for materials and
geometry. Alternatively, Liu and Won (2014) developed an analyti-
cal approach to evaluating horizontal strains and forces in rein-
forcements assuming full strain compatibility at the location of
the maximum reinforcement tensile tension. This was done through
consideration of a hyperbolic stress-strain relationship that consid-
ered the dilative behavior of the soil but does not explicitly consider
the effects of a discrete surcharge. These methods demonstrate util-
ity that could be incorporated into the proposed method. However,
a decision was made here to use the approach proposed by Binquet
and Lee (1975) for one- and two-sided shear mechanisms because it
is simple to implement and demonstrates reasonable agreement
with field studies and numerical models (e.g., Yoo and Kim 2008).
For log-spiral and two-part wedge mechanisms, the reinforcement
rupture capacity (T ult ) is assigned to each reinforcement layer. This
assumption is conservative but consistent with the current state-of-
practice for assessing the ULS for the internal stability of reinforced
soil structures.
Verification of Analytical Solutions
The presented mechanisms demonstrate a rational means of assess-
ing the bearing capacity of GRSSs under reasonable combinations
of geometry, reinforcement configurations, and material properties.
To verify their applicability, a comparison of the proposed approach
to both experimental and numerical results was performed and
presented, found in the corresponding supplementary files docu-
ment. From these comparisons it is seen that the critical mecha-
nism (i.e., the failure geometry that demonstrates the lowest calcu-
lated bearing capacity) transitions with changing input properties.
Hence, the proposed approach is compared with results from
both available experimental data and a finite-element package
that employs upper-bound computational limit analysis (UB-LA,
OptumG2) to determine bearing capacity and its associated
collapse mechanism. In the numerical comparisons, a strip footing
(B ¼ 1 m) is placed on the reinforced backfill (ϕ 0 ¼ 34°, γ ¼
20 kN=m3 , Sv ¼ 0.5 m) of a GRSS with a height of H ¼ 6 m
and a slope inclination (β) ranging from 70° to 90°. The primary
variable in this comparison was footing setback (Sb ), which was
varied from 0.5 to 6 B. The location of the foundation in comparison
to the retained soil was also assessed. The reinforcement strength
was also varied from 10 to 100 kN=m, demonstrating a notable
effect on the realized bearing capacity and failure mechanism.
Pullout was not observed to be critical in these numerical models,
likely owing to the relatively long reinforcement layers. Experimen-
tal comparisons are done with tests from Khing et al. (1993),
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Bathurst et al. (2003), and Sommers and Viswanadham (2009).
Issues with the scaling of the mechanical properties of geosyn-
thetics (i.e., stiffness, rupture strength) may occur when performing
1-g small-scale testing of a GRSS (e.g., Khing et al. 1993) because
stresses are different from those encountered at the full-scale, proto-
type levels. This may result in different loading conditions and
potential failure mechanisms (Zornberg et al. 1998). To supplement
the comparisons made to small-scale tests, the proposed framework
(both bearing capacity and mechanism) was compared to the afore-
mentioned UB-LA models that were representative of realistic
GRSS dimensions.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In general, the proposed failure mechanisms for bearing capac-
ity on a GRSS sufficiently captures relevant failure modes for
different reinforcement properties, slope geometries, and footing
setbacks when failure is governed by the presence of both a slope
and retained soil. The proposed solutions are comparable to those
derived from robust numerical models that do not assume failure
mechanisms a priori. The maximum difference between the pre-
sented numerical models and proposed solutions for different cases
are 10% or less.
Results and Discussion
In this framework, multiple failure mechanisms are used to evaluate
the effects of backfill properties, structure geometry, and reinforce-
ment strength on the bearing capacity of footings placed on GRSSs.
Each of these mechanisms governs under different combinations of
design parameters. This section will focus on investigating the in-
fluences of the aforementioned design parameters and synthesizing
selected solutions into a series of dimensionless charts. Throughout
this section, the normalized bearing capacity is presented as a pres-
sure (q) normalized to backfill unit weight (γ) and footing width
(B), defined as
q increases bearing capacity but confers little benefit when the
Modified Bearing Capacity Factor N γ ¼ ð20Þ
0.5γB
These solutions are presented for a series of factored reinforce-
ment strengths (T ¼ T ult ) normalized to vertical reinforcement
spacing (Sv ) and backfill unit weight, defined as
kt T stronger reinforcement is used (i.e., kt =γB ¼ 5), the mechanism
where kt ¼ ð21Þ
γB Sv
This factor captures the effects of reinforcement strength
and spacing, whereas large values of kt =ðγBÞ may represent
Fig. 7. Normalized bearing capacity for a range of soil friction angles and footing setbacks of (a) Sb =B ¼ 1; and (b) Sb =B ¼ 4.
© ASCE 04019040-7
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040
high-strength reinforcements at a conventional lift height
(i.e., 0.45 m spacing) or lower-strength reinforcements that are
closely spaced (i.e., >0.2B). The height (H) of the GRSS, the foot-
ing setback (Sb ), and clearance from the retained soil (St ) are nor-
malized to footing width, B. The baseline geometric conditions
considered were B ¼ 1 m, Sv ¼ 0.5 m, and γ ¼ 20 kN=m3 , with
a vertical clearance of 0.5 m between the base of the footing and the
uppermost reinforcement. Consistent with previous studies that
evaluate either the stability of the GRSS or bearing capacity near
slopes, the reinforcement strength, GRSS height, and footing loca-
tion are presented in a normalized form (e.g., Michalowski 1997;
Zornberg et al. 1998; Yang et al. 2016). Limited sensitivity in re-
sults was observed for footing widths (B) ranging from 0.5 to 3 m,
which covers a range of footing widths commonly observed in
design (Adams et al. 2011). For fixed kt =γB and the geometries
described, limited sensitivity was observed when varying Sv be-
tween 0.2 and 0.5B (<15%, limited to only the general shear
mechanism, <5% for other mechanisms); thus, the results provide
reasonable estimates for the range of dimensions proposed. When
applicable, retained soil is considered to have the same material
properties as reinforced backfill.
Influence of Backfill Shear Strength
The shear strength of backfill material has a direct effect on both the
mechanism and load associated with bearing capacity on a GRSS.
For a slope of height 6B and inclination of 90°, changing backfill
frictional strength from ϕ 0 of 20° to 45° (where c 0 ¼ 0) results in a
more than fourfold increase in bearing capacity (Fig. 7). Intuitively,
placing a foundation further from the slope face, in this case chang-
ing Sb from B to 4B, demonstrates significant gains in bearing
capacity for all presented soil shear strengths, with the exception
of failure above the uppermost geosynthetic layer. Using stronger
(or more closely spaced) reinforcements (i.e., kt =γB ¼ 5) directly
backfill material is weak (e.g., ϕ 0 ¼ 20°). As the footing setback
increases, the relative effect of reinforcement strength or density
becomes more muted as the destabilizing influence of the slope
face decreases. When the GRSS is composed of less reinforcement
(i.e., kt =γB ¼ 2), the critical failure mechanism tends to be domi-
nated by a log-spiral for the presented examples. However, when
may change with backfill strength. For example, when Sb ¼ B,
the critical mechanism transitions from a two-part wedge to a
two-sided shear failure and finally a log-spiral when ϕ 0 is changed
from 20° to 45° [Fig. 7(a)]. The bearing capacity increases
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Normalized bearing capacity for varying slope inclinations and footing setbacks of (a) Sb =B ¼ 1; and (b) Sb =B ¼ 4.

exponentially with backfill strength, demonstrating the influence of
current, conservative design standards, where backfill strength is
assumed to have a ϕ 0 value of 34° in the absence of strength testing
(AASHTO 2016). When using more closely spaced reinforcements
(or stronger reinforcements), bearing capacity may increase by
more than 50% if a more realistic ϕ 0 of 45° is considered. However,
these benefits are less pronounced when weaker overall reinforce-
ment is present (Fig. 7).
Influence of GRSS Inclination
The GRSS facing inclination directly influences the mechanism and
load associated with bearing capacity. For a slope of height 6 B,
footing setback of Sb ¼ B and Sb ¼ 4B, and a backfill strength of
ϕ 0 ¼ 34° (c 0 ¼ 0), changing the inclination from 90° to 50° results
in a slight increase in bearing capacity (Fig. 8). This change—or
lack thereof—is governed primarily by a transition in mechanism.
Relative changes are smaller when the mechanism is constrained to
a localized failure in the upper portion of the GRSS. When the over-
all reinforcement in the GRSS is relatively weak, the bearing capac-
ity is greatly influenced by the slope, demonstrated by critical
mechanisms consisting of either a log-spiral or two-part wedge
for steep facing inclinations, respectively [Fig. 8(a)]. However,
when the overall reinforcement is strong (i.e., strong reinforcements
or closely spaced, weaker reinforcements) and the strip footing
is near the facing, the failure is confined to the upper reaches of
the GRSS. In this scenario, bearing capacity failure is dominated
by a two-sided general shear and two-part wedge mechanism
for steep and vertical slope inclinations, respectively [Fig. 8(a)].
When the footing setback is large (Sb ¼ 4B), the bearing capacity
and failure mechanism are not affected by the slope face, demon-
strated by the critical mechanism being above the uppermost
geosynthetic for all slope inclinations because reinforcement is
strong [i.e., kt =γB ¼ 5, Fig. 8(b)], applicable when the clearance
between the footing and the uppermost reinforcement is greater
than 0.5 m.
Influence of GRSS Height
The height of a GRSS affects the mechanism and load associated
with bearing capacity, particularly when a compound slope
stability–bearing capacity mechanism, such as a log-spiral, is ex-
pected. For a vertical facing (β ¼ 90°), a footing setback of Sb ¼ B,
and a backfill strength of ϕ 0 ¼ 34° (c 0 ¼ 0), changing the GRSS
height from H=B ¼ 1 to 10 results in a decrease in bearing capacity
that is governed by footing location (Fig. 9). For shorter structures
(e.g., H < 2B), the two-part wedge tends to govern for both overall
reinforcement strengths. However, as the GRSS height increases,
the bearing capacity decreases, eventually leveling off because
the influence of the footing load is minimal compared with the
relative stability of the slope [i.e., when i.e., kt =ðγBÞ ¼ 2] or
when it is constrained to the upper reaches of the GRSS
[i.e., kt =ðγBÞ ¼ 5]. For we aker overall reinforcement and a small
footing setback, the decrease in bearing capacity becomes small
when H=B > 4 since the log-spiral dominates bearing capacity
and its critical slip surface geometry is constrained to upper
portions of the GRSS. On the other hand, the bearing capacity for
weaker overall reinforcement and large footing setback (Sb =B ¼ 4)

Fig. 9. Normalized bearing capacity for varying wall heights and footing setbacks of (a) Sb =B ¼ 1; and (b) Sb =B ¼ 4.

© ASCE 04019040-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Charts for bearing capacity of GRSS considering influence of slope face.

decreases when H=B > 4 since a failure mass develops in the
whole structure with increasing structure height. For the given
geometry with small footing setback and stronger reinforcements,
a minimum is reached when H=B > 3, limited to the relative depth
of influence of a two-sided general shear mechanism [Fig. 9(a)].
When footing setback is large and the overall reinforcement is
strong, failure above the uppermost geosynthetic tends to govern
for structure heights changing from 1 to 10B [Fig. 9(b)].
Charts for Bearing Capacity on GRSS
For convenient evaluation of the bearing capacity on a GRSS and
its associated failure mechanisms, a series of dimensionless solu-
tions was generated in chart form. Two sets of charts are presented:
the first for determining the bearing capacity considering the influ-
ence of the slope face (Fig. 10) and the second considering the dis-
tance between the footing and retained soil (Fig. 11). The minimum
value determined from these charts defines the critical, ultimate
bearing capacity for a given configuration of geometry, soil proper-
ties, and reinforcement layout. The GRSS heights evaluated ranged
from H=B ¼ 1 to 10 for facing inclinations of 90°, 80°, 70°, 60°,
and 50°. Normalized reinforcement values of kt =γB ¼ 1, 2, and 5
are presented to capture a realistic range in reinforcement strengths
and backfill densities. The shear strength of the reinforced and re-
tained backfill in the absence of laboratory testing is considered to
be a conservative ϕ 0 ¼ 34°, compatible with conventional design
values used in AASHTO (2016).
These charts demonstrate that increasing reinforcement
strength, increasing footing setback, decreasing facing inclination,
and decreasing GRSS height will result in higher bearing capacity
values (Fig. 10). In particular, increasing setback and decreasing
facing inclination result in a relatively constant bearing capacity
with height as the mechanism is constrained to the upper reaches
of the GRSS. This benefit can also be achieved by using stronger
reinforcements (or using closely spaced weak reinforcements). In
the absence of such an approach, compound slope stability–bearing
capacity failures manifesting as a log-spiral result in lower bearing
capacity with increasing height because the overall structure is less
stable. As the foundation nears the transitional zone between rein-
forced and retained soil, bearing capacity is generally constant, the
exception being when St is between 0.25 B and −0.5B (where a

© ASCE 04019040-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Charts for bearing capacity of GRSS considering influence of retained soil.

positive St implies that the footing is placed entirely on reinforced
soil and negative implies overlap with retained fill). When a footing
approaches the retained soil, the governing mechanism tends to
be a one-sided failure toward the unreinforced soil. Increasing
reinforcement strength results in higher bearing capacity when
the footing is placed upon reinforced soil, but it also demonstrates
a greater drop in bearing capacity in proximity to unreinforced,
retained fill (Fig. 11).
To find the critical bearing capacity for a given GRSS geometry
using the proposed charts, one must know the footing location and
width, GRSS height and inclination, reinforcement strength, length
and spacing, and backfill properties. One determines the appropri-
ate combination of H=B, Sb =B, kt =γB, and β and subsequently
determines a modified bearing capacity factor, N γ . Upon determi-
nation of the modified bearing capacity factor, the bearing pressure
can be determined by multiplying N γ by 0.5γB. For a given bearing
capacity, insight into the corresponding failure mechanism can be
gained from the presented marker shape—in Fig. 10, the circle,
upper triangle, lower triangle, and diamond represent a log-spiral,
two-part wedge, two-sided general shear failures, and failure above
the uppermost geosynthetic, respectively. For geometries and
reinforcement strengths not explicitly represented in the proposed
charts, three stages of linear interpolation are suggested using
bounding values of Sb =B, kt =γB, and β: (1) interpolate the eight
bounding values of N γ based on kt =γB, (2) interpolate the four
modified N γ values based on kt =γB, and (3) interpolate the two
modified N γ values based on β to arrive at an estimated N γ
representative of the proposed conditions.
Example
To illustrate the application of the proposed solutions, a practical
example is presented. Due to limited right-of-way, a GRSS is to be
constructed with an inclination of 90°, a height of 5 m, and a
cohesionless backfill with ϕ 0 ¼ 34° and γ ¼ 20 kN=m3 . It will
be reinforced with geogrid layers that are 4 m in length and
have a tensile strength of T ult ¼ 20 kN=m, a vertical spacing of
Sv ¼ 0.5 m, and an interface friction of 2/3 the friction angle
(δ ¼ 22.7°). The GRSS will support an nonembedded footing that
is 1 m wide (B ¼ 1 m) placed 2 m (Sb ¼ 2 m) from the facing
and 1 m from the retained soil (St ¼ 1 m). Based on these values,
the normalized inputs are Sb =B ¼ 2, St =B ¼ 1, kt =ðγBÞ ¼ 2, and
H=B ¼ 5 for a vertical GRSS. Using Figs. 10 and 11, the modified
bearing capacity factors are N γ ¼ 21 and N γ ¼ 47, respectively.

© ASCE 04019040-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040

 The lower value is N γ ¼ 21, which represents a critical bearing
capacity of 210 kPa. The corresponding symbol in Fig. 10 is a
circle, indicating that the governing mechanism is a log-spiral.
If the designer decides to use stronger overall reinforcement—
for example, by changing Sv to 0.2 m—there would be a significant
change in bearing capacity and the critical failure mechanism.
In this case, kt =γB ¼ 5, and the corresponding dimensionless bear-
ing capacities from Figs. 10 and 11 are N γ ¼ 46 and 56, respec-
tively. Therefore, the modified bearing capacity factor is 46 × 0.5,
γ ¼ 20 kN=m3 , and B ¼ 1 m, yielding a bearing capacity of
460 kPa. Note that the constant bearing capacity with increasing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
height is indicative that the failure is confined to the upper reaches
of the GRSS. This implies that closely spaced reinforcements may
be most advantageous at the crest of the GRSS, a finding consistent
with observations in the practice and literature (e.g., Xie and
Leshchinsky 2015; Nicks et al. 2016). This observation shows that
close spacing need not be applied to the entire GRSS in the context
of bearing capacity but only until a H=B of 3.5 is reached, the depth
corresponding to the inflection point representative of a two-sided
shear mechanism governing regardless of depth. This implies that
one can attain increased cost efficiency using stronger or more
closely spaced reinforcements in an appropriate portion of a GRSS.
Conclusions
The ultimate bearing capacity of strip footings placed on a GRSS
was evaluated using an analytical approach where a minimum
failure load was determined from five simultaneous failure mech-
anisms: a two-part wedge, log-spiral, two-sided general shear, fail-
ure above the uppermost geosynthetic layer, and one-sided general
shear failure. This approach accounts for GRSS geometry, footing
location, backfill properties, and reinforcement spacing, length, and
strength. The proposed multimechanism method demonstrated
good agreement with rigorous numerical approaches, capturing
the influences of both the GRSS slope face and the transition from
reinforced backfill to retained soil. A sensitivity study was per-
formed and a comprehensive set of solutions presented in a series
of dimensionless charts that account for reinforcement spacing/
strength, footing location, and GRSS inclination. The main conclu-
sions of the study are as follows:
• Increasing backfill and reinforcement strength or decreasing
reinforcement spacing and the ratio of GRSS height to footing
width will result in higher bearing capacity. Notably, the use
of conservative backfill strength values in design results in
potentially significant underestimation of bearing capacity.
• The log-spiral mechanism typically governs when the GRSS
slope is steep and overall reinforcement is weak. This mechan-
ism is more likely to occur when the footing is located closer to
the facing or the GRSS is tall.
• A two-part wedge mechanism tends to occur when the footing is
located closer to the GRSS face and overall reinforcement is
strong.
• The two-sided general shear mechanism governs when a footing
is located sufficiently far from the slope facing and overall re-
inforcement is strong. Use of stronger or more closely spaced
reinforcements increases the likelihood of this mechanism
governing instead of a log-spiral.
• Failure above the uppermost geosynthetic governs when the
distance from footing to the top layer of reinforcement is large,
the footing is far from the slope facing, and overall reinforce-
ment is strong.
• The one-sided general shear mechanism is appropriate when the
footing is located within 0.5B of the transitional zone between
© ASCE 04019040-11
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040
reinforced and retained backfill. The results from this mechan-
ism should be compared to those of the other four cases, where
the minimum of all cases will dictate critical bearing capacity.
• Generally, the most dramatic shift in failure mechanism occurs
when weak overall reinforcements are used. This phenomenon
applies to not only a footing placed near the GRSS face but
those with considerable setback. Use of stronger (or more clo-
sely spaced) reinforcements result in failure tending to adhere to
a singular mechanism.
• The results demonstrate that the use of closely spaced reinfor-
cements can bring significant improvement to bearing capacity,
particularly when a two-sided mechanism is critical. In this case,
closely spaced reinforcements can be applied to a selected por-
tion of the GRSS for improved bearing capacity—namely, an
upper portion of the GRSS corresponding to the minimum
H=B that yields a constant bearing capacity and mechanism.
Characterizing a margin of safety in design is commonly per-
formed through (1) a reduction of soil shear strength in the case
of slope stability, (2) through a reduction in T ult in the case of in-
ternal stability of GRSS, and (3) through a comparison of expected
footing loads versus capacity in the case of the bearing capacity of
shallow foundations. Considering the numerous mechanisms dis-
cussed in this study, it is difficult to propose assessing safe design
using the first two criteria as the governing mechanism may change.
However, since the proposed results represent the bearing capacity at
a state of equilibrium, a comparison of demand (i.e., expected ver-
tical footing load) versus capacity (i.e., bearing capacity at equilib-
rium) presents a rational means of assessing a margin of safety that is
compatible with the current design of shallow foundations.
The load-bearing behavior of a GRSS is complex and governed
by potential strain incompatibilities between reinforcement, soil,
and foundation that are difficult to capture with limit equilibrium
methods. Also omitted from this approach are pressure-dependent
parameters, such as stiffness, dilation, and anisotropic behavior
commonly associated with structural backfills. While these param-
eters, particularly stiffness, may affect the load-displacement re-
sponse of a footing, they are not considered in this study, which
focused on assessing the ultimate limit state in the context of fully
plastic conditions, i.e., equilibrium. The assessment of the service
limit state is a critical consideration in the design of GRSSs. Com-
plex design parameters, such as settlement and deformation, may
be best assessed using calibrated numerical techniques, such as fi-
nite elements or finite difference modeling. The proposed approach
extends conventional ULS design approaches for shallow founda-
tion design and slope stability to reinforced soil to present a com-
prehensive framework for evaluating the bearing capacity on
GRSS. However, as for any complex GRSS, one should account for
compound stability using LE or LA packages that ensure that a
system will be globally stable.
Acknowledgments
The primary author would like to acknowledge the Geosynthetics
Institute (GSI) for partial support of this work. Furthermore, he
would like to honor Jerry Yamumuro, who kindly bequeathed a
fellowship program that partially supported the first author
during this work.
Supplemental Data
Figs. S1–S9 and Table S1 are available online in the ASCE Library
(www.ascelibrary.org).
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 References
AASHTO. 2016. Standard specifications for highway bridges. Washington,
DC: AASHTO.
Abu-Hejleh, N., T. Wang, and J. G. Zornberg. 2000. “Performance
of geosynthetic-reinforced walls supporting bridge and approaching
roadway structures.” In Proc., ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication
No. 103, Geo-Denver 2000, 218–243. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Abu-Hejleh, N., J. G. Zornberg, T. Wang, and J. Watcharamonthein. 2002.
“Monitored displacements of unique geosynthetic-reinforced soil
bridge abutments.” Geosynthetics Int. 9 (1): 71–95. https://doi.org/10
.1680/gein.9.0211.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Adams, M., J. Nicks, T. Stabile, J. Wu, W. Schlatter, and J. Hartmann. 2011.
Geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system:interim imple-
mentation guide. Rep. No. FHWA-HRT-11-026. McLean, VA: Federal
Highway Administration.
Adams, M. T., P. S. Ooi, and J. E. Nicks. 2014. “Mini-pier testing to es-
timate performance of full-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge
abutments.” Geotech. Test. J. 37 (5): 20140007. https://doi.org/10
.1520/GTJ20140007.
Allen, T. M., and R. J. Bathurst. 2013. “Comparison of working stress and
limit equilibrium behavior of reinforced soil walls.” In Sound geotech-
nical research to practice, edited by A. W. Stuedlein and B. R.
Christopher, 499–513. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Ausilio, E. 2014. “Seismic bearing capacity of strip footings located close
to the crest of geosynthetic reinforced soil structures.” Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 32 (4): 885–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-9765-4.
Bathurst, R. J., J. A. Blatz, and M. H. Burger. 2003. “Performance of
instrumented large-scale unreinforced and reinforced embankments
loaded by a strip footing to failure.” Can. Geotech. J. 40 (6): 1067–
1083. https://doi.org/10.1139/t03-052.
Berg, R. R., B. R. Christopher, and N. C. Samtani. 2009. Design of me-
chanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes—Volume
I. Rep. No. FHWA-NHI-10-024. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration.
Binquet, J., and K. L. Lee. 1975. “Bearing capacity tests on reinforced earth
slabs.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 101 (12): 1241–1255.
Blatz, J. A., and R. J. Bathurst. 2003. “Limit equilibrium analysis of
large-scale reinforced and unreinforced embankments loaded by a strip
footing.” Can. Geotech. J. 40 (6): 1084–1092. https://doi.org/10.1139
/t03-053.
Choudhary, A. K., J. N. Jha, and K. S. Gill. 2010. “Laboratory investigation
of bearing capacity behaviour of strip footing on reinforced flyash
slope.” Geotext. Geomembr. 28 (4): 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.geotexmem.2009.09.007.
Elias, V., B. R. Christopher, and R. R. Berg. 2001. Mechanically stabilized
earth walls and reinforced soil slopes-design and construction guide-
lines. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-00-043. Washington, DC: Federal
Highway Administration.
El Sawwaf, M. A. 2007. “Behavior of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced
sand over a soft clay slope.” Geotext. Geomembr. 25 (1): 50–60. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.06.001.
Gill, K. S., A. K. Choudhary, J. N. Jha, and S. K. Shukla. 2013. “Exper-
imental and numerical studies of loaded strip footing resting on rein-
forced fly ash slope.” Geosynthetics Int. 20 (1): 13–25. https://doi
.org/10.1680/gein.12.00036.
Gourc, J. P., P. Gotteland, E. Haza, H. Perrier, and E. Baraize. 1995. “Geo-
textile reinforced structures as bridge abutments: Full-scale experimen-
tation.” In Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics, 79–92. Jupiter, FL:
International Geosynthetics Society.
Guido, V. A., D. K. Chang, and M. A. Sweeney. 1986. “Comparison of
geogrid and geotextile reinforced earth slabs.” Can. Geotech. J.
23 (4): 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1139/t86-073.
Hatami, K., and R. J. Bathurst. 2006. “Numerical model for reinforced soil
segmental walls under surcharge loading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 132 (6): 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2006)132:6(673).
Haza, E., P. Gotteland, and J. P. Gourc. 2000. “Design method for local load
on a geosynthetic reinforced soil structure.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 18 (4):
243–267. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016623619511.
© ASCE 04019040-12
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040
Huang, C. C., and F. Tatsuoka. 1990. “Bearing capacity of reinforced hori-
zontal sandy ground.” Geotext. Geomembr. 9 (1): 51–82. https://doi.org
/10.1016/0266-1144(90)90005-W.
Huang, C. C., and F. Tatsuoka. 1994. “Stability analysis for footings on
reinforced sand slopes.” Soils Found. 34 (3): 21–37. https://doi.org/10
.3208/sandf1972.34.3_21.
Huang, C. C., F. Tatsuoka, and Y. Sato. 1994. “Failure mechanisms of re-
inforced sand slopes loaded with a footing.” Soils Found. 34 (2): 27–40.
https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.34.2_27.
Ismail, I., and G. P. Raymondm. 1995. “Geosynthetic reinforcement of
granular layered soils.” In Vol. 1 of Proc., Geosynthetics ’95, 317–330.
St. Paul, MN: North American Geosynthetics Society.
Jahanandish, M., and A. Keshavarz. 2005. “Seismic bearing capacity of
foundations on reinforced soil slopes.” Geotext. Geomembr. 23 (1):
1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.09.001.
Ketchart, K. 1997. “Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge pier
and abutment, Denver, Colorado, USA.” In Mechanically stabilized
backfill, 101–116. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Khing, K. H., B. M. Das, V. K. Puri, E. E. Cook, and S. C. Yen. 1993. “The
bearing-capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand.”
Geotext. Geomembr. 12 (4): 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266
-1144(93)90009-D.
Lee, K. M., and V. R. Manjunath. 2000. “Experimental and numerical
studies of geosynthetic-reinforced sand slopes loaded with a footing.”
Can. Geotech. J. 37 (4): 828–842. https://doi.org/10.1139/t00-016.
Leshchinsky, B. 2015. “Bearing capacity of footings placed adjacent to c′-ϕ′
slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (1): 04015022. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001306.
Leshchinsky, B., and Y. Xie. 2017. “Bearing capacity for spread footings
placed near c 0 -ϕ 0 slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (1):
06016020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001578.
Leshchinsky, D. 1997. Design procedure for geosynthetic reinforced steep
slopes. Newark, DE: Leshchinsky, Inc.
Leshchinsky, D., and R. H. Boedeker. 1989. “Geosynthetic reinforced soil
structures.” J. Geotech. Eng. 115 (10): 1459–1478. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1989)115:10(1459).
Liu, H., and M. S. Won. 2014. “Stress dilatancy and reinforcement load of
vertical-reinforced soil composite: Analytical method.” J. Eng. Mech.
140 (3): 630–639. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889
.0000686.
Luo, N., and R. J. Bathurst. 2018. “Deterministic and random FEM analysis
of full-scale unreinforced and reinforced embankments.” Geosynthetics
Int. 25 (2): 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.17.00040.
Mandel, J., and J. Salencon. 1972. “Force portante d’un sol sur une assise
rigide (étude théorique).” Geotechnique 22 (1): 79–93. https://doi.org
/10.1680/geot.1972.22.1.79.
Meyerhof, G. G. 1963. “Some recent research on the bearing capacity
of foundations.” Can. Geotech. J. 1 (1): 16–26. https://doi.org/10
.1139/t63-003.
Michalowski, R. 1997. “An estimate of the influence of soil weight on bear-
ing capacity using limit analysis.” Soils Found. 37 (4): 57–64. https://
doi.org/10.3208/sandf.37.4_57.
Nicks, J. E., D. Esmaili, and M. T. Adams. 2016. “Deformations of
geosynthetic reinforced soil under bridge service loads.” Geotext.
Geomembr. 44 (4): 641–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem
.2016.03.005.
Schmertmann, J. H., J. P. Hartman, and P. R. Brown. 1978. “Improved
strain influence factor diagrams.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
104 (8): 1131–1135.
Selvadurai, P. S., and C. T. Gnanendran. 1989. “An experimental study of a
footing located on a sloped fill: Influence of a soil reinforcement layer.”
Can. Geotech. J. 26 (3): 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1139/t89-059.
Sharma, R., Q. Chen, M. Abu-Farsakh, and S. Yoon. 2009. “Analytical
modeling of geogrid reinforced soil foundation.” Geotext. Geomembr.
27 (1): 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.07.002.
Sommers, A. N., and B. V. S. Viswanadham. 2009. “Centrifuge model tests
on the behavior of strip footing on geotextile-reinforced slopes.” Geo-
text. Geomembr. 27 (6): 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem
.2009.05.002.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Turker, E., E. Sadoglu, E. Cure, and B. A. Uzuner. 2014. “Bearing capacity
of eccentrically loaded strip footings close to geotextile-reinforced sand
slope.” Can. Geotech. J. 51 (8): 884–895. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj
-2014-0055.
Vesic, A. S. 1973. “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.”
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 99 (1): 45–73.
Wayne, M. H., J. Han, and K. Akins. 1998. “The design of geosynthetic
reinforced foundations.” In Proc., Geo-Congress, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 76, 1–18. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Wu, J. T. H., and T. Q. Pham. 2013. “Load-carrying capacity and required
reinforcement strength of closely spaced soil-geosynthetic composites.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Indian Institute of Technology, Tirupati" on 08/01/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (9): 1468–1476. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000885.
Xiao, C., J. Han, and Z. Zhang. 2016. “Experimental study on performance
of geosynthetic-reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations
subjected to static footing loading.” Geotext. Geomembr. 44 (1):
81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.06.001.
Xie, Y., and B. Leshchinsky. 2015. “MSE walls as bridge abutments:
Optimal reinforcement density.” Geotext. Geomembr. 43 (2): 128–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.01.002.
Yang, S., B. Leshchinsky, F. Zhang, and Y. Gao. 2016. “Required strength
of geosynthetic in reinforced soil structures supporting spread footings
© ASCE 04019040-13
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(9): 04019040
in three dimensions.” Comput. Geotech. 78: 72–87. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compgeo.2016.04.010.
Yetimoglu, T., J. T. Wu, and A. Saglamer. 1994. “Bearing capacity of
rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand.” J. Geotech. Eng.
120 (12): 2083–2099. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
(1994)120:12(2083).
Yoo, C. 2001. “Laboratory investigation of bearing capacity behavior
of strip footing on geogrid-reinforced sand slope.” Geotext. Geo-
membr. 19 (5): 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(01)
00009-7.
Yoo, C., and S. B. Kim. 2008. “Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic
reinforced segmental retaining wall under a surcharge load: Full-scale
load test and 3D finite element analysis.” Geotext. Geomembr. 26 (6):
460–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.05.008.
Zhao, A. 1996a. “Failure loads on geosynthetic reinforced soil structures.”
Geotext. Geomembr. 14 (5): 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266
-1144(96)89796-2.
Zhao, A. 1996b. “Limit analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes.”
Geosynthetics Int. 3 (6): 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.3.0082.
Zornberg, J. G., N. Sitar, and J. K. Mitchell. 1998. “Performance of geo-
synthetic reinforced slopes at failure.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
124 (8): 670–683. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)
124:8(670).
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.