Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MSE Design - Example 1
MSE Design - Example 1
The Design and Construction of Mechanically‐Stabilized Earth
Retaining Walls and Slopes Using Geosynthetic Reinforcement
MSE Retaining Wall Design Example©
By Richard J. Valentine, PE, MSCE
GeoMEast 2019 International Congress and Exhibition
10‐14 November 2019
Cairo, Egypt
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Step 1 ‐ Establish the Performance Criteria .................................................................................................. 3
Step 1A ‐ Preliminary Sizing of Wall Components .................................................................................... 4
Preliminary Sizing of Wall Embedment Depth ...................................................................................... 4
Preliminary Sizing of Geosynthetic Reinforcement Lengths ................................................................. 4
Step 1B – Assessment of Design Earth Pressure ....................................................................................... 6
Step 2 – Evaluate External Stability .............................................................................................................. 7
Step 2A – Evaluate the vertical pressures at the wall foundation ............................................................ 8
Step 2B – Evaluate the resistance to base sliding ................................................................................... 11
Step 2C – Evaluate bearing capacity ....................................................................................................... 12
Step 3 – Evaluate Internal Stability ............................................................................................................. 12
Step 3A – Calculate the maximum tensile forces in the geosynthetic reinforcement ........................... 13
Step 3B – Evaluate resistance to reinforcement tensile failure .............................................................. 17
Step 3C – Evaluate resistance to reinforcement‐block connection failure ............................................ 18
Step 3D – Evaluate Resistance to Reinforcement Pullout ...................................................................... 19
DESIGN EXAMPLE
Perform the calculations to assess the stability of the mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall
shown in Figure 1 in general accordance with FHWA NHI‐00‐043 (FHWA) for the MSE retaining wall cross
section shown below.
Figure 1. The example section of MSE retaining wall.
STEP 1 ‐ ESTABLISH THE PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The minimum design parameters and recommended factor of safety (FS) for different modes of failure
are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Minimum design parameters (see FHWA pages 36).
External Stability
Sliding FS≥1.5 MSEW1, 1.3 RSS1
Bearing capacity FS ≥ 2.5
Global (overall) stability FS ≥ 1.3 (RJV recommends ≥ 1.40)
Compound stability FS ≥ 1.3 (RJV recommends ≥ 1.40)
Under seismic loading FS ≥ all static FS values
Internal Stability
Reinforcement pullout FS≥1.5 MSEW and RSS
Geosynthetic reinforcement tensile strength FS ≥ 1.5
Geosynthetic – modular block connection FS ≥ 1.5
Other Design Parameters
Geosynthetic reinforcement length, L L ≥ 0.7H
Eccentricity at base ≤ L/6 in soil, L/4 in rock
Vertical spacing of geosynthetic reinforcement, Sv Sv ≤ 41 cm2
Note 1 – mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSEW); reinforced soil slope (RSS).
Note 2 – FHWA recommend Sv ≤ twice block depth.
Page 3
The minimum embedment depth is based on the function of the exposed wall height, Hexposed in Figure 1,
the slope at the wall base and whether the wall will function as a bridge abutment.
Table 2. Wall embedment depth parameters (see FHWA page 38).
Slope at Wall Base Embedment Depth, Hemb
No slope (0.0°) Hemb ≥ Hexposed /20, minimum Hemb is 0.6 m for all walls
3H:1V (18.4°) Hexposed /10
2H:1V (25.6°) Hexposed /7
3H:2V (33.7°) Hexposed /5
Bridge Abutment Hexposed /10 minimum, use Hexposed /7 and Hexposed /5 for toe slopes as
shown above.
The design life of the structure should also be considered. For permanent structures the design life
should be no less than 75 years for permanent structures, and this service period will be used for the
current example. Walls that support bridge abutments or other such structures may warrant a design
life of 100 years or more. Temporary walls and slopes should be designed for the anticipated service
period, but no less than 3 years.
If the retaining wall supports vehicular traffic, then that live load should be modeled as no less than
12.0 kPa.
If seismic loading is anticipated, then the load should be based on the peak ground acceleration
anticipated for the project site. (Note – design for seismic loading is beyond the scope of this course. It is
recommended that the reader consult FHWA‐NHI‐00‐043 for guidance).
STEP 1A ‐ PRELIMINARY SIZING OF WALL COMPONENTS
Preliminary sizing is needed for the wall embedment depth and for the geosynthetic reinforcement
lengths.
Preliminary Sizing of Wall Embedment Depth
The embedment depth of the wall should be determined based on Table 2. Given that there is no slope
in front of the wall, then:
20
4.267
0.21
20
Since the minimum embedment depth is 0.6 m, then this default value controls and Hemb = 0.6 m for the
design example.
Preliminary Sizing of Geosynthetic Reinforcement Lengths
As shown in Table 1, the geosynthetic reinforcement length, L should be ≥ 0.7H where H is the total
height of the wall:
Page 4
Figure 2. The example wall section updated with preliminarily sized wall components.
Page 5
STEP 1B – ASSESSMENT OF DESIGN EARTH PRESSURE
The coefficient of earth pressure, Kat, for soil in the retained zone is needed to evaluate the external
stability of the wall. For the general Coulomb case Kat is:
θ ′ Eq. 1
/
sin ′ sin ′
sin 1
sin sin
Where:
= is the angle of the wall face as measured from the horizontal plane.
’= the effective internal angle of friction of the soil.
= the angle of the slope behind the wall crest as measured from the horizontal plane.
= the interface friction angle between soil in the reinforced and retained soil zones. It is assumed to
be a maximum of but no greater that 0.67’.
According to page 87 of FHWA, if the wall face batter is equal to 8° or less, then it is treated for the
calculation of Ka as if the wall face were vertical. That is, = 90°. At some locations in FHWA and in the
computer program MSEW, the limiting wall batter is 10° instead of 8°.
Between pages 88 and 91 of FHWA are figures which described different wall geometries. Of these, the
geometry at page 91 of FHWA matches that of the wall in Figure 1 of this design example. If the
geometries of this example wall as shown in Figure 1 and 2 were transformed to reflect how it will
actually be analyzed using FHWA, it would appear as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. The example wall section in Figure 2 transformed to reflect how it is analyzed using FHWA.
There are three things to note about Figure 3:
First, the wall face is modeled as if it is vertical (i.e. = 90°) because, as previously mentioned, the
batter of the wall face is less than 8°.
Page 6
Second, the height h‐H corresponds to the vertical projection of geosynthetic reinforcement length L
onto the 3H:1V crest slope. So, if the length of the reinforcements is changed, the value of h‐H will
also change. For the reinforcement length L = 4.300 m the value of h‐H can be calculated as
h‐H = 4.300 m / 3 = 1.433 m. Thus, h = H + 1.433 m = 4.877 m + 1.433 m = 6.310 m.
Third, the slope behind the wall crest is not “infinite”. Rather it has a relatively short height and is
modeled as a “broken back” slope. The angle of the crest slope is changed from the actual value to
I to better model the effect that the slope has on the driving forces F that are applied to the back of the
reinforced soil zone. The angle I is determined by locating the horizontal distance 2H behind the base
of the crest slope. In mathematical terms, the angle I can be determined by:
Eq. 2
2
It should be noted that for in the computer program MSEW, the term “hslope” in Eq. 2 is replaced with
the term “h – H” and it will result in a slightly lower value for I.
Using Eq. 2 with hslope = 1.524 m and H= 4.877 m, it is calculated that I = 8.9°.
Figure 3 is now used to solve a modified version of Eq. 1 for the value of Kat, shown in Eq. 3:
θ ′ Eq. 3
/
sin ′ sin ′
sin 1
sin sin
For which:
= 90°, the wall face is vertical.
’t= 28°, the effective internal angle of friction of soil in the retained zone.
I = the equivalent angle of the broken back slope behind the wall crest = 8.9°.
= the interface friction angle between soil in the reinforced and retained soil zones. It is assumed to
be equal to a maximum value of I, but no greater than 0.67. So, = 8.9°.
Thus:
90 28
0.376
/
sin 28 8.9 sin 28 8.9
90 ∙ sin 90 8.9 1
sin 90 8.9 sin 90 8.9
STEP 2 – EVALUATE EXTERNAL STABILITY
There are three parts to the analysis of the wall sections external stability:
Evaluate the vertical pressures at the wall foundation.
Evaluate sliding stability.
Evaluate bearing capacity.
Page 7
Global stability is another aspect of external stability that must be assessed. However, that assessment
will be performed separately.
STEP 2A – EVALUATE THE VERTICAL PRESSURES AT THE WALL FOUNDATION
Figure 4 below shows the wall section from Figure 3 with some modifications to describe the
parameters that must be considered in external stability analyses.
Figure 4. The example wall section with parameters needed for external stability analyses.
The wall section in Figure 4 is very similar to that shown at FHWA Figure 25 at page 93. In the FHWA
Figure 26 the calculation of vertical force V1 is based on the geosynthetic reinforcement length, L.
According to FHWA it is permissible to use the length B instead of L, as will be done for this design
example. The reasons are that the use of B instead of L allows for a more accurate assessment of
bearing pressure and eccentricity, e.
The following summarize the parameters that are needed to evaluate the vertical pressures at the wall
foundation.
H = 4.877 m I = 8.9°
h = 6.310 m Kat = 0.376
h‐H = 1.433 m r = 20.4 kN/m3
L = 4.300 m t = 19.6 kN/m3
B = 4.605 m
The thrust force in the retained soil zone that acts upon the back of the retained zone, FT is calculated
using Eq. 4.
F 0.5 K Eq. 4
Solving for FT:
Page 8
kN
kN
F 0.5 0.376 19.6 6.310 m 146.7
m m
The unit “kN/m” describes a force of 146.7 kN that is applied to a unit length of wall with a length of
1 m.
The wall section in Figure 4 is very similar to that shown at FHWA Figure 25 at page 93. In the FHWA
Figure 26 the calculation of vertical force V1 is based on the geosynthetic reinforcement length, L.
According to FHWA it is permissible to use the length B instead of L, as will be done for this design
example.
The vertical force V1 applied by the reinforced soil zone as a result of its mass is calculated using Eq. 5.
V 0.5 H B Eq. 5
In this calculation, the weight of the modular blocks is assumed to be equal to that of the reinforced soil
zone. Given that the blocks comprise dry‐cast concrete with a unit weight of about 22 kN/m3 and that
the voids inside and between the blocks is filled with coarse open‐graded gravel with a unit weight of
about 15.7 kN/m3, this assumption risks no significant error.
Solving for V1:
kN kN
V 0.5 20.4 4.877 m ∙ 4.605 m 458.2
m m
The vertical force V2 applied by the triangular wedge of soil above the reinforced zone should be
calculated using the length L as well as the unit weight of retained soil since that material or something
comparable is likely to be used in the crest slope.
The vertical force V1 applied by the reinforced soil zone as a result of its mass is calculated using Eq. 6.
V 0.5 h H Eq. 6
Solving for V2:
kN kN
V 0.5 ∙ 19.6 ∙ 4.300 m ∙ 1.433 m 60.39
m m
The eccentricity e caused by the forces calculated above can be determined by summing the moments
about the midpoint of B at the base of the reinforced zone using Eq. 7.
Page 9
h B L Eq. 7
F cos F sin
e 3 2 6
V V F sin
In solving for e the units of the variables are omitted for clarity. However, it can be verify that e is
expressed as a length in units of m.
6.310 4.605 4.300
146.7 cos 8.9 ∙ 146.7 sin 8.9 ∙ 60.39 ∙
e 3 2 6 0.367 m
458.2 60.39 146.7 sin 8.9
At this point it should be checked that e satisfies the wall design requirements shown in Table 1. That
requirement is e ≤ L/6 in soil and L/4 in rock.
Design check:
L 4.300 m
e 0.717 m
6 6
e 0.367 m 0.717 m OK
Next, using Meyerhof’s theory, the equivalent uniform effective vertical stress ’v at the wall base is
calculated using Eq. 8.
V V F sin Eq. 8
σ′
B 2e
Note again that the width of the base includes that of the modular blocks. Thus, the dimension B is used
instead of L.
Solving for v:
kN kN kN
458.2 60.39 146.7 sin 8.9° kN
σ′ m m m 141.3
4.605 m 2 ∙ 0.3867 m m
This vertical stress is applied over the distance B‐2e. The resultant R is calculated using Eq. 9
σ′ Eq. 9
R
B 2e
Solving for R:
kN Eq. 9
141.3 kN
R m 36.88
4.605 m 2 ∙ 0.3867 m m
Page 10
The resultant R is applied at a distance e to the left of the centerline of the reinforced soil zone, as
shown in Figure 4.
STEP 2B – EVALUATE THE RESISTANCE TO BASE SLIDING
For external stability analysis the resistance to base sliding is evaluated at the interface of the reinforced
and foundation soils. Some resistance to sliding at this interface is provided by the passive pressure
developed in front of the wall as a result of wall embedment. For MSE structures the convention is to
conservatively ignore such passive pressure. Accordingly, the FS against base sliding, FSslide is calculated
using Eq. 10.
horizontal resisting forces ∑P Eq. 10
FS 1.5
horizontal driving forces ∑P
The driving forces PD are calculated using Eq. 11.
P F F cos Eq. 11
Again, I is used instead of because of the broken back condition at the crest slope. See FHWA pages 88
through 93 for other geometrical configurations that may affect external stability analyses.
Solving for PD:
kN kN
P 146.7 cos 8.9° 144.9
m m
The resisting forced PR are calculated using Eq. 12.
P V V F sin Eq. 12
In Eq. 12 is equal to tan ’. The value of ’ is the lesser of ’r and ’f. As shown in Figure 1. ’r = 34° and
’f = 30°. Thus, = ’f = 30° = 0.5774.
Solving for PR:
kN kN kN kN
P 458.2 60.39 146.7 sin 8.9 0.5774 312.5
m m m m
Solving for FSslide using Eq. 10:
kN
312.5
FS m 2.16 1.5 OK
kN
144.9
m
Page 11
If FSslide < 1.5 then the length of the geosynthetic reinforcement length would need to be increased.
STEP 2C – EVALUATE BEARING CAPACITY
The FS against bearing capacity failure FSBC is evaluate for general shear conditions by evaluating the
ratio of the ultimate bearing capacity qult and the equivalent uniform vertical stress ’v in Step 2A using
Eq. 8. This ratio is expressed as:
q Eq. 12
FS
σ′
The ultimate bearing capacity is determined using classic soil mechanics methods. For level grade
conditions and an absence of groundwater, the appropriate equation is:
q c 0.5 L γ Eq. 13
Where:
cf = effective cohesive strength of foundation soil = 0 kN/m2.
Nc = bearing capacity factor.
L = geosynthetic reinforcement length = 4.300 m.
f = unit weight of foundation soil = 19.6 kn/m3.
N = bearing capacity factor.
The dimensionless bearing capacity factors can be obtain from many soil mechanics textbooks or at
FHWA page 97. The factors are correlated with ’f. For ’f = 30°:
Nc = 30.14
N = 22.40
Solving for qult:
kN kN
q 0 ∙ 30.14 0.5 ∙ 4.300 m ∙ 19.6 ∙ 22.40 943.9
m m
Solving for FSBC:
kN
943.9
FS m 6.7 2.5
kN
141.3
m
STEP 3 – EVALUATE INTERNAL STABILITY
There are five parts to the analysis of the wall sections internal stability:
Calculate the maximum tensile forces in the geosynthetic reinforcement.
Evaluate the resistance to reinforcement tensile failure.
Evaluate the resistance to reinforcement‐block connection failure.
Evaluate the resistance to reinforcement pullout.
Page 12
STEP 3A – CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM TENSILE FORCES IN THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT
Figure 5 below shows the wall section from Figure 3 with some modifications to describe the
parameters that must be considered in internal stability analyses.
Figure 5. Location of the failure surface for internal stability analyses (some layers of reinforcement
omitted for clarity) for the example wall section.
For walls that are modeled with a vertical face, the location of the maximum tensile forces on layers of
geosynthetic reinforcement corresponds to the line that separates the active earth pressure zone and
the at‐rest earth pressure zone. This is also the plane along which soil would theoretically fail. The
location of this failure plane is modeled at angle above the horizontal plane. The origin of the plane is
modeled as the base at the back of the lowest modular facing block. Consistent with Rankine earth
pressure theory, the angle is calculated using Eq. 14.
′ Eq. 13
45
2
The calculation of the maximum tensile force Tmax in a layer of reinforcement requires solutions to a
series of other calculations.
T σ′ ∙ T Eq. 14
Where:
’Hr = horizontal earth pressure at layers of reinforcement.
TA = tributary area at layers of reinforcement.
The term tributary area TA in Eq. 14 is illustrated in Figure 6. It can be seen in Figure 6 that TA is related
to the vertical spacing of reinforcement layers Sv.
Page 13
Figure 6. A wall section with the vertical spacings and tributary areas labeled at reinforcement layers
(this is not the example wall section).
In Figure 6, the tributary area at reinforcement layer L2 is the distance between the midpoint between
layers L2 and L3 and the midpoint between L2 and L1. Similarly, at layer L3, the tributary area is
measured from the midpoints between L3 and L4 to the midpoints between L2 and L3. The same
procedure is used for layer L4 and L5. However, at the bottom reinforcement layer L1, the tributary area
is measured from the wall base to the midpoint between L1 and L2. Similarly, at the top layer L6, the
tributary area is measured from the midpoint between L6 and L5 to the top of the wall.
As indicated in Eq. 14, the determination of Tmax requires determination of the effective horizontal earth
pressure ’Hr at reinforcement layers.
σ′ K σ′ σ′ σ′ Eq. 15
Where:
Kr = the design coefficient of active earth pressure. For geosynthetic reinforcement Kr = Ka.
’vr = the effective vertical stress due to weight of soil in reinforced zone.
’vs = the equivalent effective vertical stress induced by a crest slope.
’vq = the effective vertical stress due to surcharge loads such as traffic or buildings.
The design coefficient Kr is based on Figure 29 in FHWA. That Figure modifies the value of the coefficient
of active earth pressure Ka calculated using Eq. 16 below if the soil reinforcement comprises steel. For
steel reinforcement Kr is greater than Ka. The amount by which it is greater depends on the type of steel
reinforcement that is used (i.e. steel strips or bar mat). The reason a higher design earth pressure
coefficient is used for steel reinforcement is that at depths less than about 6 m research indicates that
that steel does not strain sufficiently for soil to mobilize the shear strength associated with Ka. Again,
since this design example is based on geosynthetic reinforcement, Kr = Ka as calculated using Eq. 16.
ϕ′ Eq. 16
K Tan 45
2
For the wall section in Figure 7, the effective vertical stress at layers of reinforcement due to a crest
slope is determined by first calculating an equivalent effective vertical stress ’vs.
Page 14
Figure 7. The example wall section with the equivalent vertical effective stress ’vs induced by the crest
slope.
This equivalent effective vertical stress is calculated using Eq. 17.
σ′ 0.5L tan β γ Eq. 17
Solving for vs:
kN kN
σ′ 0.5 ∙ tan 18.4 ∙ 19.6 14.02
m m
To calculate ’vr at reinforcement layers L1 to L12, the depth Z to the bottom and the top of each
tributary area TA at each layer must be determined. These values of Z for the example wall are shown in
Table 3.
Next, the effective vertical stress ’vrz due to the weight of the reinforced fill soil at the top and bottom
of each tributary area is calculated using Eq. 18 and Figure 8.
σ′ Z γ Eq. 18
Page 15
Figure 8. Depth Z at face of wall to Layer L7 to analyze tributary area.
Next, the average of the ’vr at the top and bottom of each tributary area TA is calculated. This average
effective vertical stress is assumed to apply to the layer of reinforcement within each tributary area.
Added to this value is the equivalent vertical effective stress ’vs from Eq. 17 to calculate the effective
horizontal earth pressure ’Hr at each reinforcement layer in accordance with Eq. 15.
Next, the maximum tensile force Tmax at each layer of reinforcement is calculated using Eq. 14.
The value of each of the variables described above is calculated for reinforcement layer L1.
From Eq. 18, at the bottom of TA at L1:
kN kN
σ′ 4.877 m ∙ 20.4 99.48
m m
From Eq. 18, at the top of TA at L1:
kN kN
σ′ 4.470 m ∙ 20.4 91.19
m m
The average the average of the ’vr at the top and bottom of TA at L1:
99.48 kN/m 91.19 kN/m kN
σ′ 95.34
2 m
From Eq. 15 the effective horizontal stress ’Hr at L1:
kN kN kN
σ′ 0.376 95.34 14.02 41.12
m m m
The tributary area at L1 is 4.877 m ‐ 4.470 m = 0.407 m. Therefore, the maximum tensile force Tmax in at
L1 is:
Page 16
kN kN
T 41.12 ∙ 0.407 m 16.7
m m
The above values for ’Hr and Tmax as well as the normal stress N are shown in Table 1 for layer L1 and
each of the other layers as well.
Table 3. Parameters used to calculate Tmax at reinforcement layers L1 through L12.
Layer Height Z at Layer Z at Bottom Z at Top Hr at N Tmax
No. (m) (m) of TA of TA Layer (kN/m) (kN/m)
(m) (m) (kN/m2)
1 0.203 4.673 4.877 4.470 41.12 95.34 16.7
2 0.610 4.267 4.470 4.064 38.00 87.05 15.4
3 1.016 3.861 4.064 3.657 34.88 78.76 14.1
4 1.422 3.454 3.657 3.251 31.77 70.47 12.9
5 1.829 3.048 3.251 2.845 28.65 62.18 11.6
6 2.235 2.641 2.845 2.438 25.53 53.89 10.3
7 2.641 2.235 2.438 2.032 22.42 45.60 9.1
8 3.048 1.829 2.032 1.626 19.30 37.31 7.84
9 3.454 1.422 1.626 1.219 16.18 29.02 6.58
10 3.861 1.016 1.219 0.813 13.06 20.73 5.31
11 4.267 0.610 0.813 0.406 9.95 12.44 4.04
12 4.673 0.203 0.406 0.000 6.83 4.15 2.78
STEP 3B – EVALUATE RESISTANCE TO REINFORCEMENT TENSILE FAILURE
The values of Tmax in Table 3 can now be used to evaluate the tensile requirements for the geosynthetic
reinforcement. For the purposes of this design example TenCate Mirafi geogrid style 3XT will be
considered. This material’s relevant design properties are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Design properties of Mirafi 3XT.
Geosynthetic TULT MARV RFID RFD RFC Tal
Mirafi 3XT 51.09 kN/m 1.15 1.1 1.45 27.85 kN/m
C i 0.8
0.8
28.4°
As shown in Table 1, the FS against geosynthetic reinforcement tensile failure should be at least 1.5.
Thus, the FST against reinforcement tensile failure is:
T Eq. 19
FS
T
Thus, FST at reinforcement L1 is:
kN
27.85
FS m 1.67 1.5 OK
kN
16.7
m
Page 17
Given that the maximum value of Tmax is greatest at reinforcement L1, the value of FST will be the lowest
for this layer.
STEP 3C – EVALUATE RESISTANCE TO REINFORCEMENT‐BLOCK CONNECTION FAILURE
The values of Tmax in Table 3 is also be used to evaluate the reinforcement‐modular block connection
strength requirements. For the purposes of this design example the modular block Anchor Diamond Pro
will be used. The connection strength TC of Mirafi 3XT with this facing unit are described by a bilinear
envelope.
For a range of normal loading N between 0 kN/m and 16 kN/m:
kN kN
T 19.88 N tan 9° 23.64
m m
For a range of normal loading N between 16 kN/m and 44 kN/m:
kN kN
T 21.56 N tan 5° 25.39
m m
The FSc against reinforcement‐modular block connection is:
T Eq. 20
FS
T
At reinforcement layer L1
kN kN kN
T 21.56 95.34 tan 5° 29.90 25.39
m m m
The factor of safety against connection failure FSc at layer L1 is:
25.4 kN m
FS 1.52 1.5 OK
16.7 kN m
The FSc for each layer is shown in Table 5.
Page 18
Table 5. FSc at reinforcement layers L1 through L12.
Layer Height Z at Layer N Tmax Tc FSc
No. (m) (m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)
1 0.203 4.673 95.34 16.7 25.4 1.52
2 0.610 4.267 87.05 15.4 25.4 1.64
3 1.016 3.861 78.76 14.1 25.4 1.79
4 1.422 3.454 70.47 12.9 25.4 1.97
5 1.829 3.048 62.18 11.6 25.4 2.18
6 2.235 2.641 53.89 10.3 25.4 2.45
7 2.641 2.235 45.60 9.11 25.4 2.79
8 3.048 1.829 37.31 7.84 24.8 3.17
9 3.454 1.422 29.02 6.58 24.1 3.66
10 3.861 1.016 20.73 5.31 23.4 4.40
11 4.267 0.610 12.44 4.04 21.8 5.41
12 4.673 0.203 4.15 2.78 20.5 7.40
STEP 3D – EVALUATE RESISTANCE TO REINFORCEMENT PULLOUT
The values of Tmax in Table 3 is also be used to evaluate the reinforcement pullout requirements. A
geosynthetic’s resistance to pullout Pr is defined as:
P F ∗ ∙ α ∙ σ ∙ L ∙ C Eq. 21
Where:
F* = the pullout resistance factor.
= the scale correction factor to account for potential nonlinear stress reduction over the length of
reinforcement embedded in soil during the pullout test. For a detailed discussed of see FHWA
(2009).
’v = the effective vertical stress at the soil‐reinforcement interface.
Le = the length of reinforcement embedded in the resisting zone behind the critical failure surface.
C = the number of surfaces on which pullout resistance is mobilized (i.e. 2 for geosynthetics).
Many manufacturers of geosynthetic reinforcement have characterized soil‐geosynthetic interaction in
terms of a coefficient of interaction (Ci) based on pullout tests with Ci defined as:
tan δ Eq. 22
C
tan
Where:
= the effective internal angle of friction.
= the effective soil‐geosynthetic interface friction angle.
The values of F* and Ci are related by:
F ∗ C tan ′ Eq. 23
Page 19
For Mirafi 3XT geogrid in gravel soil Ci = 0.90. Therefore,
F ∗ 0.90 tan 34° 0.61 Eq. 24
The value of for Mirafi 3XT can be conservatively assumed to be 0.8, and as previously mentioned, C=2
for geosynthetics. Thus, the last parameter that must be defined is ’v. The calculation of the effective
vertical stress due to soil in the reinforced soil zone is straightforward. However, the value of the vertical
effective stress due to soil in the crest slope is a little more complicated. To help describe, consider
Figure 9.
Figure 9. The example wall section with the equivalent vertical effective stress ’vs induced by the crest
slope for an evaluation of reinforcement pullout.
Figure 8 illustrate the parameter that need to be assessed to determine the vertical effective stress due
to the crest slope ’vs. Note that the length of the reinforcement that provides anchorage in the at‐rest
earth pressure zone is designated as Le. To calculate ’vs at L7, the portion of the crest slope with height
Zs7 must be determined. This height Zs7 is located a distance of 0.5Le7 behind the theoretical failure
plane. The relevant equations are:
H Eq. 25
L L
tan ψ
Z L 0.5 L tan β Eq. 26
σ′ Z γ Z γ Eq. 27
The relevant parameters for the calculation of ’vs at L7are:
= 18.4°
He7 = 2.642 m
= 62° (see Eq. 13)
L = 4.300 m
Page 20
ZL7 = 2.235 m
t = 19.6 kN/m3
t = 20.4 kN/m3
To calculate ’vs at L7:
2.641 m
L 4.300 m 2.900 m
tan 62°
Z 4.300 m 0.5 ∙ 2.900 m tan 18.4 0.948 m
kN kN kN Eq. 27
σ′ 0.948 m ∙ 19.6 2.235 m ∙ 20.4 64.17
m m m
Now, Eq. 21 is used to calculate the resistance to pullout Pr7 at L7. The relevant parameters are:
F* = 0.61
= 0.8
vL7 = 64.17 kN/m2
Le7 = 2.900 m
C = 2
To calculate Pr7 at L7:
kN kN
P 0.61 ∙ 0.8 ∙ 64.17 ∙ 2.900 m ∙ 2 181.6
m m
From Table 7, Tmax at L7 is 9.11 kN/m. To calculate the factor of safety against pullout failure FSpo:
P Eq. 28
FS
T
Solving for L7:
181.6 kN m Eq. 28
FS 19.9 1.5 OK
9.11 kN m
The FSpo for each layer is shown in Table 6.
Page 21
Table 6. FSpo at reinforcement layers L1 through L12.
Layer Height Tmax Le Zs vL Pr FSpo
No. (m) (kN/m) (m) (m) (kN/m2) (kN/m)
1 0.203 448.9 4.19 0.733 109.7 505.0 30.2
2 0.610 396.3 3.97 0.769 102.1 445.8 28.9
3 1.016 346.9 3.76 0.805 94.5 390.3 27.5
4 1.422 300.7 3.54 0.841 87.0 338.3 26.2
5 1.829 257.8 3.32 0.877 79.4 290.0 24.9
6 2.235 218.0 3.11 0.913 71.8 245.2 23.6
7 2.641 181.4 2.89 0.949 64.2 204.1 22.4
8 3.048 148.0 2.67 0.985 56.6 166.5 21.2
9 3.454 117.9 2.46 1.021 49.0 132.6 20.2
10 3.861 90.9 2.24 1.057 41.4 102.2 19.3
11 4.267 67.1 2.03 1.093 33.9 75.5 18.7
12 4.673 46.5 1.81 1.129 26.3 52.3 18.9
It can be seen that FSpo decrease with the height of a reinforcement layer above the wall base. This
occurs as a result of the decrease in effective vertical stress on the layer.
Page 22