Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for

Engineered Systems and Geohazards

ISSN: 1749-9518 (Print) 1749-9526 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ngrk20

Performance-based analysis and design for

internal stability of MSE walls

Richard J. Bathurst, Tony M. Allen, Yoshihisa Miyata, Sina Javankhoshdel &

Nezam Bozorgzadeh

To cite this article: Richard J. Bathurst, Tony M. Allen, Yoshihisa Miyata, Sina Javankhoshdel &
Nezam Bozorgzadeh (2019): Performance-based analysis and design for internal stability of MSE
walls, Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2019.1602879

Published online: 18 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ngrk20
GEORISK
https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2019.1602879

Performance-based analysis and design for internal stability of MSE walls

Richard J. Bathursta, Tony M. Allenb, Yoshihisa Miyatac, Sina Javankhoshdeld and Nezam Bozorgzadeha
a
Department of Civil Engineering, GeoEngineering Center at Queen’s-RMC, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada;
b
Washington State Department of Transportation, State Materials Laboratory, Olympia, WA, USA; cDepartment of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, National Defense Academy, Yokosuka, Japan; dRocscience, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls must be designed with adequate margins of safety against Received 22 October 2018
internal stability failure described by tensile strength and pullout limit states. Probabilities of failure Accepted 27 March 2019
(or reliability index) will vary strongly with the accuracy of the underlying models that appear in
KEYWORDS
limit state performance functions. In this paper, prior work by the authors and co-workers on this Mechanically stabilized earth
topic is reviewed. Relative performance is explored in the context of the reliability (or probability (MSE) walls; probabilistic
of failure) of steel and polymeric reinforcing elements in MSE walls using limit state performance analysis; reliability-based
functions with load and resistance models having different accuracy. design; tensile strength limit
state; pullout limit state
Abbreviations: AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; ASD:
allowable stress design; COV: coefficient of variation; CDF: cumulative distribution function; CSA:
Canadian Standards Association; FS: factor of safety; LRFD: load and resistance factor design; MC:
Monte Carlo (simulation); MSE: mechanically stabilized earth; OFS: operational factor of safety;
RBD: reliability-based design

1. Introduction
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls constructed
with steel or polymeric reinforcing elements have
been in use for decades. These systems are essentially
gravity wall structures where the gravity mass is a com-
posite formed by soil backfill reinforced with horizontal
layers of reinforcement and most often including a
hard concrete facing. The soil-reinforced mass must
be internally stable over the life of the structure if the
composite mass is to perform its primary function,
which is to resist the external loads imposed on the
structure by the retained fill.
The mechanisms of internal stability in the
reinforced soil zone are complex and difficult to formu-
late if the objective is to capture the true mechanics of
these systems because the component materials and
their interactions are complicated. In order to make
analysis and design tractable for internal modes of fail-
ure, such as tensile failure of the reinforcement layers
and pullout of the reinforcement anchorage lengths,
simple concepts of classical earth pressure theory and
interface shear resistance between dissimilar materials
have been adopted. However, in almost all cases, load
and resistance model formulations have required
empirical adjustment to improve the accuracy of
predictions for walls under operational conditions
(e.g. BSI 2010; PWRC 2013; Allen and Bathurst 2015,
2018; AASHTO 2017).
Models of varying accuracy have been used for the
internal stability analysis and design of MSE wall struc-
tures using allowable stress design (ASD in USA termi-
nology) where margins of safety are expressed by
factors of safety, and using load and resistance factor
design (LRFD) in North American foundation engineer-
ing practice (AASHTO 2017; CSA 2019). Both ASD and
LRFD for MSE walls do not provide an estimate of the
probability that a limit state is satisfied. However, as geo-
technical engineering moves to performance-based
design, margins of safety expressed by probability of fail-
ure or reliability index have gained traction (e.g. Honjo
and Kusakabe 2002; EN1997-1 2004; Honjo, Kikuchi,
and Shirato 2010; Orr 2012; ISO 2394 2015; Phoon
2017). This is the motivation for the work by the writers
and co-workers that is reviewed in this paper. This prior
work is focused on the development and calibration of
more accurate models that can be used for perform-
ance-based internal stability analysis and design of
MSE walls within a probabilistic framework, which is
also called reliability-based design (RBD) in the litera-
ture. The latter gives the designer the flexibility to

CONTACT Richard J. Bathurst bathurst-r@rmc.ca Department of Civil Engineering, GeoEngineering Center at Queen’s-RMC, Royal Military College of
Canada, Kingston, ON K7K 7B4, Canada
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. J. BATHURST ET AL.
compare between design options based on probabilistic
estimates of reliability, and to adjust design options to
target levels of reliability (i.e. performance) selected by
the designer.
2. Preliminaries
Limit state performance functions used in this paper are
expressed as:
Rm lR Rn
g= −1= −1 (1)
Qm lQ Qn
Here Rm and Qm are observed (measured) resistance
and load values, respectively, and λR and λQ are the
corresponding bias values that are used to transform
nominal values Rn and Qn to Rm and Qm. If nom-
inal and bias values are assumed to be random vari-
ables, then the probability Pf (g < 0) can be computed
using Monte Carlo simulation. If random values are
lognormally distributed, a closed-form solution pro-
posed by Bathurst and Javankhoshdel (2017) is
available.
The structure of the limit state performance func-
tion introduced here is particularly attractive for
internal stability limit state equations for MSE walls
that are the focus of this paper. This is because the
writers and co-workers have compiled large databases
of measured reinforcement loads from instrumented
walls under operational (end of construction) con-
ditions, and measured resistance values from labora-
tory element tests used to quantify tensile strength
and pullout capacity of a wide range of reinforcement
materials. Individual measured values can be paired
with predicted values using any of a large number
of load and resistance models that appear in design
guidance documents and the journal literature. The
ratio of the measured value to the predicted (nom-
inal) value is called method bias because the magni-
tude of a bias value is influenced by (a) the
intrinsic accuracy of the underlying deterministic
model to capture the mechanics of the limit state
load or resistance term, (b) the type of measurement
and its interpretation, and (c) the quality and quantity
of data (Allen, Nowak, and Bathurst 2005). In the
related literature the same parameter has been called
(simply) bias or model factor (e.g. Phoon 2017). The
term method bias is preferred by the writers because
the same model may be recommended for (say) pull-
out of a particular class of soil reinforcement type, but
the measured value and hence the corresponding
bias value will vary depending on whether the
measured pullout value was gathered from a
laboratory test or from an in situ test performed in
the field. Nevertheless, for brevity in this paper, the
term bias is used.
Figure 1 shows the principal components of a MSE
wall and links them to the two limit states introduced
above. Details regarding the geometry of the partition
between the active soil zone and the passive zone in
Figure 1 will vary depending on the type of reinforce-
ment (e.g. extensible polymeric type or inextensible
steel). Similarly, there are a number of formulations to
compute the nominal value for the maximum reinforce-
ment load in a reinforcement layer (Tmax) under oper-
ational conditions and the ultimate pullout capacity
(Pc) of the same reinforcement material embedded in
different soil materials.
Formulations for Tmax for walls constructed with fric-
tional soils vary in complexity and accuracy (FHWA
2009; Allen and Bathurst 2015, 2018; AASHTO 2017;
Bathurst and Yu 2018; Miyata and Bathurst 2019). All
formulations can be fully described by all or some of
the parameters in the following expression:
Tmax = f (H, Ffs , Sv , z, f, sv , v, J) (2)
Here H = height of wall, Φfs = facing stiffness, Sv = con-
tributory area of the reinforcement layer, z = depth of
the layer below the top of the wall, f = friction angle
of the soil, and σv = vertical pressure acting at the
reinforcement elevation due to soil self-weight (γ)
and any surface distributed surcharge (q), ω = facing
batter from the vertical, and J = reinforcement stiffness.
The load values are expressed as force per unit length
of wall in the cross plane-strain direction. The reader
is directed to the cited references for the details of
the five different Tmax models used in this paper and
other models that are not included due to space
constraints.
For the calculation of pullout capacity (also in units of
force per length), equations having the following general
form are used:
Pc = f (Nq , Le , sv , Rc ) (3)
Here Le = anchorage length of the reinforcement layer in
the passive zone, Nq = dimensionless factor that depends
on the reinforcement type, and Rc ≤ 1 is the reinforce-
ment layer coverage ratio. Reinforcement factor Nq is a
function of soil friction angle, reinforcement type (exten-
sible or inextensible) and reinforcement geometry. A
number of pullout models can be found in design gui-
dance documents, design codes, and in the research lit-
erature (FHWA 2009; Huang and Bathurst 2009;
Miyata and Bathurst 2012; Yu and Bathurst 2015;
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 3

Figure 1. MSE wall components and nominal load and resistance terms.

AASHTO 2017; Miyata, Yu, and Bathurst 2018). In this following closed-form solution can be used to calculate
paper, only four pullout models are considered. reliability index (β) (Bathurst and Javankhoshdel 2017):
For the tensile strength limit state, the tensile strength
(Tal) of extensible polymeric reinforcement is expressed 
 
as: mlR mRn (1 + COV2Qn )(1 + COV2lQ )
ln
mlQ mQn (1 + COV2Rn )(1 + COV2lR )
Tult × Rc b=
Tal = (4)  ⎡ ln(1 + COV2 )(1 + COV2 )(1 + COV2 ) ⎤
RF  lQ
 ⎢ Qn Rn
 ⎢ ×(1 + COV2lR )(1 + rR COVRn COVlR )2 ⎥ ⎥
Where Tult = ultimate strength of the reinforcement and  ⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ ×(1 + rQ COVQn COVlQ )2 ⎥
RF = reduction factor that accounts for loss of strength ln⎢ ⎥

due to installation damage, creep and chemical durability  ⎢ (1 + rn COVRn COVQn )2 ⎥
 ⎢ ⎥
(e.g. FHWA 2009; AASHTO 2015; AASHTO 2017). For  ⎣ ⎦
steel reinforcement materials the corresponding
expression is: (6)
Ac Fy
Tal = (5)
b Here μRn and COVRn, μQn and COVQn, μλR and COVλR,
Here Ac = cross-section area, b = width of reinforce- and μλQ and COVλQ are mean and COV values for Rn,
ment element, and Fy = yield strength of the steel. This Qn, λR and λQ, respectively. Parameters ρR and ρQ are
calculation includes possible loss of section due to bias dependencies which are the Pearson correlation
corrosion. coefficients between Rn and λR and between Qn and λQ,
respectively. When ρR and ρQ are non-zero, the corre-
sponding resistance bias and load bias values vary with
the magnitude of the nominal values (Rn and Qn). Par-
3. Calculation of reliability index and
ameter ρn is the correlation between Rn and Qn and is
probability of failure
non-zero when equations for Rn and Qn share one or
The probability of failure [Pf = P(g < 0)] for the perform- more input parameters that are random variables. Here-
ance (limit state) function having the form shown in after, ρn is referred to as nominal correlation for simpli-
Equation (1) can be computed using Monte Carlo city. The conversion from β to Pf is made using the
(MC) simulation. For simple linear limit states with ran- approximation Pf = 1 − Φ(β) where Φ is the standard
dom variables described by lognormal distributions, the normal cumulative distribution function.
4 R. J. BATHURST ET AL.
The probability theory-based steps used to derive the
above equation for the single load case have been
extended to the case of an additional permanent surface
traction representing a footing but with some additional
constraints. The interested reader is directed to the paper
by Javankhoshdel, Bathurst, and Cami (2018) for this
case.
4. Statistics of nominal values
Nominal values for resistance (Rn) and load (Qn) are
computed at time of design and are project specific.
They are computed using Equation (2) for load and
Equations (3)–(5) for resistance. A useful assumption
is that nominal values in each load and resistance term
in these equations are computed using mean values of
the input parameters that have some uncertainty (e.g.
soil unit weight (γ), soil friction angle (f), tensile
strength Fy and Tult). The mean and variance of these
random variables can then be used to compute distri-
butions of Qn and Rn; from these distributions the
mean (μRn, μQn) and COV of nominal values can be
computed (COVRn, COVQn). Possible nominal corre-
lations (ρn) between Qn and Rn for the pullout limit
state can be evaluated at the same time. They will vary
between ±1 depending on the statistics for the random
input variables that appear in the equations for Tmax
and Pc, and whether or not random values of component
material properties are taken from the same sample (Lin
and Bathurst 2018). In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the assumption of ρn = 0 simplifies the calcu-
lation of Pf using MC simulation and the closed-form
solution introduced earlier. In addition, taking ρn = 0
has been recommended for practical LRFD calibration
in the USA (Allen, Nowak, and Bathurst 2005). The
ratio of mean of nominal resistance (μRn) and mean of
nominal load (μQn) is assumed as the conventional factor
of safety used in ASD practice (i.e. FS = μRn/μQn). This
assignment provides a link to the first step in design,
which is typically to adjust the nominal resistance to
ensure that the design factor of safety for the limit
state is adequate based on past practice and experience.
A shortcoming of the approach described above to
compute COVRn and COVQn is that it does not account
for other sources of uncertainty beyond simply the varia-
bility in soil and reinforcement properties. In LRFD foun-
dation engineering practice in Canada, the notion of level
of understanding has been introduced to account for
uncertainty in the calculation of nominal values at time
of design. The motivation is to reward geotechnical design
engineers with larger resistance factors in limit state
design equations as knowledge of project ground con-
ditions and material properties improve (Fenton et al.
2016; CSA 2019). Bathurst, Javankhoshdel, and Allen
(2017) assigned values of COVRn and COVQn equal to
0.10, 0.20 and 0.30 corresponding to high, typical and
low levels of understanding, respectively. These assign-
ments were necessary to quantify levels of understanding
for reliability theory-based LRFD calibration but are
equally applicable for reliability-based analysis and design
described in this paper. The exception to these values is
the assignment of COVRn = 0 for the nominal strength
of the geogrid or steel reinforcement that appears in the
tensile limit state function for these structures. This is
because there is no uncertainty in the calculation of the
nominal tensile strength at time of design which is
taken as deterministic; rather, all uncertainty is captured
by the bias statistics for the tensile strength model.
5. Method bias statistics
In this section we demonstrate example method bias
statistics for load and resistance models that are judged
to range from relatively poor to relatively good.
5.1. Load
Table 1 identifies five different load models examined in
this paper. Figure 2 shows cumulative distribution func-
tion (CDF) plots of bias values for one steel grid tensile
load model (LM2) and two different polymeric (geogrid)
models (LM4 and LM5). The bias data were generated by
dividing each measured reinforcement load from instru-
mented field walls by the corresponding predicted load
using the load model (i.e. load bias λQ = Qm/Qn). The
data have been plotted with a lognormal axis for bias.
The data present as a straight line over the top half or
two-thirds of the data indicating that the assumption
of lognormal distributed bias values is reasonable.
Approximations to the measured data are shown using
the statistics for all data and visually fitting to the
upper tail of the distributions. The corresponding
mean and COV values that are required to match the
visual fit are shown in the figures and in Table 1. It is
the upper portions of load bias distributions that strongly
influence the magnitude of probability of failure of each
limit state. Whether or not the approximations capture
the lower tails is not important. Note that there are no
actual data corresponding to the fit to tail distribution
that could be used to compute a correlation coefficient.
Hence, ρQ is taken as 0 when fit-to-upper tail bias stat-
istics are used in reliability calculations.
The plots in Figure 2 and the summary statistics in
Table 1 show that load model LM2 underestimates
measured loads by about 22% on average (i.e. μλQ =
1.28) while load model LM4 overestimates measured
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 5

Table 1. Summary of bias statistics and bias dependency (cross-correlation) values for load models for MSE walls constructed with
granular soil.
Bias
Load Reinforcement Model Number of data Mean of bias COV of bias dependency Original measured data
model type reference points n mlQ COVlQ ρQ source
LM1 Steel grid AASHTO Simplified 81 all data 0.99 0.42 −0.18* Allen and Bathurst
Method fit to upper 1.15 0.26 ** (2015)
(FHWA 2009; AASHTO tail
2017)
LM2 Coherent Gravity 81 all data 1.28 0.45 −0.34 Allen and Bathurst
Method fit to upper 1.25 0.46 ** (2015)
(FHWA 2009; AASHTO tail
2017)
LM3 Simplified Stiffness 81 all data 0.99 0.34 −0.08 *
Allen and Bathurst
Method fit to upper 1.07 0.25 ** (2015)
(Allen and Bathurst tail
2015)
LM4 Polymeric AASHTO Simplified 95 all data 0.42 0.96 −0.40 Allen and Bathurst
(geogrid) Method fit to upper 0.42 1.10 ** (2015)
(FHWA 2009; AASHTO tail
2017)
LM5 Simplified Stiffness 95 all data 0.96 0.35 0.12* Allen and Bathurst
Method fit to upper 1.00 0.28 ** (2015)
(Allen and Bathurst tail
2015)
*ρQ = 0 at level of significance of 5%. **ρQ taken as 0 for the reason explained in the text.

loads by more than a factor of 2 on average (i.e. μλQ = 5.2. Pullout

0.42). The spread in bias values for load model LM2 cor-
Two pullout models for steel grids and two models for
responds to COVλQ = 0.45; the corresponding spread for
geogrid reinforcement products are identified in Table
bias values using load model LM4 is very much larger
2 together with computed bias values. Results of bias
(i.e. COVλQ = 0.96). The explanation for the large differ-
analyses of the two geogrid models (PM3 and PM4)
ences in COV of bias values can be found in the cited
are shown in Figure 3. The bias data for both models
sources. For example, load model LM5 considers the
are reasonably well approximated by a straight line in
important influence of reinforcement stiffness on the
the CDF plots indicating that they are lognormally dis-
tensile load generated in geogrid reinforcement layers
tributed from a practical point of view. Visual fits to
in walls under operational conditions, while load
the lower tail are also shown on the CDF plots and the
model LM4 does not.
corresponding mean and COV of bias values recorded.
Also shown in Figure 2 are plots of bias values versus
The motivation for fit-to-lower tail is that it is the distri-
predicted values of Tmax using the same models. Note
bution of bias resistance values at low bias values that
that the nominal values in these plots are deterministic
strongly influences reliability calculation outcomes. For
values computed at time of design and these single-valued
the same reason explained for the load bias data, ρR is
outputs do not have variability. Models LM2 and LM4
taken as 0 when fit-to-lower tail pullout bias statistics
show a statistically significant negative dependency
are used in reliability calculations.
between bias and calculated load values quantified by the
correlation coefficient (ρQ). This can be viewed as undesir-
able in ASD practice because it means that the accuracy of
5.3. Tensile strength
load predictions will vary with magnitude of predicted
load. Model LM5 has statistical bias characteristics that Tensile strength bias statistics are shown in Table 3. The
are judged to be better than load models LM2 and LM4. summary statistics for steel assume that the distribution
The mean of bias values for load model LM5 using all for yield strength is not truncated (e.g. fy = 450 MPa is
data is 0.96 (which is close to 1), there is less spread in the minimum specified yield strength recommended by
bias values (COVλQ = 0.35), and there is no bias depen- AASHTO (2017)). The initial zinc coating (galvaniza-
dency with predicted load Tmax. A further small improve- tion) is assumed to be thick enough to not be depleted
ment in bias statistics results if the visual fit to upper tail over the life of the structure. Hence, possible loss of sec-
is used (i.e. μλQ = 1.00, COVλQ = 0.28). Similar assessments tion due to corrosion over the design life is not con-
of the relative accuracy of the other two load models in this sidered in this study. These assumptions are made to
paper (LM1 and LM3) can be made by examining the bias simplify calculations and to allow the closed-form sol-
statistics summarized in Table 1. ution for β to be used. To consider the influence of the
6 R. J. BATHURST ET AL.

Figure 2. (a) Load model LM2 (steel grid), (c) Load model LM4 (geogrid) and (e) Load model LM5 (geogrid), Cumulative frequency
distribution (CDF) plots for load bias values and approximations to all bias data and fit to upper tail; (b) Load model LM2 (steel
grid), (d) Load model LM4 (geogrid) and (f) Load model LM5 (geogrid), Bias versus predicted (calculated) nominal load values (Tmax).
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 7

Table 2. Summary of bias statistics and bias dependency (cross-correlation) values for pullout models for MSE walls constructed with
granular soil.
Number of data Mean of Bias
Pullout Reinforcement points bias COV of bias dependency
model type Model reference n mlR COVlR ρR Original data source
PM1 Steel grid FHWA (2009) and 129 all data 1.33 0.44 −0.44 Miyata, Yu, and Bathurst (2018)
AASHTO (2017) fit to lower 0.83 0.18 **
tail
PM2 Yu and Bathurst (2015) all data 1.07 0.35 −0.10* Miyata, Yu, and Bathurst (2018)
PM3 Polymeric FHWA (2009) and 318 all data 2.23 0.55 −0.46 Huang and Bathurst (2009)
(geogrid) AASHTO (2017) fit to lower 1.10 0.27 **
tail
PM4 Huang and Bathurst 318 all data 1.07 0.36 0.03* Huang and Bathurst (2009)
(2009) fit to lower 0.95 0.36 **
tail
*ρR = 0 at level of significance of 5%. **ρR taken as 0 for the reason explained in the text.

two factors noted above on numerical outcomes requires
MC simulation and a suitable corrosion model for the
zinc cover and steel (e.g. Allen, Bathurst, and Bozorgza-
deh 2019). Regardless, the qualitative trends in this paper
are informative and quantitative outcomes are not
expected to be practically different from those using a
more sophisticated treatment for the steel grid cases.
6. Results
6.1. General
Computed results using Equation (6) with selected com-
binations of load and resistance models are shown in
Figure 4 together with the assumption of ρn = 0 as dis-
cussed earlier. The results are presented as reliability
index β versus factor of safety FS and operational factor
of safety OFS. The former is the ratio of nominal resist-
ance to nominal load described earlier. The operational
factor of safety is the factor of safety accounting for the
ratio of the average resistance bias to average load bias
and appears as the first term in the numerator of
Equation (6), i.e.:
mlR m m
OFS = FS = lR Rn
mlQ mlQ mQn
If the nominal load and resistance models are perfectly
accurate on average (i.e. μλR = μλQ = 1), then FS = OFS.
This is an unusual occurrence for soil-structure limit
states.
Superimposed on the graphs in Figure 4 are values of
β = 2.33, 3.09 and 3.54, corresponding to probability of
failure Pf = 1/100, 1/1000 and 1/5000, respectively. The
larger β values shown in the figures are typical target
values used for LRFD calibration of structural elements
in structural engineering design (β = 3.54) and for foot-
ings in geotechnical engineering practice (β = 3.09)
(Allen, Nowak, and Bathurst 2005). A value of β = 2.33
has been recommended for reliability-based design and
for LRFD calibration of internal stability limit states for
MSE walls (Allen, Nowak, and Bathurst 2005). The justifi-
cation for what may appear to be a low margin of safety is
that these structures are very strength redundant with
respect to tensile and pullout failure. In other words, if
one reinforcing element fails, the remaining elements
are present to compensate. An ideal outcome for
reliability-based design for the two limit states in this
paper is a nominal factor of safety that is acceptable
based on ASD and past practice (say, FS ∼ 1.5), and cor-
responds to a reliability index value β∼2.33. This outcome
is difficult to achieve as shown in Figure 4 with the excep-
tion of two load and resistance model combinations
(LM4-PM3 – Figure 4(f); LM4-TM2 – Figure 4(i)).
6.2. Influence of level of understanding
The plots in Figure 4 are presented for different coeffi-
cients of variation of the nominal load and resistance
values. For the pullout limit state examples, the plots
are presented with COVQn = COVRn = 0.10, 0.20 and
0.30. For the tensile strength limit state plots, COVRn
= 0 was used in the calculations for the reasons explained
earlier in the paper. For the same factor of safety or OFS
(7) in most plots, the reliability index increases with decreas-
ing COV of nominal values (e.g. Figures 4(a), (e), (g), (h)
and (i)). This outcome may be expected because
reliability is intuitively expected to increase with less
uncertainty in the choice of nominal values at the time
of design. However, there are exceptions such as Figure
4(f) where the opposite trend appears. This is because
of the combined influence of the large negative bias
dependencies and large COV of bias values for both
the load model (LM4 using all bias data) and the pullout
model (PM3 using all bias data) (see Tables 1 and 2). The
same trend in the plots for Figure 4(f) can be seen in
Figure 4(i) for the tensile strength limit state because of
the bias statistics for the LM4 load model. The decrease
in β due to negative bias dependencies (i.e. negative
8 R. J. BATHURST ET AL.

Figure 3. (a) Pullout model PM3 and (c) Pullout model PM4, Cumulative frequency distribution (CDF) plots for pullout bias values and
approximations to all bias data and fit to lower tail; (b) Pullout model PM3 and (d) Pullout model PM4, Bias versus predicted (calculated)
nominal pullout capacity values (Pc).

values of cross-correlation coefficients ρQ and ρR) in 6.3. FS versus OFS

combination with increasing COVQn and COVRn can
Figure 4(f) also shows an example where OFS >> FS for
be appreciated by inspecting the denominator of
the same reliability index and all other parameters are
Equation (6) where the products of these parameters
the same. This is because the resistance model (PM3)
appear. The numerical outcomes shown in these plots
under-estimates reinforcement pullout capacity by a
are the same as those using MC simulations when the
large amount (on average) and thus is very conservative
same statistics are used.

Table 3. Summary of bias statistics and bias dependency values for tensile strength models for MSE walls constructed with granular soil.
Tensile Number of Mean of COV of Bias
strength Reinforcement Model data points bias bias dependency
model type reference n mlR COVlR ρR Original data source
TM1 Steel grid AASHTO N/A 1.10 0.07 0 Bathurst, Huang, and Allen (2011b), Nowak and
(2017) Szerszen (2003) and Nowak and Collins (2000)
TM2 Polymeric AASHTO N/A 1.10 0.10 0 Bathurst and Miyata (2015), Miyata and Bathurst
(geogrid) (2017) (2015), Miyata, Bathurst, and Allen (2014) and
Bathurst, Huang, and Allen (2011a, 2012)
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 9

Figure 4. Reliability index β versus FS and OFS for selected load and resistance models. (a) Models LM1-PM1 using all bias data; (b)
Models LM1-PM1 using fit to tails for model PM1 bias data; (c) Models LM2-PM1 using all bias data; (d) Models LM2-PM1 using fit to tails
for model PM1 bias data; (e) Models LM3-PM2 using all bias data; (f) Models LM4-PM3 using all bias data; (g) Models LM5-PM4 using all
bias data; (h) Models LM1-TM1 using all bias data; (i) Models LM4-TM2 using all bias data and (j) Models LM5-TM2 using all bias data.

(i.e. μλR = 2.23), and the load model (LM4) under-esti-
mates reinforcement tensile loads by a large margin
(on average) (i.e. μλQ = 0.42); thus it is also very conser-
vative. The combined effect is that the actual factor of
safety (i.e. OFS) is about five times larger than the
nominal factor of safety. The OFS is 2.6 times the nom-
inal factor of safety if the tensile limit state using the
same load model (LM4) is combined with the tensile
strength model for geogrid reinforcement (TM2), as
shown in Figure 4(i). The opposite trend can occur
10 R. J. BATHURST ET AL.
when the ratio μλR/μλQ is less than one. For example,
Figures 4(b) and (d) show that the nominal FS is greater
than the OFS by a factor of 1.19 and 1.54, respectively
In some cases there is spread in the load and resist-
ance bias values, but the ratio μλR/μλQ is close to one
and thus OFS ∼ FS when all other parameters remain
the same; an example is shown in Figure 4(c). However,
if the same limit state used to generate the curves in this
figure is considered but the pullout bias statistics for fit to
tail are used, then plots for FS and OFS are noticeably
different (Figure 4(d)).
6.4. Nominal correlation (ρn)
Also included in the closed-form solution (Equation 6) is
parameter ρn, which is the nominal correlation between
nominal load and nominal resistance term values. For
example, if the load model and resistance model have
the same random variables that are sampled from the
same population of values, then a non-zero correlation
is likely between random values of Rn and Qn. An
example is the combination of load model LM1 and pull-
out model PM1; both are functions of soil friction
angle (f) and soil unit weight (γ) and are calculated
using the same soil in the reinforced soil zone that
extends to distance L from the wall face in Figure 1.
For this combination of models, greater γ will increase
the reinforcement load and the pullout capacity, but
the opposite is true for increasing friction angle. If a pull-
out model is independent of friction angle (e.g. pullout
model PM2), then Qn and Rn will be positive correlated.
A larger positive nominal correlation coefficient will
increase β. This can be understood by examining the
last parenthetical term in the denominator of Equation
(6). Ignoring the positive nominal correlation will under-
estimate the margin of safety for that limit state which is
an error on the safe side for design. However, ignoring a
negative correlation will result in an error that is unsafe
for design.
For the tensile strength limit state that appears in this
study, ρn = 0 because the tensile capacity of a polymeric
(geogrid) reinforcement (e.g. tensile strength model
TM1) and steel reinforcement elements (e.g. tensile
strength model TM2) are independent of soil properties.
Regardless, the assumption of COVRn = 0 assumed earlier
removes the influence of ρn on numerical outcomes for
this limit state as can be seen by inspecting Equation (6).
A strategy to compute ρn for a project-specific case is
described by Lin and Bathurst (2018) for load and pull-
out models that have common soil input parameters.
Pairs of nominal load (Qn) and nominal resistance (Rn)
are computed using the same values (e.g. f and γ)
from the same sample populations. The correlation
coefficient between nominal values is then computed in
the usual manner.
7. Conclusions
This paper examines performance assessment of MSE
walls with respect to pullout and tensile strength internal
stability limit states quantified by reliability index (or,
probability of failure). The approach is demonstrated
using a closed-form solution to compute the reliability
index for simple linear limit state (performance) func-
tions with one load term and one resistance term. The
case that is used in this study is the base case found in
design codes. It applies to typical MSE walls under typi-
cal operational conditions which do not include extreme
events and non-persistent simple surface loads. The for-
mulation considers variability in method bias values that
quantify the accuracy of the load and resistance models
that appear in a limit state equation plus uncertainty in
the magnitude of the nominal values selected at the
time of design. Bias and nominal load and resistance
values are assumed to be lognormally distributed ran-
dom variables. A novel feature of the approach used in
this paper is the application of the notion of level of
understanding that is adopted in Canadian LRFD foun-
dation engineering practice.
Analysis results show that probabilities of failure (or
reliability index) vary strongly with the accuracy of the
underlying models that appear in the limit state perform-
ance functions.
The paper demonstrates that the interpretation of mar-
gin of safety based on conventional ASD practice and prob-
abilistic notions of safety can be very different. For example,
a high factor of safety does not necessarily match an accep-
table minimum reliability index (or equivalent probability
of failure). Furthermore, the paper demonstrates that the
margin of safety described by the operational safety of fac-
tor can be greater or smaller than the nominal factor of
safety applied at the time of design.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The authors are grateful for financial support from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC) [grant number 94344-2013], the Ministry of Trans-
portation of Ontario (MTO) Highway Infrastructure Inno-
vations Funding Program [grant number 9017-R-0030] and
the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science
and Technology (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
No. 17H03309).
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
References
AASHTO. 2015. Standard Practice for Determination of
Long-Term Strength for Geosynthetic Reinforcement,
Standard Practice R 69-15. Washington, DC: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO).
AASHTO. 2017. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 8th ed.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Allen, T. M., and R. J. Bathurst. 2015. “An Improved Simplified
Method for Prediction of Loads in Reinforced Soil Walls.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
141 (11): 04015049.
Allen, T. M., and R. J. Bathurst. 2018. “Application of the
Simplified Stiffness Method to Design of Reinforced Soil
Walls.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 144 (5): 04018024.
Allen, T. M., R. J. Bathurst, and N Bozorgzadeh. 2019.
“Probabilistic Tensile Strength Analysis of Steel Strips in
MSE Walls Considering Corrosion.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 145 (5):
04019016.
Allen, T. M., A. S. Nowak, and R. J. Bathurst. 2005. Calibration
to Determine Load and Resistance Factors for Geotechnical
and Structural Design. Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board Circular E-C079, 93 p.
Bathurst, R. J., B. Huang, and T. M. Allen. 2011a. “Analysis of
Installation Damage Tests for LRFD Calibration of
Reinforced Soil Structures.” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 29 (3): 323–334.
Bathurst, R. J., B. Huang, and T. M. Allen. 2011b. “Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Calibration for Steel
Grid Reinforced Soil Walls.” Georisk 5 (3–4): 218–228.
Bathurst, R. J., B. Huang, and T. M. Allen. 2012. “LRFD
Calibration of the Ultimate Pullout Limit State for
Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls.” International
Journal of Geomechanics 12 (4): 399–413.
Bathurst, R. J., and S. Javankhoshdel. 2017. “Influence of
Model Type, Bias and Input Parameter Variability on
Reliability Analysis for Simple Limit States in Soil-
Structure Interaction Problems.” Georisk 11 (1): 42–54.
Bathurst, R. J., S. Javankhoshdel, and T. M. Allen. 2017. “LRFD
Calibration of Simple Soil-Structure Limit States
Considering Method Bias and Design Parameter
Variability.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 143 (9): 04017053.
Bathurst, R. J., and Y. Miyata. 2015. “Reliability-based Analysis
of Combined Installation Damage and Creep for the Tensile
Rupture Limit State of Geogrid Reinforcement in Japan.”
Soils and Foundations 55 (2): 437–446.
Bathurst, R. J., and Y. Yu. 2018. “Probabilistic Prediction of
Reinforcement Loads for Steel MSE Walls Using a
Response Surface Method.” International Journal of
Geomechanics 18 (5): 04018027.
BSI (British Standards Institution). 2010. BS8006-1:2010
+A1:2016: Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced
Soil and Other Fills. Milton Keynes: British Standards
Institution.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). 2019. Canadian
Highway Bridge Design Code. CAN/CSA-S6-14,
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
11
EN1997-1. 2004. Eurocode7: Geotechnical Design – Part 1:
General Rules. Brussels: European Committee for
Standardization (CEN).
Fenton, G. A., F. Naghibi, D. Dundas, R. J. Bathurst, and D. V.
Griffiths. 2016. “Reliability-based Geotechnical Design in
the 2014 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 53 (2): 236–251.
FHWA. 2009. Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Slopes, No. FHWA-NHI-10-024
Vol I and NHI-10-025 Vol II, (eds., Berg, R. R., B. R.
Christopher, and N. C. Samtani) Federal Highway
Administration, 306 p (Vol I) and 378 p (Vol II),
Washington, DC.
Honjo, Y., Y. Kikuchi, and M. Shirato. 2010. “Development of
the Design Codes Grounded on the Performance-Based
Design Concept in Japan.” Soils and Foundations 50 (6):
983–1000.
Honjo, Y., and O. Kusakabe. 2002. “Proposal of a
Comprehensive Foundation Design Code: Geo-Code
21 Version 2.” In Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Foundation Design Codes and Soil
Investigation in View of International Harmonization
and Performance-Based Design, 95–103. Rotterdam:
A.A. Balkema.
Huang, B., and R. J. Bathurst. 2009. “Evaluation of Soil-
Geogrid Pullout Models Using a Statistical Approach.”
ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal 32 (6): 489–504.
ISO 2394. 2015. General Principles on Reliability for
Structures. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization.
Javankhoshdel, S., R. J. Bathurst, and B. Cami. 2018.
“Influence of Model Type, Bias and Input Parameter
Variability on Reliability Analysis for Simple Limit States
with two Load Terms.” Computers and Geotechnics 97:
78–89.
Lin, P., and R. J. Bathurst. 2018. “Influence of Cross-
Correlation Between Nominal Load and Resistance on
Reliability-Based Design for Simple Linear Soil-Structure
Limit States.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 55 (2): 279–
295.
Miyata, Y., and R. J. Bathurst. 2012. “Reliability Analysis of
Soil-Geogrid Pullout Models in Japan.” Soils and
Foundations 52 (4): 620–633.
Miyata, Y., and R. J. Bathurst. 2015. “Reliability Analysis of
Geogrid Installation Damage Test Data in Japan.” Soils
and Foundations 55 (2): 393–403.
Miyata, Y., and R. J. Bathurst. 2019. “Statistical Assessment of
Load Model Accuracy for Steel Grid Reinforced Soil Walls.”
Acta Geotechnica 14: 57–70.
Miyata, Y., R. J. Bathurst, and T. M. Allen. 2014. “Reliability
Analysis of Geogrid Creep Data in Japan.” Soils and
Foundations 54 (4): 608–620.
Miyata, Y., Y. Yu, and R. J. Bathurst. 2018. “Calibration of Soil-
Steel Grid Pullout Models Using a Statistical Approach.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
144 (2): 04017106.
Nowak, A. S., and K. R. Collins. 2000. Reliability of Structures.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nowak, A. S., and M. Szerszen. 2003. “Calibration of
Design Code for Buildings (AC 318): Part 1–Statistical
Models for Resistance.” ACI Structural Journal 100 (3):
377–382.
12 R. J. BATHURST ET AL.

Orr, T. L. L. 2012. “How Eurocode 7 has Affected Geotechnical
Design: A Review.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering 165 (6): 337–350.
Phoon, K. K. 2017. “Role of Reliability Calculations in
Geotechnical Design.” Georisk: Assessment and
Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and
Geohazards 11 (1): 4–21.
PWRC. 2013. Design and Construction Manual of
Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil (Second Revision). Tsukuba:
Public Works Research Center. (in Japanese)
Yu, Y., and R. J. Bathurst. 2015. “Analysis of Soil-Steel Bar Mat
Pullout Models Using a Statistical Approach.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 141 (5):
04015006.