Impact of Cohesion on Seismic Design of

Geosynthetic-Reinforced Earth Structures

Farshid Vahedifard, M.ASCE1; Ben A. Leshchinsky, A.M.ASCE2; Sona Sehat, S.M.ASCE3;
and Dov Leshchinsky4

Abstract: This paper calculates the thrust of lateral earth pressures exerted by unstable slopes comprised of c-f soil and subjected to seismic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(pseudostatic) loading conditions. Although the proposed method can be used for seismic stability analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced earth
structures (GRESs), the formulation and results are also applicable to many other relevant earth retention systems. To study the impact of
cohesion, the authors develop formulations to determine the seismic active earth pressure coefficient for c-f soils resulting in a closed-form
solution. The pseudostatic formulation considers the effect of tensile cracks, backslope inclination, and batter while assuming a log spiral failure
surface. Two formulas are presented. One is for the conventional inclination of thrust. The second formulation considers a more feasible
inclination of the thrust when it is likely to act against facing units with large setbacks constructed for large batter walls. The authors perform
parametric studies and investigate the effects of relevant parameters. The results are compared to those obtained from an alternative limit
equilibrium method and a rigorous upper-bound solution in limit analysis of plasticity. The proposed method is used to illustrate the impact of
cohesion on the seismic design of GRESs. The formulas are incorporated into a spreadsheet, thus providing a tool to assess the thrust for c-f
soils. However, given the high impact of cohesion combined with the significant uncertainties related to cohesion in partially saturated soils
during the lifespan of the structure, cohesion’s design value warrants careful consideration. Consequently, cohesion should be used in design
only when its value during the lifespan of the structure can be assessed with confidence or when provisions taken to prevent potential surface
water infiltration will sustain a verified value of apparent cohesion. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001099. © 2014 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Soil stabilization; Geosynthetics; Cohesion; Lateral earth pressure; Seismic design; Limit equilibrium; Earthquakes.

Introduction
The terms cohesion and cohesive soils can arguably be tied to the
history of the geotechnical engineering profession. Cohesion can
be true or apparent. The manifestation of true cohesive behavior can
be seen in cemented and native (overconsolidated) soils. Apparent
cohesion, sometimes used in practice, can be attributed to two
origins. The first origin results from the intercept produced by fitting
a linear Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope to a curved failure enve-
lope. Such equivalent strength may not always be safe. Baker (2004)
demonstrated quantitative errors associated with such an approxi-
mation with respect to slope stability. The second origin of apparent
cohesion results from soil matric suction in partially saturated soils.
1 a seismic event) may lead to a catastrophic failure during or after
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762 (corresponding au-
thor). E-mail: farshid@cee.msstate.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Forest Engineering, Resources and Man-
agement, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331. E-mail: ben.leshchinsky@
oregonstate.edu
3
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mis-
sissippi State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762. E-mail: ss2437@msstate
.edu
4
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716; and Consultant, ADAMA Engineer-
ing, Inc., P.O. Box 7838, Newark, DE 19714. E-mail: dov@udel.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 31, 2013; approved on
January 31, 2014; published online on March 3, 2014. Discussion period
open until August 3, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/04014016
(12)/$25.00.
Its value depends mainly on soil particle size and is a function of
degree of saturation. In the context of design, use of apparent co-
hesion may result in overestimation of the soil shear strength
considering the lifespan of the structure. For example, a heavy
rainfall resulting in some infiltration of water into the backfill may
increase the respective degree of saturation, leading to diminished
apparent cohesion. It is not unusual for heavy rainfall to precede an
earthquake. Loss of apparent cohesion due to heavy rainfall
superimposed by a seismic event was reported, for example, in the
1968 Tokachi-Oki Earthquake (e.g., Ikehara 1970; Yoshimi 1970)
and the 2004 Niigata-ken Chuetsu Earthquake (e.g., Tatsuoka et al.
2006). Although apparent cohesion may exist under ordinary
conditions, thus producing significant redundancy during much of
the life of the structure, depending on it in design (regardless of
heavy or prolonged rainfalls (Leshchinsky and Tatsuoka 2013).
Historically, design guidelines (e.g., AASHTO 2010) and some
investigators (e.g., Leshchinsky 2010; Ling et al. 2012) have rec-
ommended excluding cohesion from both static and seismic designs
of geosynthetic-reinforced earth structures (GRESs). However, the
recent edition of AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications
(AASHTO 2012) does not prohibit the use of cohesion in the seismic
external stability of GRESs. In fact, it does not exclude use of apparent
cohesion while neglecting to provide guidelines as to how a designer
should assess its value under various extreme conditions. This allow-
ance has major design implications and thus needs to be considered
carefully, especially when its design value is not well established.
The methodology adopted by AASHTO (2012) was presented by
Anderson et al. (2008), who refer to a small amount of cohesion as
about 10 kPa (200 psf), showing that it can significantly reduce the
thrust under seismic loading conditions (50–75% for typical design

© ASCE 04014016-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.

 conditions) (e.g., Anderson et al. 2008, p. 74). Clearly, a small
amount of cohesion, true or apparent, has a major impact and should be
carefully selected.
Seismic design of steep slopes and earth retention systems, in-
cluding GRESs, is often performed using the earth pressure ap-
proach. Following this approach, the total thrust (static 1 seismic)
determined using the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method is used to
assess the external stability of the earth structure under seismic
loading conditions [e.g., Anderson et al. 2008; National Concrete
Masonry Association (NCMA) 1997; Berg et al. 2009]. Alterna-
tively, the generalized limit equilibrium (GLE) slope stability ap-
proach can also be used for external stability analysis (e.g., Anderson
et al. 2008; Berg et al. 2009). The M-O formulation satisfies global
force equilibrium for an active wedge leaning against a retaining
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
system and determines the thrust for a cohesionless soil. The M-O
method becomes unconservative in the context of limit equilibrium
(LE) analysis as the batter increases (e.g., Leshchinsky and Zhu
2010) because the planar mechanism for the M-O active wedge is
less critical than a curved surface such as a log spiral. To address this
issue, Leshchinsky et al. (2012) presented a seamless extension to
the M-O method by developing an analytical formulation that
determines the seismic active earth pressure coefficient for any batter
representing unstable slopes. Their formulation was for simple,
homogeneous, cohesionless slopes using a pseudostatic LE ap-
proach while assuming a potential failure along a log spiral trace.
Vahedifard et al. (2012) used a similar formulation to investigate the
relationship between the seismic coefficient and the tensile force
mobilized in the reinforcements in GRESs.
The current paper investigates the impact of cohesion on seismic
design of GRESs. To accomplish this task, the authors extend the
analytical formulation presented in Leshchinsky et al. (2012) by
including the effect of cohesion and tensile cracks. Two formulas are
developed; one for the conventional and the second for a modified
direction of the thrust. These formulas can be used in performing the
seismic design for various types of earth retention systems. The
formulas do not distinguish between walls and slopes and are rel-
evant to earth structures that are unstable. The authors perform
parametric studies and investigate the effects of influencing
parameters. They use the developed framework to illustrate the
impact of cohesion on the seismic external stability analysis of
GRESs. The proposed formulas and the pertinent solution scheme
for each assumed direction of the thrust are implemented in
a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which is provided as supplemental
data. Hence, the proposed methodology provides a tool that can be
used to assess the thrust of lateral earth pressures for c-f soils.
Seismic Active Earth Pressure Coefficient for
c-f Soils
The M-O method is a pseudostatic extension of the Coulomb sliding
wedge theory for cohesionless soils. Several researchers (e.g., Prakash
and Saran 1966; Saran and Gupta 2003; Prakash 1981; Anderson et al.
2008; Shukla et al. 2009) have used the same LE force-based
approach and its planar failure surface to extend the M-O method to
c-f soils. Nian and Han (2013) extended the stress-equilibrium–
based Rankine earth pressure theory to determine the seismic active
earth pressure coefficient for retaining walls (i.e., vertical face angle)
with c-f soils and inclined backslopes. Using Mohr’s circle
graphical geometry technique, Richards and Shi (1994) presented
a generalization of the elastoplastic solution for c-f soils.
Current earth pressure methods that compute the thrust of seismic
active earth pressures are primarily developed using a planar failure
surface. This surface is practically critical for homogeneous vertical
slopes, but as the batter increases, the planar surface becomes less
© ASCE 04014016-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.
critical than a curved (e.g., log spiral) failure surface. As an in-
termediate method between using a single planar (e.g., the M-O
method) and a curved failure surface, Tatsuoka et al. (1998) pro-
posed a two-wedge method for seismic stability analysis of GRESs.
Some of the existing methods consider only the horizontal seismic
coefficient in the formulation (e.g., Prakash and Saran 1966; Saran and
Gupta 2003); ignore the tensile crack effect (e.g., Anderson et al. 2008;
Shukla et al. 2009); ignore the effect of interface friction (e.g., Nian
and Han 2013); do not include the backslope inclination in the for-
mulation (e.g., Prakash and Saran 1966; Richards and Shi 1994);
ignore the surcharge in the formulation (e.g., Shukla et al. 2009; Nian
and Han 2013). The current paper presents pseudostatic LE for-
mulations to calculate the seismic active earth pressure coefficient,
assuming failure along a log spiral trace and incorporating all of the
aforementioned parameters. Indeed, most LE methods can be mod-
ified to deal with curved, more critical slip surfaces. However, these
methods require statical assumptions and do not result in a closed-
form solution as is the case in this work. Therefore, implementation of
these methods in practice is more cumbersome although the results for
applicable problems will not be more critical than those rendered by
the presented approach.
It is common to present the total thrust of lateral earth pressures,
Pae , as
Pae ¼ 1 gH 2 ð1 2 Kv ÞKae (1)
2
where H 5 height of the analyzed slope as shown in Fig. 1; g 5 unit
weight of soil; Kv 5 vertical seismic coefficient; and Kae 5 design
seismic active earth pressure coefficient. Note in Fig. 1 that Pae acts
at height D above the toe elevation.
Leshchinsky et al. (2012) presented two formulas for co-
hesionless soils to calculate Kae using a log spiral pseudostatic LE
approach. One formula was derived using the conventional direction
of Pae as assumed in the M-O method. The conventional direction of
Pae , as shown in Fig. 1(a), is applicable for GRESs with a traditional,
continuous face batter. Leshchinsky et al. (2012) also presented
a second formula by proposing a modified direction for Pae [see
Fig. 1(b)]. Using the modified direction for Pae is applicable for
structures in which large facing units are used (e.g., rockery). This
current study extends both formulas to include cohesion and the
presence of a tensile crack. The traditional approach to retaining
walls assumes that the thrust is acting against continuous face 1–3,
Fig. 1(a). That is, as shown in Fig. 1(a), this thrust comprises two
force components; one is normal to 1–3, denoted by P, and one is
acting along the interface, expressed by P tanðdÞ, where d is the
assumed interface friction. Although this may be valid for walls with
continuous slope angle, it may not reflect reality for a wall composed
of stacked blocks, as shown in Fig. 1(b), especially as the batter angle
increases. For example, it is seen in block 1 in Fig. 1(b) that along the
vertical interface, the normal resultant is Nv1 and the tangential
component is Fv1 , which is considered to equal Nv1 tanðdÞ. Fig. 1(b)
also shows the resultant force couple Nh1 and Fh1 acting on the
horizontal setback of block 1. Leshchinsky et al. (2012) suggested
ignoring this force couple for several reasons. First, to mobilize the
frictional force, Fh1 , sufficient horizontal soil movement along this
relatively short interface must develop. Whereas downward
movement of backfill relative to the facing is feasible, it is ques-
tionable whether sufficient horizontal movement will occur, espe-
cially if compaction at each elevation was properly done. Second, to
generate Fh2 , a normal force on the horizontal interface, Nh2 , must
exist. It is questionable whether upward resultant force can develop
by the retained backfill. The maximum normal force, Nh1 , could be
due to a reaction in which a portion of the weight of the blocks above
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Notation and convention for calculating the thrust Pae using (a) the conventional direction; (b) the modified direction

is resting on the soil below. It is hard to estimate the value of such
a force with confidence, especially when Nv1 exists. In fact, mo-
bilizing the interface friction along the vertical interface, Fv1 , requires
downward movement of soil, implying the possibility that a gap can
actually form between the horizontal segment of the block and the
soil below, possibly rendering Nh1 and subsequently, Fh2 , as zero.
Hence, for stepped facing, the designer may select to ignore the
effects of forces acting on the horizontal segments of blocks.
Consideration of force components acting only on vertical segments
leads to a thrust composed of force Pae-h and Pae-h tanðdÞ, as shown
in Fig. 1(b). However, note that the impact of batter is considered in
the formulation. Consequently, this work produces two algorithms
useful for design. One is for traditional continuous face batter, in
agreement with the conventional modeling by the M-O method. The
second is for possible construction of walls having a batter in which
construction and economics necessitate use of large facing units.
For the conventional direction of Pae , the problem is formulated
by deriving the moment equilibrium equation for the backfill soil. As
shown, log spiral failure geometry is used, defined by the radius vector
R 5 A × expð2cbÞ, where A 5 log spiral constant; y 5 tanðfdesign Þ;
fdesign 5 design angle of friction for the soil; and b 5 angle representing
the radius vector of the log spiral in polar coordinates. Using the
geometry of the problem, the log spiral constant (A) can be obtained
from

ð1 2 tan v tan aÞ
A ¼ H9 2cb (2)
½e 1 ðcos b þ sin b tan aÞ 2 e2cb2 ðcos b þ sin b tan aÞ
1 1 2 2

where b1 and b2 5 polar coordinates of points 1 and 2 [see Fig. 1(a)];
v 5 batter; a 5 uniform backslope of the crest; and H9 5 effective
height of crest after crack [the height of point 4 in Fig. 1(b), which is
normalized by H]. From the geometry of slope shown in Fig. 1(b),
H9 can be calculated as
Zc sin v sin a
H9 ¼ 1 2 Zc 2
cosðv þ aÞ
where Zc 5 depth of crack (normalized by H). By writing the
equation for moment equilibrium about the pole of the log spiral (Xc ,
Yc ) and rearranging the terms, one can calculate Kae for the con-
ventional direction of the thrust. Eq. (4) is the complete equation of
Kae for the conventional direction.
The value of Kae should be determined through a maximization
procedure. For an assumed D, a known Zc , and for all feasible values
of b1 and b2 , a numerical iteration needs to be performed to capture
the maximum Kae from Eq. (4). Once Kae and Pae are determined,
one can calculate the horizontal component of the thrust (Pae-h ) for
the conventional direction as Pae-h 5 Pae cosðd 2 vÞ. Leshchinsky
et al. (2012) explains the solution scheme and required maximization
procedure in detail. This maximization process yields the failure
mass (i.e., active soil mass) that generates the maximum thrust that
satisfies the LE state. For an arbitrarily selected point of action for the
thrust, the proposed solution scheme will yield the corresponding
maximum thrust. The point of action of the thrust is taken at
(3)
D 5 H=3 in the original M-O method. Seed and Whitman (1970)
suggested that the D value varies from 0:4 to 0:7H, depending on
the magnitude of the earthquake ground acceleration. Within this
range, Seed and Whitman (1970) recommended that D 5 0:6H be
used as a rational value for design purposes. More recently, however,
Al Atik and Sitar (2010) performed a set of experimental and nu-
merical analyses, concluding that D 5 H=3 is reasonable. This re-
lationship has been also adopted in some later design codes for
seismic design of GRESs (e.g., AASHTO 2012).
The current formulation is derived for a specified tensile crack
depth. Hence, one can use the proposed solution in a back-analysis
approach to assess the effect of an existing crack on the seismic earth

© ASCE 04014016-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.

 pressure coefficient and the thrust. Further discussion about estimating
the depth of tensile crack and its impact on stability of slopes can be
found in Baker (1981) and Utili (2013). In the context of the lateral
earth pressure approach, Prakash and Saran (1966) and Nian and Han
(2013) included the effect of tensile crack using the planar failure
mechanism.
For walls with stacked block facing elements, the authors propose
modifying the direction of the thrust, which ignores the effects of soil
forces acting on the horizontal segments of blocks or rockery. As
Fig. 1(b) shows, consideration of the force components acting only
on vertical segments leads to a thrust composed of two forces, Pae-h
and Pae-h tanðdÞ. Using this modified direction of the thrust and by
writing the moment equilibrium equation about the pole of the log
spiral, one can calculate Kae for the modified direction. Eq. (5) is the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
complete equation of this Kae .
To facilitate the use of the proposed method, the authors imple-
mented the formulation and the associated solution scheme for each
assumed direction of the thrust in an Excel spreadsheet, provided as
supplemental data. The spreadsheet can be used to determine Kae , Pae ,
and the trace of the critical log spiral for the given input parameters
selecting either the conventional or the modified direction of the thrust.
Considering the large impact of cohesion, its value during the lifespan
of the structure should be specified with extreme care.
Parametric Study
The proposed formulations can be used to produce a wide variety of
design charts. Sample charts are presented for each design parameter
of interest using the conventional direction of thrust [Eq. (4) and
Fig. 1(a)] for a GRES with v 5 20°. However, one can use the Excel
spreadsheet provided as supplemental data to determine the seismic
active earth pressure coefficient and the thrust for different conditions.
Fig. 2 compares Kae to horizontal seismic coefficient, Kh , for
different cohesion values for Zc 5 Kv 5 a 5 0. Figs. 2(a and b) show
the results for f 5 30° and f 5 40°, respectively. For each figure, two
D values of 1=3 and 1=2 and two d=f ratios of 0 and 1 are used. The
results clearly demonstrate the significant impact of cohesion on the
Fig. 2. Kae versus Kh for v 5 20° (Zc 5 Kv 5 a 5 0): (a) f 5 30°; (b) f 5 40°
© ASCE 04014016-4
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.
Kae value. The results also show that using different D values will
lead to an insignificant change in the thrust for seismic cases,
whereas its impact on the thrust can be considerable for static cases
with zero or low cohesion. The effect of d is pronounced for smaller Kh
and/or c values and its impact gradually diminishes as Kh and c in-
crease. Generally, d is a function of relative movement and can have
different values depending on the relative movement between the
retained/reinforced soil or the facing/reinforced soil. It is typical to
specify that d is between 0 and f, assuming the retained fill will settle
more than the reinforced fill. Under seismic conditions, AASHTO
(2012) and Berg et al. (2009) use d 5 0 for the reinforced soil/facing
interaction for internal stability analysis of wrapped-faced GRESs and
d 5 f for external stability when the crest is horizontal. It is interesting
to note that unlike its recommended value for seismic design, under
static conditions both AASHTO (2012) and Berg et al. (2009) use
d 5 0 for external stability when the crest is horizontal. NCMA (1997)
uses d 5 0:67f when the wall facing is concrete blocks. However, it
should be noted that the selection of d represents conditions that might
not be universally identical for all structures under all conditions.
To demonstrate the impact of cohesion, the authors averaged the
results for different D and d=f ratios for the examples in Fig. 2, and
calculated the relative reduction in the zero-cohesion Kae resulting
from the inclusion of different cohesion values. Fig. 3 shows the
averaged relative reduction versus Kh for three normalized cohesions.
For example, when f 5 30° and Kh 5 0:4, including a cohesion of
c=gH 5 0:1 can decrease the amount of Kea by about 57%. For a 5-m
high wall, this is equivalent to adding about 10 kPa cohesion.
Fig. 4 shows similar results to those presented in Fig. 2 with the
exception that an inclined backslope of 1V:10H (a 5 5:7°) is
considered. Figs. 4(a and b) show the results for f 5 30° and
f 5 40°, respectively. Comparing Fig. 4 with Fig. 2 indicates that
even a slight backslope can significantly increase Kae . In terms of the
impact of cohesion, a similar trend as discussed for Fig. 2 can be
clearly seen in Fig. 4.
Fig. 5 examines the impact of tensile crack on Kae . It shows Kae
versus the normalized depth of tensile crack, Zc =H, for Kh 5 0:4 and
various normalized cohesion values where Kv 5 a 5 0. Figs. 5(a and b)
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 show the results for f 5 30° and f 5 40°, respectively. When a tensile
crack forms, the shear strength of the cracked zone will no longer
contribute to the stability of soil mass, and the soil zone defined by the
crack will act as surcharge contributing to the driving forces/moments.
Consequently, one would intuitively expect a rapid increase in the
seismic active earth pressure coefficient and the thrust as the tensile
crack becomes deeper. However, as Zc increases, the size of failure
mass becomes smaller. As Fig. 5 shows, initially, the Kae value tends to
slightly increase as Zc increases; however, it remains constant or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Relative reduction from zero-cohesive Kae versus Kh for
v 5 20° (Zc 5 Kv 5 a 5 0, averaged from results obtained using
D 5 1=3 and 1=2 and d=f 5 0 and 1)
Fig. 4. Kae versus Kh for v 5 20°, backslope 1V: 10H ðZc 5 Kv 5 0Þ: (a) f 5 30°; (b) f 5 40°
© ASCE 04014016-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.
slightly decreases for tensile cracks deeper than 0:2H. Utili (2013)
reports a similar trend in the context of slope of stability analysis using
upper-bound plasticity. Fig. 6 demonstrates the critical failure surface
for various Zc where v 5 20°; f 5 30°; c=gH 5 0:1; Kh 5 0:4;
d=f 5 1:0; and Kv 5 a 5 0. As the figure shows, the size of cracked
zone acting as surcharge decreases as Zc increases. Cracks filled or
partially filled with water can occur for both static and seismic cases. In
general, when a crack is filled with water, the horizontal thrust of water
must also be included in the analysis. It will act as a horizontal surcharge
contributing to the driving moment in the equilibrium equation. Be-
cause cracks are typically narrow, the inertia force of the water volume
in the crack is negligible. Hence, it is common in practice to ignore the
seismic effects of water filling a crack.
Comparison with Other Methods
The authors compare the results from the proposed formulation
with those obtained from the computer program LimitState:GEO.
The program uses the discontinuity layout optimization (DLO;
Smith and Gilbert 2007) linear programming procedure to produce
a rigorous upper-bound solution in limit analysis (LA) of plas-
ticity. It automatically identifies the critical layout of slip-lines in
a soil mass that is at a limit state. Use of the DLO algorithm
eliminates the need to assume a critical failure mechanism, a step
that is required in alternative LE analyses. To adequately compare
the results to those from LE, the authors applied the resultant force
at D 5 H=3 and in the conventional direction (see Fig. 7 for
examples).
Excellent agreement is demonstrated upon comparison of the
proposed LE formulation to the results attained from LA. A series of
32 LA models were constructed as a verification tool assessing the
presented LE methodology (Table 1), comparing Kae values attained
from this approach, which assumes a slip surface, to LA, which does
not. Four basic scenarios were simulated—specifically, all four
models consisted of a 6-m tall wall, with or without a tension crack
(Zc 5 0 m or 1:8 m from top of wall) or batter (v 5 0 or 30°). Within
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Kae versus Zc for v 5 20°, Kh 5 0:4 ðKv 5 a 5 0Þ: (a) f 5 30°; (b) f 5 40°
Fig. 6. Critical failure surface for various Zc (v 5 20°, f 5 30°,
c=g H 5 0:1, Kh 5 0:4, d=f 5 1:0, Kv 5 a 5 0)
each of the four basic models, several parameters were varied, including
backslope (a 5 0 or 10°), interface friction (d 5 0 or 10°), and a hor-
izontal seismic component (Kh 5 0 or 0:2). Of the 32 permutations in
this parametric study, an excellent agreement is demonstrated by
comparing the backcalculated Kae from both LA and LE (Table 1
and Fig. 8). There is some discrepancy as the batter gets larger,
demonstrated by deviation from the centerline in Fig. 8. In these
cases, LA provides slightly higher Kae values. These discrepancies
are more apparent in the absence of seismicity, which results in
smaller Kae values and in turn, more proportional error owing to
possible precision and modeling constraints using LA. However,
these discrepancies are minor, demonstrative of an adequate LE
methodology, even with an assumptive slip surface geometry.
Leshchinsky (2013) showed that LA is an effective tool for cap-
turing critical failure mechanisms of complex slopes and walls
without an assumed a priori failure surface when compared with
LE.
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.
To further validate the proposed LE formulation, the authors
compared the analysis with an alternative LE method accounting for
cohesion and seismicity, outlined by Prakash (1981). When the LE
method proposed by Prakash (1981) was compared with LA using
DLO, the agreement was very good (Smith and Cubrinovski 2011).
Two cases were selected for comparison and demonstration of
cohesion effects for vertical walls: case 1, where c=gH was 0.05, and
case 2, where c=gH was 0.1 (Fig. 9). Upon further comparison, it is
shown that the proposed LE methodology and its replication in LA
are congruent and exhibit higher resultant forces than the method
by Prakash (1981), as Fig. 9 shows This comparison shows good
agreement, with some slight divergence from Prakash’s method
under higher cohesion values and lower seismic coefficients. The
comparison of the proposed LE method to LA using the DLO al-
gorithm demonstrates that despite the restriction of an assumed
failure surface, the results are not overly conservative. The agree-
ment with LA and the alternative stability analysis provides con-
fidence in the proposed methodology considering its derived
formulation and its numerical scheme for determining the thrust
from seismic loads in c-f soils.
Impact of Cohesion on Seismic Stability
Analysis of GRESs
The proposed formulation can be used for performing seismic de-
sign and analysis of various types of earth-retaining systems. In this
section, the proposed formulation is used for a design example to
illustrate the significant impact of cohesion on external seismic
stability analysis of GRESs. The current example only uses the
conventional direction of Pae [Eq. (4) and Fig. 1(b)], which is
compatible with the M-O method. Consider the following structure
for the design example: a wrapped-face GRES with a 1V:10H
backslope (i.e., a 5 5:71°), H 5 5 m, no tensile crack (Zc 5 0 and
H9 5 H), the reinforced soil with fr 5 30°, gr 5 20 kN=m3 , and
the retained soil with ff 5 30°, gf 5 20 kN=m3 .
04014016-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Fig. 7. Comparison of critical slip surfaces attained from LE and LA for f 5 30°, c=gH 5 0:05, Kh 5 0:2, d 5 0: (a) v 5 a 5 0°; (b) v 5 30°, a 5 10°
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. Comparison of Results from LE and LA Simulations for f 5 30°,

c=gH 5 0:05
Model properties Zc 5 0 Zc 5 0:3H
v (°) a (°) d (°) Kh Kae 2 LE Kae 2 LA Kae 2 LE Kae 2 LA
0 0 0 0 0.220 0.220 0.144 0.142
0 10 0 0 0.245 0.245 0.160 0.160
0 0 10 0 0.205 0.201 0.134 0.130
0 10 10 0 0.229 0.229 0.149 0.149
0 0 0 0.2 0.353 0.354 0.263 0.261
0 10 0 0.2 0.416 0.417 0.308 0.303
0 0 10 0.2 0.337 0.338 0.250 0.247
0 10 10 0.2 0.402 0.403 0.295 0.293
30 0 0 0 0.035 0.022 0.040 0.049
30 10 0 0 0.039 0.026 0.044 0.061
30 0 10 0 0.032 0.022 0.036 0.046
30 10 10 0 0.035 0.027 0.040 0.056
30 0 0 0.2 0.155 0.139 0.148 0.150
30 10 0 0.2 0.163 0.165 0.168 0.188
30 0 10 0.2 0.142 0.137 0.136 0.146
30 10 10 0.2 0.163 0.160 0.155 0.176

The total thrust is used to assess external stability of the GRES

under seismic loading conditions by applying this force on the co- Fig. 8. Comparison of seismic active earth pressure coefficients (Kae )
herent reinforced mass. Anderson et al. (2008) and Berg et al. (2009) backcalculated from limit equilibrium [Eq. (4)] and limit analysis
provide a multistep procedure to assess the external stability of GRESs (LimitState:GEO) agreement indicated by the 1:1 line (f 5 30°,
under seismic loading conditions. AASHTO (2012) adopts a similar c=gH 5 0:05)
procedure. In this procedure, the seismic external stability of the
GRES is evaluated by checking the sliding stability, the eccentricity,
However, there is an inconsistency within the proposed procedure for
the bearing resistance, and the sliding displacement of the structure
the GLE approach regarding the point of action of Pae . According to
(Berg et al. 2009). After establishing an initial design based on static
Berg et al. (2009), one needs to use the GLE approach to look for
loading, the first few steps of the recommended external stability
maximum Pae when varying its location from h=3 to 2h=3. Once
procedure outlined in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
found, the maxðPae Þ should be arbitrarily applied at h=2 for per-
guideline (Berg et al. 2009) explain how to determine different seismic
forming external stability analysis. It implies that the maxðPae Þ might
coefficients for design purposes. These parameters are determined
be found in one location and then applied in a different location.
based on the level of seismicity at the proposed site, the site class,
To assess the external stability of the example GRES,
and the height of structure. The procedure for determining these
f 5 ff 5 30° and d is chosen as 30° (i.e., lower value of either the
parameters and pertinent discussion are beyond the scope of this
angle of friction for the reinforced soil mass or the retained soil), and
paper and further details can be found in Berg et al. (2009). The next
consequently, the ratio d=f is one. From the definition of heights
step in the seismic external stability procedure is to determine the
shown in Fig. 10, the height h can be calculated as
thrust for the height h, where h is the slope height along the vertical
plane within the reinforced soil mass, as Fig. 10 shows. tan a ð0:5HÞ 0:1  ð0:5  5Þ
According to the procedures outlined in Berg et al. (2009) and h¼Hþ ¼5þ ¼ 5:26 m
ð1 2 0:5 tan aÞ ð1 2 0:5  0:1Þ
Anderson et al. (2008), Pae should be applied at D 5 h=2 for seismic
external stability analysis of GRESs. Berg et al. (2009) indicates the Fig. 11 shows Pae-h versus c for the given design parameters and
GLE slope stability approach as an alternative to the lateral earth various Kh of 0, 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, and 0.45. As Berg et al. (2009) rec-
pressure approach for determining the thrust for external stability. ommended, the results are shown only for D 5 1=2 for external

© ASCE 04014016-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Comparison of limit equilibrium results (f 5 30°, d 5 15°)
from Prakash (1981) versus Eq. (4) for Case 1 (c9=gH 5 0:05) and Case
2 (c9=gH 5 0:1)
stability assessment. Figs. 11(a and b) show results for v 5 0° and
v 5 20°, respectively. The vertical component of the thrust, Pae-v ,
which is needed to perform external stability analysis, can be de-
termined as Pae-v 5 Pae-h tan d. Fig. 11 includes a wide range of
cohesion values. AASHTO (2012) does not explicitly define an upper
limit of cohesion value in design, although it limits f to 40° for select
fill. The upper value of cohesion shown in Fig. 11 is 35 kPa. Such high
cohesion may only reliably occur in cemented or heavily over-
consolidated soils. However, such high cohesion corresponds to the
range of values shown in the design charts by AASHTO (2012) if one
considers a wall height of, say, 6 m, a common height in highway
applications.
For v 5 0 and under static condition (Kh 5 Kv 5 0), where in-
cluding cohesion is not allowed, one can use the proposed formulation
and find Pae-h 5 85:8 kN=m, as shown by the horizontal line in
Fig. 11(a). This figure also shows the results for four nonzero Kh
values, where counting on the cohesion term is allowed as per
AASHTO (2012). The intersection of each seismic curve with the
horizontal line depicts the cohesion value that makes the thrust for that
particular Kh equal to that for the zero-cohesion static case. That is,
adding this specified amount of cohesion to the retained soil would
enable the designer to disregard the seismic load for external stability,
whereas under static conditions there will be substantial load as the
cohesion then is set to zero. As shown, adding 2.5 and 10 kPa can
decrease the thrust by about 31 and 61% for Kh 5 0:45, respectively.
Including about 17 kPa cohesion can eliminate the need for seismic
design for a 5-m high vertical slope (where h 5 5:26 m) under shaking
events with Kh up to 0.45. This observation can be further demon-
strated where the thrust for the Kh 5 0:45 case becomes zero by
including about 30 kPa cohesion. This means that the 5-m high
vertical slope constructed using a backfill soil with f 5 30° is stable
during a seismic event with Kh 5 0:45. Fig. 11(b) shows a similar
trend, in which using about 14 kPa cohesion can eliminate the need
for performing seismic design for external stability of the example
GRES with v 5 20° under seismic events of Kh up to 0.45.
© ASCE 04014016-8
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.
Fig. 10. Notation and convention for seismic external stability analysis
of GRESs
AASHTO (2012) allows the use of cohesion in seismic analysis
while prohibiting it in static analysis dealing with the external
stability of GRES. This may yield perplexing results when a wall is
more stable under seismic conditions than under static conditions.
The authors can envision such a situation when the static loading
considers drained shear strength while the seismic considers un-
drained shear strength. However, AASHTO (2012) does not ex-
plicitly acknowledge this issue in its guidelines as to how one should
select the relevant shear strength properties. Considering the impact
of cohesion, the authors believe that AASHTO needs to provide
a conservative procedure for assessing the design value of cohesion
under seismic conditions expected during the lifespan of the
structure. It does not seem to be trivial.
Cautionary Note
Although the authors have produced a tool to assess the thrust of
lateral earth pressures under static and seismic loading conditions,
they also strongly recommend that cohesion be used in design with
great caution and only when its value during the lifespan of the
structure can be reliably assessed. This cautionary note stems from
significant uncertainties associated with the determination of a reliable
apparent cohesion value as well as its tendency to vanish with
a change in the degree of saturation. Its significant contribution should
only be counted on for cemented and native soils, or when specific
studies combined with provisions are conducted to protect apparent
cohesion from surface water infiltration (e.g., by using a geo-
membrane cover and drainage behind the GRES). Several examples
for GRESs with cemented reinforced soils are reported in the lit-
erature (e.g., Yang et al. 2012). Conversely, native (overconsolidated)
soils can function as retained (unreinforced) soil in GRESs and the
thrust exerted from them is needed for external stability analysis.
Summary and Conclusions
Seismic design of GRESs is often performed based on the lateral
earth pressure approach. Following this approach, the total thrust
(static 1 seismic) of earth pressures is determined using the M-O
method and is used to assess external stability of the GRES. Al-
though it has been historically ignored for design purposes, the
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Pae-h versus c for external stability analysis, f 5 30°, H 5 5:0 m, d=f 5 0, v 5 20°, backslope: 1V:10H: (a) v 5 0; (b) f 5 v 5 20°

recent edition of AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications
(AASHTO 2012) allows for the inclusion of cohesion in the seismic
design of GRESs. This allowance has major implications in design
that need to be carefully taken into consideration.
The current paper demonstrates the impact of cohesion on
seismic design of GRESs. For this purpose, the authors proposed
an analytical formulation to determine the seismic active earth
pressure coefficient for c-f soils. This formulation includes the
effects of tensile cracks and is developed based upon a pseudostatic
limit equilibrium approach using a log spiral surface. The for-
mulation provides seamless extension to the M-O method, which is
limited to planar surfaces, thus making it applicable also to walls
with large batter. The authors considered two directions of the
thrust, making it useful for structures with flatter slopes. They
performed parametric studies and investigated the effects of
influencing parameters. The authors then compared and verified
results against those obtained from an alternative limit equilibrium
method and a rigorous upper-bound solution in limit analysis of
plasticity. They used the proposed framework to calculate the
thrusts for various cohesion values required for performing ex-
ternal stability analysis of a design example. The proposed meth-
odology provides a tool that can be used to assess the thrust acting on
various earth retention systems supporting c-f soils. Accompanying
this paper is an Excel spreadsheet provided as supplemental data that
can be used to facilitate the generation of numbers for a specific
problem. Given the significant uncertainties associated with the de-
termination of cohesion and apparent cohesion in partially saturated
soils, combined with the significant impact of cohesion, the authors
strongly recommend that cohesion be included in design with great
caution and when specific studies or provisions are taken to protect
apparent cohesion from surface water infiltration.
Appendix. Formulations of Kae for the Conventional
and Modified Directions of Thrust
Using the geometry of log spiral shown in Fig. 1(a), Kae for the
conventional direction of the thrust can be calculated as

(
bð2  
    1 1
Kae ¼ Ae2cb cos b 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 Ae2cb sin b Ae2cb ðcos b 2 c sin bÞdb 2 H92 tan v H9 tan v þ Ae2cb1 sin b1
2 3
b1
   
1 1
2 H9 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9 Ae2cb1 sin b1 þ H9 tan v 2 Ae2cb2 sin b2 2 Ae2cb1 sin b1
 h 2 2
 i
2 H9 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9 Ae2cb1 sin b1 þ H9 tan v þ 1 Ae2cb2 sin b2 2 Ae2cb1 sin b1 2 H9 tan v
3
  bð2       bð2
 2cb   
þ c 2Ae2cb cos b A e2cb cos b 2 ce2cb sin b db 2 c Ae sin b A ce2cb cos b þ e2cb sin b db
1 2 Kv 1 2 Kv
b1 b1

© ASCE 04014016-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.

  h 2  2 i ð2 1  Kh  2cb
b

q
þ1 þ Zc Ae2cb2 sin b2 2 Ae2cb1 sin b1 þ tan v þ Ae cos b þ Ae2cb2 cos b2 Ae2cb cos b
2 1 2 Kv 2 1 2 Kv
b
     
1
  Kh Kh

2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 Ae2cb ðcos b 2 c sin bÞdb 2 1 H92 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 2 H9 2 H9 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1
2 1 2 Kv 3 1 2 Kv
h  i  
1 1 K
2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9 Ae2cb2 cos b2 þ Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9 2 h
Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2
2 2 1 2 Kv
 h  i
1
2 H9 Ae2cb2 sin b2 2 Ae2cb1 sin b1 2 H9 tan v Ae2cb2 cos b2 þ Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9
3  
1  h 2cb 1  i 1 Kh
þ Zc tan v 1 2 H9 Ae 1 sin b þ tan v 2
1 tan v 1 2 H9 þ Zc Ae2cb2 sin b2 2 Ae2cb1 sin b1
2 3 2 1 2 Kv
   
Kh  2  
2 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1 þ Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 1 þ 1 tan v 1 2 H9 Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 2 H9 2 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 1 2 Kv 3 3
),
 
 1 cos d Ae2cb1 cos b 2 Dcos v
 h i h
Kh
21 tan v 1 2 H9 1 2 Zc 2 H9 Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 2 H9 2 1 ð1 2 Zc Þ 1
2 1 2 Kv 3 3 2
      i
2 Ae2cb1 sin b1 þ D tan v sin v tan d Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 D sin v þ tan d Ae2cb1 sin b1 þ D tan v cos v
(4)
where q 5 uniform surcharge acting on the crest (normalized by gH); Kh 5 horizontal seismic coefficient; D 5 height where Pae acts as
measured from toe (normalized by H); d 5 angle of wall friction; c 5 cohesion (normalized by gH); and the other variables are as defined
previously. As noted, all the parameters in Eq. (4) should be used in their normalized form.
Using this modified direction of the thrust [Fig. 1(b)] and by writing the moment equilibrium equation about the pole of the log spiral, Kae
for the modified direction is
(
bð2
    

Kae ¼ Ae2cb cos b 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 Ae2cb sin b Ae2cb ðcos b 2 c sin bÞdb 2 1 H92 tan v 1 H9 tan v þ Ae2cb1 sin b1
2 3
b1
   
2 H9 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9 Ae2cb1 sin b1 þ 1 H9 tan v 2 1 Ae2cb2 sin b2 2 Ae2cb1 sin b1
 h 2 2
 i
2 H9 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9 Ae2cb1 sin b1 þ H9 tan v þ 1 Ae2cb2 sin b2 2 Ae2cb1 sin b1 2 H9 tan v
3
  bð2       bð2
 2cb   
þ c 2Ae2cb cos b A e2cb cos b 2 ce2cb sin b db 2 c Ae sin b A ce2cb cos b þ e2cb sin b db
1 2 Kv 1 2 Kv
b1 b1

 h 2  2cb 2 i ð2 1  Kh  2cb

b

1 q 2cb2
þ þ Zc Ae sin b2 2 Ae 1 sin b1 þ tan v þ Ae cos b þ Ae2cb2 cos b2 Ae2cb cos b
2 1 2 Kv 2 1 2 Kv
b1
    
 Kh
2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 Ae ðcos b 2 c sin bÞdb 2 1
2cb
H92 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 2 H9
2 1 2 Kv 3
   h  i
Kh 1
2 H9 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9 2Ae2cb2 cos b2 þ Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9
1 2 Kv 2
   
1 Kh
2 Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 H9 Ae2cb2 sin b2 2 Ae2cb1 sin b1 2 H9 tan v
2 1 2 Kv
" #
h  i    
 Ae 2cb2 1
cos b2 þ Ae 2cb1
cos b1 2 Ae 2cb2 1
cos b2 2 H9 þ Zc tan v 1 2 H9 Ae 2cb1 1
sin b1 þ tan v 2 tan v 1 2 H9
3 2 3
   
Kh
þ1 Zc Ae2cb2 sin b2 2 Ae2cb1 sin b1 2 tan v Ae2cb1 cos b1 þ Ae2cb2 cos b2 2 1
2 1 2 Kv
   
1 Kh  2  2cb 2 1

1 Kh   
þ tan v 1 2 H9 Ae 1 cos b1 2 H9 2 2 tan v 1 2 H9 1 2 Zc 2 H9
2 1 2 Kv 3 3 2 1 2 Kv
),
1 cos d Ae2cb1 cos b 2 D þ tan dAe2cb1 sin b þ D tan v
h i h i
 Ae2cb1 cos b1 2 2 H9 2 1 ð1 2 Zc Þ 1 1
3 3 2

(5)

© ASCE 04014016-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.

 All variables are as defined previously. All the parameters in
Eq. (5) should be used in their normalized form. Similar to Eq. (4),
the value of Kae in Eq. (5) should be determined by performing
a maximization procedure for known D and Zc values (e.g.,
Leshchinsky and Zhu 2010). The horizontal component of the
thrust, Pae-h , for the modified direction can be calculated as
Pae-h 5 Pae cos d.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A 5 log spiral constant;
c 5 cohesion;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
D 5 point of action of total thrust, measured from toe;
H 5 height of slope;
H9 5 height of crest after crack;
h 5 slope height along vertical plane within reinforced
soil mass;
Kae 5 seismic active earth pressure coefficient;
Kae-h 5 horizontal component of seismic active earth
pressure coefficient;
Kae-v 5 vertical component of seismic active earth pressure
coefficient;
Kh 5 horizontal seismic coefficient;
Kv 5 vertical seismic coefficient;
Pae 5 total thrust;
Pae-h 5 horizontal component of total thrust;
Pae-v 5 vertical component of total thrust;
q 5 uniform surcharge acting on crest;
R 5 log spiral radius;
Xc , Yc 5 coordinates of the pole of log spiral in the Cartesian
coordinate system;
Zc 5 depth of tensile crack;
a 5 backslope angle of crest;
b1 , b2 5 polar coordinates of log spiral pole;
g 5 unit weight of soil;
gf 5 unit weight of retained soil;
gr 5 unit weight of reinforced soil;
d 5 wall interface friction angle;
f 5 design internal angle of friction;
ff 5 internal angle of friction of retained soil;
fr 5 internal angle of friction of reinforced soil;
c 5 tanðfÞ; and
v 5 slope batter.
Supplemental Data
A supplemental Microsoft Excel spreadsheet is available online in
the ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary.org).
References
AASHTO. (2010). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 3rd Ed.,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2012). AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications, 6th Ed.,
Washington, DC.
Al Atik, L., and Sitar, N. (2010). “Seismic earth pressures on cantilever
retaining structures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0000351, 1324–1333.
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.
Anderson, D. G., Martin, G. R., Lam, I., and Wang, J. N. (2008). “Seismic
analysis and design of retaining walls, buried structures, slopes, and
embankments.” National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) Rep. 611, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
Baker, R. (1981). “Tensile strength, tension cracks, and stability of slopes.”
Soils Found., 21(2), 1–17.
Baker, R. (2004). “Nonlinear Mohr envelopes based on triaxial data.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2004)130:5
(498), 498–506.
Berg, R. R., Christopher, B. R., and Samtani, N. C. (2009). “Mechanically
stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes design and con-
struction guidelines.” FHWA-NHI-10-025, Tech. Rep. prepared
for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Ryan Berg
and Associates, Woodbury, MN, and National Highway Institute,
Arlington, VA.
Ikehara, T. (1970). “Damage to railway embankments due to the Tokachioki
earthquake.” Soils Found., 10(2), 52–71.
Leshchinsky, B. (2013). “Comparison of limit equilibrium and limit analysis
for complex slopes.” Proc., 2013 Geo-Congress: Stability and Per-
formance of Slopes and Embankments III, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1280–
1289.
Leshchinsky, D. (2010). “Geosynthetic reinforced walls and steep slopes: Is
it magic?” Geosynthetics, 28(3), 17–24.
Leshchinsky, D., Ebrahimi, S., Vahedifard, F., and Zhu, F. (2012). “Ex-
tension of Mononobe-Okabe approach to unstable slopes.” Soils Found.,
52(2), 239–256.
Leshchinsky, D., and Tatsuoka, F. (2013). “Performance, design, and re-
dundancy: Geosynthetic reinforced walls in the public sector.” Geo-
synthetics, 31(3), 12–21.
Leshchinsky, D., and Zhu, F. (2010). “Resultant force of lateral earth
pressure in unstable slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000398, 1655–1663.
LimitState:GEO, Ver. 3 [Computer software]. Sheffield, U.K., LimitState.
Ling, H. I., Leshchinsky, D., Mohri, Y., and Wang, J.-P. (2012). “Earth-
quake response of reinforced segmental retaining walls backfilled with
substantial percentage of fines.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000669, 934–944.
National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA). (1997). Design manual
for segmental retaining walls, 2nd Ed., Herndon, VA.
Nian, T., and Han, J. (2013). “Analytical solution for Rankine’s seismic active
earth pressure in c-f soil with an infinite slope.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000873, 1611–1616.
Prakash, S. (1981). Soil dynamics, McGraw Hill, New York.
Prakash, S., and Saran, S. (1966). “Static and dynamic earth pressure behind
retaining walls.” Proc., 3rd Symp. Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1,
Indian Society of Earthquake Technology (ISET), Uttarakhand, India,
273–288.
Richards, R., Jr., and Shi, X. (1994). “Seismic lateral pressures in soils
with cohesion.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)
120:7(1230), 1230–1251.
Saran, S., and Gupta, R. P. (2003). “Seismic earth pressures behind retaining
walls.” Indian Geotech. J., 33(3), 195–213.
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, Reston, VA, 103–147.
Shukla, S. K., Gupta, S. K., and Sivakugan, N. (2009). “Active earth pressure
on retaining wall for c-f soil backfill under seismic loading condition.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000003,
690–696.
Smith, C., and Gilbert, M. (2007). “Application of discontinuity layout
optimization to plane plasticity problems.” Proc. Royal Society A,
463(2086), 2461–2484.
Smith, C. C., and Cubrinovski, M. (2011). “Pseudo-static limit analysis
by discontinuity layout optimization: Application to seismic anal-
ysis of retaining walls.” Soil. Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 31(10), 1311–
1323.
Tatsuoka, F., Konagai, K., Kokusho, T., Koseki, J., and Miyajima, M.
(2006). “Special session on the 2004 Niigata-ken Chuetsu Earthquake.”
04014016-11 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Proc., 16th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. II, IOS, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Tatsuoka, F., Koseki, J., Tateyama, M., Munaf, Y., and Horii, N. (1998).
“Seismic stability against high seismic loads of geosynthetic-
reinforced soil retaining structures.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Geo-
synthetics, Vol. 1, International Society of Geosynthetics (ISG), Jupiter,
FL, 103–142.
Utili, S. (2013). “Investigation by limit analysis on the stability of slopes
with cracks.” Geotechnique, 63(2), 140–154.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 06/03/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Vahedifard, F., Leshchinsky, D., and Meehan, C. L. (2012). “Relationship
between the seismic coefficient and the unfactored force of geosynthetic
in reinforced earth structures.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000701, 1209–1221.
Yang, G., Liu, H., Lv, P., and Zhang, B. (2012). “Geogrid-reinforced lime-
treated cohesive soil retaining wall: Case study and implications.”
J. Geotextile Geomembr., 35(1), 112–118.
Yoshimi, Y. (1970). “An outline of damage during the Tokachioki earth-
quake.” Soils Found., 10(2), 1–14.

© ASCE 04014016-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014.140.