Relationship between the Seismic Coefficient and the

Unfactored Geosynthetic Force in Reinforced Earth Structures

Farshid Vahedifard, M.ASCE1; Dov Leshchinsky2; and Christopher L. Meehan, M.ASCE3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents an integrated analytical method for calculating the resultant unfactored geosynthetic force in reinforced earth
structures under seismic loading conditions. The method utilizes a pseudostatic limit equilibrium approach for assessing the internal stability of
a reinforced earth structure, assuming a potential rotational failure along a log spiral trace. A closed-form solution is presented for determining
the sum of all horizontal forces mobilized in the geosynthetic reinforcement along their intersection with the critical log spiral surface. This
mobilized sum is then redistributed among the individual layers to determine the unfactored reinforcement forces that are needed to resist
the applied seismic acceleration. Parametric studies were utilized, and the results are presented in a series of design charts for different condi-
tions. Such charts can be used to determine the required tensile strength of the reinforcement for a given seismic coefficient. Alternatively, for
a given reinforcement strength, the formulation can also be used to determine the yield acceleration that is required for calculating seismic dis-
placements. An advantage of the proposed methodology is that it determines the yield acceleration caused by rotation of the reinforced mass
(internal stability), which allows for a rational, yet simple, assessment of the displacement related to the internal movement of the reinforced
mass. The design charts illustrate the effect of earth structure backslope and the vertical seismic coefficient. The results also show the impact
of the assumed location of the resultant reinforcement force under seismic loading conditions. Variations in the location of this force over a rea-
sonable range have little impact on the results. The inclination of the backslope has a significant effect for earth structures with smaller batters
and/or larger horizontal seismic coefficients. Additionally, vertical seismic coefficients with a downward direction increase the mobilized force
in the geosynthetic reinforcement. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000701. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Soil stabilization; Geosynthetics; Seismic design; Limit equilibrium; Soil structures; Earthquakes.
Author keywords: Soil stabilization; Geosynthetics; Seismic design; Limit equilibrium; Earthquakes.

Introduction
Geosynthetic reinforcement has been increasingly utilized for sta-
bilizing steep slopes and walls within the last few decades. The
relative ease of construction, cost effectiveness, and satisfactory
performance of this technology have established geosynthetic-
reinforced earth structures (GRESs) as a competitive design alter-
native in situations where slope stabilization and/or earth retention
solutions are needed. Several attempts have been made to enhance
current GRES design methodologies. To achieve this goal, earthquake-
induced instability and displacement of GRESs have been exten-
sively investigated through experimental tests (e.g., Ling et al. 2005;
Bathurst et al. 2006; Nova-Roessig and Sitar 2006), numerical
approaches, including finite-element (FE) and finite-difference (FD)
methods (e.g., Bathurst and Hatami 1998; Lee et al. 2010; Ling et al.
2010), and analytical procedures (e.g., Ling et al. 1997; Ling and
Leshchinsky 1998; Ausilio et al. 2000; Michalowski and You 2000;
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762 (corresponding
author). E-mail: farshid@cee.msstate.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: dov@udel.edu
3
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: cmeehan@udel.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 11, 2011; approved on
January 25, 2012; published online on January 28, 2012. Discussion period
open until March 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 10, October 1, 2012.
©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2012/10-1209–1221/$25.00.
Huang et al. 2003; Paulsen and Kramer 2004). Field observations of
GRESs after major earthquakes have indicated that these structures
typically perform well during strong shaking (e.g., Collin et al. 1992;
Tatsuoka et al. 1996; Ling et al. 2001; Koseki et al. 2006). This better
than expected performance record can be attributed to the generally
ductile nature of reinforced earth structures, overly conservative
static and seismic design, and/or underestimation of in situ soil
properties.
The seismic design of GRESs has commonly been performed
using the pseudostatic limit equilibrium (LE) approach. This ap-
proach is relatively simple to implement, tangible, and well accepted
in practice. In an ideal case, a fully coupled dynamic analysis using
numerical modeling (i.e., FE or FD methods) can provide the most
accurate prediction of the stress-deformation behavior of GRESs
under seismic loading conditions, by considering all potential de-
formation mechanisms. Unfortunately, this type of dynamic analysis
requires complex input data and a high level of expertise, both of
which are often not available. Consequently, simplified analytical
methods such as pseudostatic LE are a reasonable alternative.
Historically, seismic analyses of GRESs have been performed
using either pseudostatic slope stability methods or the Mononobe-
Okabe (M-O) modified earth pressure approach (Okabe 1926;
Mononobe and Matsuo 1929). Richardson and Lee (1975) proposed
the first seismic design methodology for GRESs based on the M-O
method. Using the same approach, Bathurst and Cai (1995) per-
formed pseudostatic stability analyses for geosynthetic-reinforced
segmental walls. Ling et al. (1997) proposed a three-step seismic
design procedure that included a pseudostatic internal stability
analysis (tieback), a pseudostatic compound stability analysis
(pullout), and a direct sliding analysis. Ling and Leshchinsky (1998)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1209

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

 extended the same procedure by including an in-phase vertical
seismic coefficient. Using a series of parametric studies, Ling and
Leshchinsky (1998) found that direct sliding along the base could
be the most critical failure mode as the slope flattens and seismic
acceleration increases, especially if the vertical acceleration is in-
cluded. If the structure is designed with the maximum seismic ac-
celeration to provide tieback and compound stability, satisfying the
direct sliding stability check may lead to impractically long re-
inforcement. Consequently, for direct sliding along the base, Ling
and Leshchinsky (1998) proposed a displacement-based design
approach to satisfy performance criteria and avoid the need for an
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
extremely long geosynthetic layer.
When performing pseudostatic analyses, the seismic force is
applied indefinitely. However, seismic events are transient in nature
and the earthquake-induced forces vary in intensity during shaking.
If one uses the peak ground acceleration (PGA) as the seismic co-
efficient in a pseudostatic analysis, then the resulting design would
be significantly overconservative because it is associated with the
constant-maximal force assumption in the pseudostatic approach.
To overcome this limitation, the seismic coefficient is usually taken
as a fraction of the expected earthquake PGA for design purposes
(e.g., Leshchinsky et al. 2009). More recently, Al Atik and Sitar
(2010) suggested that seismic earth pressures on cantilever retaining
walls could be neglected at PGAs less than 0.4g. Bray et al. (2010)
recommended 0.3g as the boundary value below which there is no
need for seismic design for earth-retaining structures. However,
although not explicitly stated in their papers, it is clear that these
generalizations are limited to walls with horizontal crests.
Leshchinsky et al. (2010) presented an algorithm for calculating
the required unfactored geosynthetic strength that is necessary
to ensure sufficient internal stability in a GRES. Leshchinsky et al.
(2012) utilized a similar formulation for unreinforced slopes, fol-
lowing the work by Leshchinsky and Zhu (2010). The present paper
extends the formulation presented by Leshchinsky et al. (2010) by
including the effect of both horizontal and vertical seismic coef-
ficients. The impact of these seismic coefficients on the unfactored
geosynthetic force in GRESs is examined in detail. The formulation
is also extended to include the effect of backslope angle. The results
are presented in a fashion that provides a rational relationship be-
tween the seismic coefficient and the resultant force that is mobilized
in the geosynthetics. The design charts that are presented can be used
to determine the required tensile strength of the reinforcement for
a given seismic coefficient. The presented analytical framework can
also be used to determine the yield acceleration for a given re-
inforcement strength. Although current pseudostatic LE methods
mostly consider a sliding mode of failure for calculating the yield
acceleration (e.g., Cai and Bathurst 1996; Ling et al. 1997), the
proposed method provides the yield acceleration caused by rotation
(internal stability). Using shake table excitations, Leshchinsky et al.
(2009) demonstrated that internal rotational slip surfaces could
develop in GRESs, potentially leading to failure. Equally important,
the approach that is formulated herein leads to a rational, yet simple,
assessment of displacement as related to internal movement of the
reinforced mass.
Design Approach and Formulation
Most design procedures for geosynthetic-reinforced walls (e.g.,
FHWA 2009) assume that lateral earth pressures are known at each
elevation, and the procedures consequently calculate the maximum
reactive force at a given elevation that is needed to counterbalance
the known lateral pressure. For each geosynthetic layer, the con-
tributory area is approximated based upon the spacings between
1210 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.
the reinforcement layers, which yields the maximum reactive
force, Tmax . Multiplying Tmax by certain factors leads to deter-
mination of the required long-term strength of the geosynthetic
reinforcement, TLTDS . The correct determination of TLTDS is a
critical design parameter for ensuring the long-term internal sta-
bility of a GRES.
As shown in Fig. 1, the application of Tmax at each reinforcement
level i, Tmax2i , is assumed to occur at the failure surface. Leshchinsky
and Volk (1985) suggested that the maximum value of Tmax2i , max
(Tmax2i ), occurs at the lowest layer, and that upper layers carry tensile
forces relative to their perceived tendency for rotation, which is
implied by the rotation of the failure mass along the log spiral failure
surface. For a typical granular soil, this type of rotational failure
mechanism leads to the top layer carrying about 70% of the load that is
carried by the bottom layer (Leshchinsky and Volk 1985). Each
individual Tmax2i is also assumed to act horizontally. The summation
of Tmax2i values for n reinforcement layers yields the resultant
(global) force
P
n
Tmax 2 i ¼ T ð1Þ
i¼1
where Tmax2i 5 maximum tensile force for the ith reinforcement
layer; n 5 number of reinforcement layers, and T 5 resultant of all
the horizontal forces that are mobilized in the geosynthetic re-
inforcement layers along their intersection with the critical log spiral
surface. The mobilized resultant force (T) is redistributed among the
individual layers to determine the required reinforcement force that
is needed to resist a given loading.
Fig. 1 shows the notation and the failure mechanism that are used
in the present analyses. The problem is formulated by deriving the
moment LE equation for the reinforced soil. That is, the soil strength
is assumed to be fully mobilized along the failure surface (i.e., an
active wedge is formed), and the performance of the system hinges
on the reinforcement that is selected. The angle of friction (f), which is
utilized in the formulation, represents an unfactored value [i.e., before
applying a factor of safety (FS)]. In reality, for a given problem, FS is
applied to select our fdesign as fdesign 5 arc tan [tanðfÞ=FS], which
provides a stable system. As shown, a log spiral failure trace is utilized,
which is defined by the radius vector R 5 A 3 expð 2 cd b), where A 5
log spiral constant, cd 5 tanðfdesign Þ, and b 5 angle in polar
Fig. 1. Rotational failure of a GRES along a log spiral slip surface
passing through the reinforced zone
 coordinates. For typical failure surfaces, the traces of a log spiral and
a circular arc are nearly identical. The validity of a log spiral or,
alternatively, a circular arc, geometry for simulating the internal
failure of reinforced earth structures has been demonstrated experi-
mentally for both static and seismic loading conditions (e.g., Zornberg
et al. 1998; Bathurst et al. 2001; Leshchinsky et al. 2009).
Following the formulation presented by Baker (1981), which
was later modified by Leshchinsky and San (1994), the equation
for moment equilibrium about the pole of the log spiral can be
written. By rearranging the equation, the resultant pseudostatic
force (T) can be calculated for a cohesionless reinforced soil mass
as

 ð b2
 2c b   
T ¼ gð1 2 Kv Þ Ae d cos b 2 Ae2cd b2 cos b2 Ae2cd b sin b Ae2cd b ðcos b 2 cd sin bÞdb
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

b1

    
gH 2
2 ð12 Kv Þ tan v H tan vþAe2cd b1 sin b1 2 gHð12Kv Þ tan v Ae2cd b1 cos b12 Ae2cd b2 cos b2 2 H Ae2cd b1 sin b1 þ H tan v
2 3 2
g   
2 ð1 2 Kv Þ Ae2cd b2 sin b2 2 Ae2cd b1 sin b1 2 H tan v ðAe2cd b1 cos b1 2 Ae2cd b2 cos b2 2 H
2h
1 i q h 2 c b 2  2 i
 Ae2cd b1 sin b1 þH tan vþ Ae2cd b2 sin b2 2 Ae2cd b1 sin b12H tan v þ Ae d 2 sin b2 2 Ae 2 cd b1 sin b1 þH tan v
3 2
ð b2 h
g  2c b 2  2 c b 2 i 2c b  gH 2
 
þ Kh Ae d cos b 2 Ae d 2 cos b2 Ae d ðcos b 2 cd sin bÞdb 2 Kh tan v Ae2cd b1 cos b1 2 H þ H
2 b1 2 3
 2c b  h   i
1
2 gHKh tan v Ae d 1 cos b1 2 Ae2cd b2 cos b2 2 H  Ae2cd b2 cos b2 þ Ae2cd b1 cos b1 2 Ae2cd b2 cos b2 2 H
2
g   
2 Kh Ae2cd b1 cos b1 2 Ae2cd b2 cos b2 2 H Ae2cd b2 sin b2 2 Ae2cd b1 sin b1 2 H tan v
2 h
h  i  2c b  i
R 
 Ae2cd b2 cos b2 þ 1 Ae2cd b1 cos b1 2 Ae2cd b2 cos b2 2 H Ae d 1 cos b1 2 D þ h Ae2cd b1 cos b1 ð2Þ
3 T

where g 5 unit weight of the reinforced soil; H 5 height of the
slope, b1 and b2 5 angles of the points where the log spiral enters
and exits the slope (Points 1 and 2 in Fig. 1); Kh 5 horizontal
seismic coefficient; Kv 5 vertical seismic coefficient; v 5 slope
batter (slope angle 5 90°–v); q 5 surcharge; D 5 elevation of the
line of action of the resultant force T; Rh 5 horizontal resistance of
the facing at the bottom of the slope; and the other variables shown
are as previously defined. In this study, the impact of facing is not
considered, and Rh is ignored; this is a legitimate assumption in
certain structures, such as wrapped-face GRES or small block
facing walls. Because of publication space restrictions, the effects
of toe resistance are ignored in the present study; toe resistance
effects and their implications in the context of design of reinforced
earth structures are addressed in Leshchinsky and Vahedifard
(2012).
Utilizing the geometry of the problem, the log spiral constant (A)
can be obtained from the following equation (Leshchinsky and Zhu
2010):
ð12tanvtanaÞ
A ¼ H 2c b
Two assumptions in this formulation are that the mobilized force in
e d 1 ðcosb1 þsinb1 tanaÞ2e2cd b2 ðcosb2 þsinb2 tanaÞ
ð3Þ
where a 5 backslope angle, and the other variables shown are as
previously defined.
To use the method presented herein, the value of T should be
determined through a maximization procedure. For an assumed D,
and for all feasible values of b1 and b2 , a numerical iteration needs to
be performed to capture the maximum T from Eq. (2). The pertinent
assumptions, solution scheme, and required maximization pro-
cedure are explained in detail in Leshchinsky et al. (2010). This
maximization process is needed to find the failure mass which
requires the maximum reactive force from the reinforcement that
satisfies the LE state.
For a given value of D, one can determine T by maximizing
Eq. (2) and calculating Tmax2i for each reinforcement layer using the
following equation:
D
Tmax 2 i ¼ T Pn Tmax 2 i ð4Þ
i¼1 DTmax 2 i
where Tmax2i 5 maximum tensile force in the ith reinforcement
layer; n 5 number of reinforcement layers, and DTmax2i 5
a nondimensional distribution parameter. This parameter relates
the force in reinforcement layer i to the maximum force that is
mobilized among all layers; it can be calculated using the re-
lationship: DTmax2i 5 Tmax2i =maxðTmax2i Þ. DTmax2i is de-
termined based on the distribution function that is selected
(Leshchinsky et al. 2010).
Point of Action of the Resultant Pseudostatic Force
each geosynthetic layer acts horizontally and that the point of action
of the resultant T, D, is known. The resulting formulation is then
developed by globally solving the LE equations without having to
resort to statical assumptions. For an arbitrarily selected point of
action, the proposed solution scheme will yield the corresponding
maximum resultant pseudostatic force. This means that D is not
derived by the formulation, but is rather assumed. For a log spiral slip
surface, the Tmax2i distribution is implied by rotation of the log
spiral trace. The lowest layer carries the maxðTmax2i Þ, and the other
layers carry values of Tmax that are proportional to their rotation.
Leshchinsky and Volk (1985) determined Tmax2i by employing
a log spiral failure trace and a variational LE approach. Considering
the virtual rotation of a rigid body combined with the log spiral
failure mechanism, Leshchinsky and Volk (1985) showed that the

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1211

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

 geosynthetic layers did not tend to stretch uniformly unless the log
spiral degenerated into a circle. Because of the slip-surface geom-
etry, the lowest reinforcement layer will elongate the most, and
consequently, its tensile strength will be fully mobilized first. The
Tmax2i distribution for equally spaced geosynthetic layers varies
between uniform for cohesive soils to trapezoidal for frictional soils.
The value of D can be calculated from the distribution function
that is selected to determine the maximum tensile forces in the
geosynthetic layers along the height of the earth structure. Linear and
uniform distribution functions are two extremes that can be con-
sidered for this purpose (e.g., Leshchinsky and Boedeker 1989). A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
approach for designing surcharge-free GRESs with equally spaced
reinforcement. Leshchinsky et al. (2010) investigated the effect of
three common distribution functions for surcharge-free problems:
linear (D 5 H=3), multilinear (D 5 0:446H), and uniform (D 5 H=2).
They found that the differences between the critical log spirals as
a function of the assumed D became negligible as the backslope
inclination decreased and/or f increased.
Using a lateral earth pressure approach and following the original
M-O method, the point of action of the resultant active thrust is at
D 5 H=3. Seed and Whitman (1970) suggested that the position of
the resultant dynamic force varied in a range between 0.4H and 0.7H

linear distribution is currently used in the NCMA (1997) and FHWA depending on the magnitude of the earthquake ground acceleration.
(2009) design methodologies, which utilize a lateral earth pressure Within this range, Seed and Whitman (1970) recommended that

Fig. 2. Design charts under static loading for different backslopes using a linear distribution function (D 5 H/ 3): (a) f 5 20°; (b) f 5 30°; (c) f 5 40°;
(d) f 5 50°

1212 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

 D 5 0.6H be used as a rational value for design purposes; this
relationship was also used in some later pseudostatic analyses of
GRESs (e.g., Bathurst and Cai 1995). More recently, however, Al
Atik and Sitar (2010) performed a set of experimental and numerical
analyses and showed that D 5 H=3 is a more reasonable assumption
for the position of the pseudostatic resultant.
In the following section, the effect of variations in D on the
resulting T value is investigated. The sensitivity of the results for
a given D value will be checked utilizing linear (i.e., D 5 H=3) and
uniform (i.e., D 5 H=3) distributions of Tmax . For surcharged
GRESs, an intense surcharge load can possibly move D upward
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(i.e., D 5 H=2) by imposing a substantial intensity to the system
relative to the failure mass weight, W.
Parametric Study
The presented methodology can be utilized to produce a wide variety
of seismic design charts for GRES. The present study focuses on
the effect of GRES backslope, vertical seismic coefficient, and
the location of the resultant force on the resultant unfactored force
of the geosynthetic under seismic loading. Because publication
space is limited, only a few representative charts are presented for

Fig. 3. Design charts under static loading for different backslopes using a uniform distribution function (D 5 H/ 2): (a) f 5 20°; (b) f 5 30°; (c)
f 5 40°; (d) f 5 50°

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1213

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

 each design parameter of interest. However, the formulation and so-
lution scheme can be used to develop similar charts for different
conditions.
The resulting seismic design charts for GRESs are presented in
a fashion that allows a rational relationship to be established between
the design seismic coefficient and the resultant geosynthetic force.
For a given seismic coefficient, the design charts can be used to find
the required unfactored design strength of the geosynthetic. By
employing a distribution function, this resultant force can then be
redistributed among the individual layers to determine the force in
each geosynthetic reinforcement layer caused by dynamic loading.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Alternatively, the presented formulation can be utilized to determine
the yield acceleration, which is essential for calculating seismic
displacements. An advantage of the proposed methodology is that it
determines the yield acceleration caused by rotation of the reinforced
mass (internal stability). This approach contrasts other current
methods (e.g., Cai and Bathurst 1996; Ling et al. 1997) that calculate
the yield acceleration using a translational mode of failure (i.e.,
external sliding stability). Internal rotational failure can degenerate
to a translational one should it be more critical (e.g., Leshchinsky and
Zhu 2010); however, the reverse is not true, thus making rotational
failure more generic.

Fig. 4. Superimposed force caused by seismicity, Tmd , versus batter for different backslopes using a linear distribution function (D 5 H/ 2): (a) f 5
20°; (b) f 5 30°; (c) f 5 40°; (d) f 5 50°

1214 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

 This paper intends to provide a pseudostatic extension to the
static design charts presented by Leshchinsky et al. (2010). How-
ever, because Leshchinsky et al. (2010) just considered a horizontal
backslope, Figs. 2 and 3 show static design charts for different
backslopes using linear (D 5 H=3) and uniform (D 5 H=2) distri-
bution functions, respectively. Presenting static design charts herein
makes the present paper a standalone document, because the static
T is needed for seismic design purposes. Figs. 2 and 3 cover a wide
range of f from 20 to 50° and various backslopes from horizontal
to 26.6° (1V:2H). Although f 5 20° is likely to be lower than any
soil friction angle associated with typical backfills, it sets an absolute
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
lower value that is reasonable for the parametric studies. Further-
more, it can be a realistic design value if a designer directly reduces
an actual f 5 28° by a factor of safety of 1.5. The upper bound value,
f 5 50°, represents a high unfactored friction angle value that might
be considered for design if excellent backfill materials were to be
utilized. As expected, Figs. 2 and 3 show that more significantly
inclined backslopes require a higher geosynthetic tensile resistance.
It can be also observed that for larger values of f, the effect of
backslope angle on the resulting T values is less significant. By
comparing Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, it can be concluded that the impact of
employing different Tmax distribution functions is more pronounced

Fig. 5. Superimposed force caused by seismicity, Tmd , versus batter for different backslopes using a uniform distribution function (D 5 H=2): (a) f 5
20°; (b) f 5 30°; (c) f 5 40°; (d) f 5 50°

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1215

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

 in GRESs with a flatter crest. Generally, using different D values
results in only relatively insignificant differences. This observa-
tion is consistent with the results presented by Leshchinsky et al.
(2010) for GRESs that have a horizontal crest under static loading
conditions.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the superimposed force in the reinforcement
caused by seismicity, Tmd , versus batter for various backslopes and
f using linear (D 5 H=3) and uniform (D 5 H=2) distribution
functions, respectively. The value of Tmd illustrates the impact of
seismicity, as it reflects the difference between the seismic and static
T values, as follows:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Tmd ¼ TðKh ;Kv Þ2 TðKh ¼ Kv ¼ 0Þ ð5Þ
Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate that more significantly inclined backslopes
require a higher geosynthetic tensile resistance during seismic
events. The effect of backslope is more significant for smaller batters
and larger values of Kh . The vertical seismic coefficient, Kv , for Figs.
4 and 5 was selected as zero. With the exception of the trend ob-
served for f 5 20° [Figs. 4(a and b)], it can be observed that Tmd
decreases as v increases. The opposite behavior was observed for
f 5 20°, where Tmd decreases as v increases. On the surface, this

Fig. 6. Effect of vertical seismic coefficient, Kv , on T for a linear distribution function (D 5 H=3) and horizontal backslope: (a) f 5 20°; (b) f 5 30°;
(c) f 5 40°; (d) f 5 50°

1216 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

 seems counterintuitive; however, because the static force (shown in
Figs. 2 and 3) decreases with increasing batter angle, the global
resultant force (static T from Figs. 2 and 3 plus Tmd from Figs. 4 and
5) actually decreases as the batter is increased.
Recent earthquakes, such as Kobe and Northridge, illustrated that
strong vertical ground motions can occur during earthquake shak-
ing, and that these motions can have a significant effect on the be-
havior of various types of structures during the event. For GRESsw,
upward vertical accelerations can negatively affect the performance
of the structure (Ling and Leshchinsky 1998). Figs. 6 and 7 show
the effect of vertical seismic coefficient, Kv , on T for Kh 5 0:1 and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
linear (D 5 H=3) and uniform (D 5 H=2) distribution functions,
respectively. In Figs. 6 and 7, for Kh 5 0:1, three different Kv =Kh
ratios are examined: no vertical acceleration (Kv =Kh 5 0), a net
upward acceleration (Kv =Kh 5 1:0), and a net downward acceleration
(Kv =Kh 5 2 1:0). For Kh 5 0:3, five different Kv =Kh ratios are in-
vestigated (21.0, 20.5, 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0), because the differences
are more significant. In general, it can be observed that the effect
of the vertical seismic coefficient depends on both its direction
and the corresponding value of Kh , which is not surprising. That
is to say, the effect of a proportional vertical seismic coefficient
is more significant at higher levels of horizontal shaking

Kh 5 0:3. Results are presented for various backslopes and f using (i.e., Kh 5 0:3).

Fig. 7. Effect of vertical seismic coefficient, Kv , on T for a uniform distribution function (D 5 H=2) and horizontal backslope: (a) f 5 20°; (b) f 5
30°; (c) f 5 40°; (d) f 5 50°

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1217

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Critical slip surfaces for f 5 30°, for uniform and linear distribution functions, horizontal backslope, Kv 5 0: (a) v 5 0°; (b) v 5 60°

For GRES design purposes, in addition to the Tmax value, the

locations where the Tmax2i values occur need to be known, to de-
termine the required lengths of the geosynthetic layers. As noted
previously, Tmax2i is assumed to occur along the intersection be-
tween the reinforcement and the critical log spiral. Figs. 8 and 9
illustrate the critical log spiral surfaces for different Kh values
varying from 0.0 to 0.5 and for f 5 30 and 40°, respectively. Each
figure includes two subfigures that show two extreme batters: v 5 0°
[Figs. 8(a) and 9(a)] and v 5 90°–f [Figs. 8(b) and 9(b)]. The vertical
seismic coefficient, Kv , for Figs. 8 and 9, was selected to be zero. As
shown, the failure surface quickly deepens at increased levels of
seismicity. From the trend observed in Figs. 8 and 9, it can be
observed that employing a pseudostatic stability design approach
may lead to irrationally long reinforcement layers (over twice the
height of the GRESs) for large seismic coefficients (e.g., Kh $ 0:3).
These findings are consistent with those presented by Ling et al.
(1997).
Figs. 8 and 9 demonstrate why the pseudostatic stability design
approach becomes unrealistic at high levels of seismicity—because
the method leads to unreasonably large failure masses. This ob-
servation points to the need for a rational displacement-based design
approach for GRESs. Calculating earthquake-induced displacements
using an analytical approach requires determination of a yield ac-
celeration. The present formulation was developed assuming that the
soil shear strength is fully mobilized and, consequently, the system is
at the verge of failure (i.e., a factor of safety equal to unity). Hence, for
a given T, the formulation produces the yield acceleration. Fig. 10
Fig. 9. Critical slip surfaces for f 5 40°, for uniform and linear
shows the yield acceleration, Ky , versus T for various f (20, 30, 40,
distribution functions, horizontal backslope, Kv 5 0: (a) v 5 0°;
and 50°) and two backslopes (horizontal, 1V:5H). For f 5 20 and
(b) v 5 50°
30°, the relationship is shown for four batters, v 5 0, 20, 40, and 60°

1218 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Yield acceleration, Ky, versus T for uniform and linear distribution functions, Kv 5 0: (a) f 5 20°; (b) f 5 30°; (c) f 5 40°, (d) f 5 50°

[Figs. 10(a and b)], whereas for f 5 40 and 50°, the results are shown
for three batters, v 5 0, 20, and 40° [Figs. 10(c and d)].
Illustrative Design Example
The following example demonstrates how the presented approach
can be utilized to determine Tmax for each reinforcement layer for
a given seismic coefficient. The effect of various reinforcement
force distribution functions that are commonly utilized is also
examined.
Consider the following structure: a wrapped-face GRES with
v 5 20°, a horizontal crest, H 5 5 m, f 5 30°, g 5 20 kN/m3, and
Sv 5 0.5 m, where Sv is the uniform vertical spacing between the
reinforcement layers. The spacing from the base to the first layer is
taken to be 0.5Sv, which leads to a total of 10 reinforcement layers
(n 5 10). For this example, the seismic coefficients are selected to
be Kh 5 0.3 and Kv 5 0. Wrapped facing does not generate toe
resistance, Rh, and consequently, the ratio Rh /T is zero. The con-
tributory area of each layer is taken as the vertical height of the
wrapped portion, and is consequently equal to 0.5 m. For calcu-
lating Tmax2i , the location of each geosynthetic layer is approxi-
mated at the middle of the contributory area. Two different
distribution functions were examined: linear (D 5 H=3) and
uniform (D 5 H=2). To solve the problem, Figs. 2(b) and 3(b)
should be used to determine the static T, and Figs. 4(b) and 5(b)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1219

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

 Table 1. T Values for the Design Example Utilizing Linear and Uniform Distribution Functions of Tmax
Distribution function D Static T=gH 2 [Figs. 2(b)–3(b)] Tmd =gH 2 [Figs. 4(b)–5(b)] Total T=gH 2 (static T 1 Tmd ) Calculated T (kN/m)
Linear H/3 0.096 0.111 0.207 103.5
Uniform H/2 0.112 0.103 0.215 107.5

Table 2. Tmax for Each Geosynthetic Reinforcement Layer Using Linear It is noted that for the charts calculating T (i.e., Figs. 2–7),
and Uniform Distribution Functions of Tmax a design value of soil strength (fdesign ) would be used. This
Linear Uniform coincides with common geotechnical practice. However, for cal-
culating the yield acceleration (i.e., the acceleration at which rotation
Tmax2i Tmax2i of the active wedge will initiate), the actual soil strength should be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Layer No. Di (m)a DTmax2i (kN/m) DTmax2i (kN/m) used. This actual value may correspond to a degraded strength
1 0.25 0.95 19.7 1.00 10.8 caused by earthquake shaking. It is also inherently assumed that the
1 0.25 0.95 19.7 1.00 10.8 geosynthetic is stiff enough to prevent any appreciable slope rotation
2 0.75 0.85 17.6 1.00 10.8 at acceleration levels less than the yield acceleration (i.e., where the
3 1.25 0.75 15.5 1.00 10.8 factor of safety is greater than unity).
4 1.75 0.65 13.5 1.00 10.8
5 2.25 0.55 11.4 1.00 10.8 Summary and Conclusions
6 2.75 0.45 9.3 1.00 10.8
7 3.25 0.35 7.2 1.00 10.8 An analytical framework is developed that can be utilized for the
8 3.75 0.25 5.2 1.00 10.8 seismic design of GRESs. The presented design methodology is
9 4.25 0.15 3.1 1.00 10.8 consistent and simple to apply in practice. It utilizes a pseudostatic
10 4.75 0.05 1.0 1.00 10.8 LE approach that assumes a log spiral failure mechanism. The
Sum 5.00 103.5 10.00 107.5 resulting formulation and associated solution scheme determine the
a
Di is the height from the toe. resultant reinforcement force that is needed to counterbalance an
applied seismic coefficient to ensure internal stability of a GRES
Table 3. Ky values for Different f Corresponding to T=gH 2 5 0.16 Utilizing under a rotational failure mechanism. A closed-form solution is
Linear and Uniform Distribution Functions of Tmax (v 5 20°, horizontal presented for determining the resultant of all horizontal forces that
crest, Kv 5 0) are mobilized in the geosynthetic reinforcement layers along their
f D Ky (g) intersection with the critical log spiral surface. This mobilized re-
sultant force is then redistributed among individual reinforcement
30° H/3 0.200 layers by employing a distribution function to determine the force
H/2 0.170 in each reinforcement layer caused by the dynamic loading. Using
40° H/3 0.384 parametric studies, a series of design charts is established to de-
H/2 0.379 termine the resultant mobilized geosynthetic force for different
conditions. For a given seismic coefficient, the design charts can be
utilized to find the required unfactored design strength of the geo-
should be used for Tmd (or the presented formulation and as- synthetic. Alternatively, for a given geosynthetic design strength,
sociated numerical solution scheme). The corresponding values the proposed formulation can be utilized to determine the yield ac-
determined for each of the chosen distribution functions are celeration, which is essential for calculating seismic displacements.
shown in Table 1. The advantage of the employed mechanism is that it may lead to
As shown in Table 1, the impact of the distribution function type a rational, yet simple, assessment of displacement as related to in-
and its pertinent D value on T is negligible. This observation is ternal movement of the reinforced mass.
consistent with the results reported by Leshchinsky et al. (2010) for Parametric studies were performed to investigate the effect of
a static case. Table 2 presents the distribution of Tmax among the backslope angle, vertical seismic coefficient, and reinforcement force
geosynthetic reinforcement layers, by determining DTmax2i for distribution function. The results showed that the backfill inclination
different distribution functions and utilizing Eq. (4). The maxðTmax Þ had a significant effect for earth structures with smaller batters and/or
value for the linear distribution function occurs in the bottom re- larger horizontal seismic coefficients. Vertical seismic coefficients
inforcement layer (Layer 1). Its magnitude is about twice as much as with a downward direction would increase the mobilized force in the
the maximum value that is observed if a uniform distribution is geosynthetic reinforcement. The effect of the vertical seismic co-
assumed. The maxðTmax Þ value is typically used to identify the efficient was found to depend on both its direction and the corre-
required long-term strength of the geosynthetic. This example sponding value of Kh ; the effect of a proportional vertical seismic
demonstrates that, in the extreme, the assumed distribution function coefficient was more significant at higher levels of horizontal shaking.
may result in a significant difference in the required strength of the
geosynthetic. Acknowledgments
Alternatively, for a wrapped-face GRES with v 5 20°, H 5 5 m,
a horizontal crest, and a given unfactored total tensile strength This material is based on work supported by the National Science
of geosynthetic T 5 80 kN/m, Figs. 10(a–d) can be used to Foundation under Grant No. CMMI-0844836. This National Sci-
determine the yield acceleration for different f values. For T=gH 2 5 ence Foundation grant partially supported the first and third writers
80/(20 3 52) 5 0.16, the corresponding yield accelerations for f 5 in conjunction with their work on this project. The writers would
30 and 40° are shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the linear also like to extend their thanks to Mr. Fan Zhu for his valuable assis-
distribution function (D 5 H/3) leads to a larger yield acceleration, tance with the formulation and programming that was conducted
Ky, in comparison with the uniform function (D 5 H=2). during this project.

1220 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.

 References
Al Atik, L., and Sitar, N. (2010). “Seismic earth pressures on cantilever
retaining structures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136(10), 1324–1333.
Ausilio, E., Conte, E., and Dente, G. (2000). “Seismic stability analysis of
reinforced slopes.” Soil. Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 19(3), 159–172.
Baker, R. (1981). “Tensile strength, tension cracks, and stability of slopes.”
Soil Found., 21(2), 1–17.
Bathurst, R. J., and Cai, Z. (1995). “Pseudo-static seismic analysis of
geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls.” Geosyn. Int., 2(5),
787–830.
Bathurst, R. J., and Hatami, K. (1998). “Seismic response analysis of a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall.” Geosyn. Int., 5(1–2), 127–166.
Bathurst, R. J., Vlachopoulos, N., Walters, D. L., Burgess, P. G., and Allen,
T. M. (2006). “The influence of facing stiffness on the performance
of two geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls.” Can. Geotech. J.,
43(12), 1225–1237.
Bathurst, R. J., Walters, D. L., Hatami, K., and Allen, T. M. (2001). “Full-scale
performance testing and numerical modelling of reinforced soil retaining
wall.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Earth Reinforcement, H. Ochiai, J. Otani,
N. Yasufuku, and K. Omine, eds., Vol. 2, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
Netherlands, 777–799.
Bray, J. D., Travasarou, T., and Zupan, J. (2010). “Seismic displacement
design of earth retaining structures.” Proc., 2010 Earth Retention
Conf. 3, R. Finno, Y. M. A. Hashash, and P. Arduino, eds., ASCE,
Reston, VA, 638–655.
Cai, Z., and Bathurst, R. J. (1996). “Seismic-induced permanent dis-
placement of geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls.” Can.
Geotech. J., 33(6), 937–955.
Collin, J. G., Chouery-Curtis, V. E., and Berg, R. R. (1992). “Field
observations of reinforced soil structures under seismic loading.” Proc.,
Int. Symp. on Earth Reinforcement, H. Ochiai, H. Hoyashi, and J. Otani,
eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 223–228.
FHWA. (2009). Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced
soil slopes design and construction guidelines, Vol. I, Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-10-025, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Huang, C. C., Chou, L. H., and Tatsuoka, F. (2003). “Seismic displacements
of geosynthetic-reinforced soil modular block walls.” Geosyn. Int.,
10(1), 2–23.
Koseki, J., Bathurst, R. J., Guler, E., Kuwano, J., and Maugeri, M. (2006).
“Seismic stability of reinforced soil walls.” Proc., 8th Int. Conf. on
Geosynthetics, J. Kuwano and J. Koseki, eds., Vol. 1, IOS Press,
Rotterdam, Netherlands, 51–77.
Lee, K. Z. Z., Chang, N. Y., and Ko, H. Y. (2010). “Numerical simulation
of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls under seismic shaking.” Geotextiles
Geomembranes, 28(4), 317–334.
Leshchinsky, D., and Boedeker, R. H. (1989). “Geosynthetic reinforced soil
structures.” J. Geotech. Eng., 115(10), 1459–1478.
Leshchinsky, D., Ebrahimi, S., Vahedifard, F., and Zhu, F. (2012). “Extension
of Mononobe-Okabe approach to unstable slopes.” Soil Found., 52(2),
239–256.
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H. I., Wang, J.-P., Rosen, A., and Mohri, Y. (2009).
“Equivalent seismic coefficient in geocell retention systems.” Geo-
textiles Geomembranes, 27(1), 9–18.
Leshchinsky, D., and San, K. C. (1994). “Pseudostatic seismic stability of
slopes: Design charts.” J. Geotech. Eng., 120(9), 1514–1532.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2012 / 1221
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012.138:1209-1221.
Leshchinsky, D., and Vahedifard, F. (2012). “Impact of toe resistance in
reinforced masonry block walls: Design dilemma.” J. Geotech. Geo-
environ. Eng., 138(2), 236–240.
Leshchinsky, D., and Volk, J. C. (1985). “Stability charts for geotextile
reinforced walls.” Transportation Research Record 1031, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, DC, 5–16.
Leshchinsky, D., and Zhu, F. (2010). “Resultant force of lateral earth
pressure in unstable slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136(12),
1655–1663.
Leshchinsky, D., Zhu, F., and Meehan, C. L. (2010). “Required unfactored
strength of geosynthetic in reinforced earth structures.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 136(2), 281–289.
Ling, H. I., and Leshchinsky, D. (1998). “Effects of vertical acceleration on
seismic design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures.” Geotechnique,
48(3), 347–373.
Ling, H. I., Leshchinsky, D., and Chou, N. N. S. (2001). “Post-earthquake
investigation on several geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls and
slopes during the Ji-Ji earthquake of Taiwan.” Soil. Dyn. Earthquake
Eng., 21(4), 297–313.
Ling, H. I., Leshchinsky, D., and Perry, E. B. (1997). “Seismic design and
performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures.” Geotechnique,
47(5), 933–952.
Ling, H. I., Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K., and
Liu, H. (2005). “Large-scale shaking table tests on modular-block
reinforced soil retaining walls.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 131(4),
465–476.
Ling, H. I., Yang, S., Leshchinsky, D., Liu, H., and Burke, C. (2010). “Finite
element simulations of full-scale modular block reinforced soil retaining
walls under earthquake loading.” J. Eng. Mech., 136(5), 653–661.
Michalowski, R. L., and You, L. (2000). “Displacements of reinforced
slopes subjected to seismic loads.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
126(8), 685–694.
Mononobe, N., and Matsuo, M. (1929). “On the determination of earth
pressures during earthquakes.” Proc., World Engrg. Congress, 9, Vol.
IX, Tokyo, Japan, 177–185.
NCMA. (1997). Design manual for segmental retaining walls. 2nd Ed.,
J. G. Collin, ed., National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA.
Nova-Roessig, L., and Sitar, N. (2006). “Centrifuge model studies of the
seismic response of reinforced soil slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 132(3), 388–400.
Okabe, S. (1926). “General theory of earth pressure and seismic stability of
retaining wall and dam.” J. Jap. Soc. Civ. Eng., 10(6), 1277–1288.
Paulsen, S. B., and Kramer, S. L. (2004). “A predictive model for seismic
displacement of reinforced slopes.” Geosyn. Int., 11(6), 407–428.
Richardson, G. N., and Lee, K. L. (1975). “Seismic design of reinforced
earth walls.” J. Geotech. Eng., 101(2), 167–188.
Seed, H. B., and Whitman, R. V. (1970). “Design of earth retaining
structures for dynamic loads.” Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. on Lateral
Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures. Vol. 1,
ASCE, New York, 103–147.
Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., and Koseki, J. (1996). “Performance of soil
retaining walls for railway embankments.” Special Issue on Geo-
technical Aspects of the January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earth-
quake, Soils and Found., 311–324.
Zornberg, G., Sitar, H., and Mitchell, J. (1998). “Performance of geo-
synthetic reinforced slopes at failure.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
124(8), 670–677.