Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Practical analysis and design methods of mechanically-stabilized

earth walls—II. Design comparisons and impact of LRFD method
*
Yohchia Chen
Civil Engineering Program, Penn State at Harrisburg, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057-4898, USA

Received 1 December 1997; received in revised form 22 February 1999; accepted 22 February 1999

Abstract

A number of realistic mechanically-stabilized earth (MSE) wall systems are investigated using the general analysis/design pro-
cedure described in the companion paper (Part I). Comparisons among the various design methods are made. Impact of the new
Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method on MSE wall design is discussed. To ease the comparisons among the various
design approaches, a unified notation is used to express all design parameters.  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: MSE wall; Design; LRFD; Limit states; Checks; Results/values; Comparison; Discussion; Effect/impact

1. Introduction
1.1. Problem description
A general mechanically-stabilized earth (MSE) wall
system shown in Fig. 1 was considered. The foundation
soil consists predominantly of sand to a depth of 10 m
( ⫽ Hs) under the wall base. Bedrock underlies the sand
layer. After correcting for depth, the average number of
blows per 25.4 mm penetration depth from a Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) for the soil is 20. Based on the
SPT data, the following representative angles of internal
friction were used: 33° for the reinforced soil (␾r), 35°
for the random backfill (␾b), and 38° for the soil beneath
the footing (␾f). The mass densities corresponding to the
above-mentioned soil materials are 1920, 2100, and
2100 kg/m3.
The seasonal high groundwater table has been ident-
ified at a depth of 3 m ( ⫽ zw) below the bottom of the
MSE wall. The soil cover in the front of the MSE wall
(Df, Fig. 1) is 1 m. The footing and wall are constructed
of precast concrete with the mass density of 2400 kg/m3
and uniaxial compressive strength (fc⬘) of 28 MPa. A
representative wall height of 6 m ( ⫽ H, Fig. 1) was
considered. Steel bars with yielding stress (fy) of 420
MPa were used to reinforce the concrete wall and foot-
ing. Inextensible steel strips with typical dimensions of
50 mm wide by 4 mm thick, yielding stress (Fy) of 455
MPa and minimum tensile strength (Fu) of 560 MPa,
were used to reinforce the soil mass behind the wall.
These soil reinforcements are galvanized, and are spaced
vertically at 750 mm center-to-center ( ⫽ S, Fig. 1). The
MSE wall system is located in a seismic zone with the
acceleration coefficient (A) of 0.18 which would cover
the entire eastern United States. The design life is 100
years.
1.2. Design examples
The following three possible backfill surface con-
ditions were considered: broken condition (BC) with
i ⫽ 26°, a ⫽ 2 m and b ⫽ 4 m (Fig. 1), sloping condition
(SC) with i ⫽ 26° and 2 horizontals-to-1 vertical con-
tinuous slope, and horizontal condition (HC) with i ⫽
0°. For each backfill surface condition, the three design
methods described in the companion paper (Part I),
namely Allowable Stress Design (ASD), Load Factor
Design (LFD) and Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD), were used to design the wall systems.
2. Results and discussions

* Tel.: ⫹ 1-717-948-6146; fax: ⫹ 1-717-948-6401; e-mail: A computer program based on the general
yxc2@psu.edu analysis/design procedure described in Part I of the paper

0141-0296/00/$ - see front matter  2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 2 - X
810 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Fig. 1. General MSE wall system.

Table 1
Unfactored vertical loads and moments (V, Mv) at the toea of the reinforced soil mass (ASD and LFD methods)

Load type V (kN/m) Moment arm from the toe (m) Moment about the toe, Mv (kN-m/m)

BC SC HC BC SC HC BC SC HCb

DC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

DW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EV1 712.0 745.9 599.0 3.15 3.30 2.65 2242.7 2461.4 1587.2
EV2 82.4 82.4 0.0 2.67 2.67 2.67 219.7 219.7 0.0
EV3 94.8 101.7 0.0 5.15 5.30 4.65 488.0 567.8 0.0
EHv 30.4 112.6 0.0 6.30 6.60 5.30 191.6 743.1 0.0
LSv 4.6 16.9 0.0 6.30 6.60 5.30 28.7 111.5 0.0
LL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 924.1 1064.9 599.0 3170.8/4103.5/1587.2

a
Point A of Fig. 1.
b
Backfill surface: BC ⫽ broken condition, SC ⫽ sloping condition, HC ⫽ horizontal condition. DC ⫽ dead load due to structural components;
DW ⫽ dead load due to wearing surfaces and utilities; EV1–EV3 ⫽ vertical earth pressures (Fig. 1); EHv ⫽ vertical earth pressure; LSv ⫽ vertical
live-load surcharge; LL ⫽ vehicular live load.

was developed to carry out all detailed calculations. All
computed values are for 1 m of the wall length. The
obtained results are presented and discussed, as follows.
For exemplication, sample calculations are shown at the
end of this section “Results and Discussions”.
2.1. General results
The inclination angles of lateral earth pressures (I) are:
9.5° (BC), 26.6° (SC), and 0° (HC). The required lengths
for the soil reinforcements (L) for both the ASD and
 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 811

Table 2
Unfactored horizontal loads and moments (Hunfac, Mh) at the toe of the reinforced soil mass (ASD and LFD methods)

Load type Hunfac (kN/m) Moment arm from the toe (m) Moment about the toe, Mh (kN-m/m)

BC SC HC BC SC HC BC SC HC

EHh 182.4 225.2 100.5 2.67 2.67 2.00 486.5 600.5 201.0
LSh 27.4 33.8 20.1 4.00 4.00 3.00 109.5 135.1 60.3
BR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EQLL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EQDC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EQDW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EQIR 91.9 91.9 51.7 4.00 4.00 3.00 367.4 367.4 155.0
EQAE 41.3 41.3 23.3 4.80 4.80 3.60 198.4 198.4 83.7
Total 343.0 392.2 195.5 1161.8 1301.5 500.0

EHh ⫽ horizontal earth pressure; LSh ⫽ horizontal live-load surcharge; BR ⫽ vehicular braking force; WS ⫽ wind on structure; WL ⫽ wind on
live load; EQLL, EQDC, EQDW ⫽ earthquake-induced load due to LL, DC and DW, respectively; EQIR ⫽ earthquake-induced inertial force; EQAE
⫽ earthquake-induced dynamic horizontal thrust.

Table 3
Unfactored vertical loads and moments (V, Mv) at the toe of the reinforced soil mass (LRFD method)

Load type V (kN/m) Moment arm from the toe (m) Moment about the toe Mv (kN-m/m)

BC SC HC BC SC HC BC SC HC

DC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

DW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EV1 565.1 519.9 474.6 2.50 2.30 2.10 1412.6 1195.7 996.8
EV2 82.4 82.4 0.0 – 2.67 – 219.7 219.7 0.0
EV3 41.2 24.7 0.0 4.50 4.30 4.10 185.4 106.3 0.0
EHv 30.4 112.6 0.0 5.00 4.60 4.20 152.0 517.9 0.0
LSv 4.8 17.7 0.0 5.00 4.60 4.20 23.9 81.6 0.0
LL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 723.9 757.3 474.6 1993.8 2121.2 996.8

EV1, EV2, EV3 ⫽ EV loads for Zones 1, 2 and 3 (Fig. 1), respectively.

Table 4
Unfactored horizontal loads and moments (Hunfac, Mh) at the toe of the reinforced soil mass (LRFD method)

Load type Hunfac (kN/m) Moment arm from the toe (m) Moment about the toe Mh (kN-m/m)

BC SC HC BC SC HC BC SC HC

EHh 182.4 225.2 100.5 2.67 2.67 2.00 486.5 600.5 201.0
LSh 28.7 35.5 24.5 4.00 4.00 3.00 114.9 141.9 73.4
BR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
WL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EQLL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EQDC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EQDW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
EQIR 91.9 91.9 51.7 4.00 4.00 3.00 367.4 367.4 155.0
EQAE 34.4 34.4 19.4 4.80 4.80 3.60 165.3 165.3 69.8
Total 337.5 387.0 196.0 1134.2 1275.1 499.1
812 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 5
Summary of overturning check for the reinforced soil mass (ASD and LFD methods)

Backfill V (kN/m) Mv (kN-m/m) Mh (m) x0(m) e e ⬍ B/6?* FSover FSover > 2.0?
surface (kN-m/m)

Broken 924.1 3170.8 1161.8 2.174 0.98 Yes 2.73 Yes

Sloping 1064.9 4103.5 1301.5 2.631 0.67 Yes 3.15 Yes
Horizontal 599.0 1587.2 500.0 1.815 0.83 Yes 3.17 Yes

*
B ⫽ 6.3 m, 6.6 m, and 5.3 m for broken, sloping and horizontal backfill surface cases, respectively. B ⫽ width of reinforcement soil mass; V ⫽
total service vertical load; Mv ⫽ moment due to service vertical loads; Mh ⫽ moment due to service horizontal loads; x0 ⫽ location of V from A
(Fig. 1); e ⫽ eccentricity of V from the center of dimension B; FSover ⫽ factor of safety against overturning.

Table 8
Table 6 Summary of overturning check for the reinforced soil mass (horizontal
Summary of overturning check for the reinforced soil mass (broken backfill surface) (LRFD method)
backfill surface) (LRFD method)
Limit state Vu Muv Muh x0 (m) e e⬍
Limit state Vu Muv Muh (m) x0 (m) e e⬍ (kN-m) (kN- (kN- B/4?*
(kN/m) (kN- B/4?* m/m) m/m)
m/m)
Strength I
Strength I maximum 640.8 1345.6 429.8 1.429 0.671 Yes
maximum 975.3 2682.0 930.8 1.796 0.705 Yes minimum 474.6 996.8 309.3 1.449 0.652 Yes
minimum 716.0 1954.6 639.0 1.837 0.663 Yes Strength III
Strength III maximum 640.8 1345.6 301.5 1.630 0.471 Yes
maximum 975.3 2682.1 729.8 2.002 0.498 Yes minimum 474.6 996.8 180.9 1.719 0.381 Yes
minimum 716.0 1954.6 437.9 2.118 0.382 Yes Strength V
Strength V maximum 640.8 1345.6 400.5 1.475 0.625 Yes
maximum 975.3 2682.1 885.0 1.843 0.657 Yes minimum 474.6 996.8 279.9 1.510 0.590 Yes
minimum 716.0 1954.6 593.0 1.902 0.598 Yes Extreme
Extreme Event I
Event I maximum 640.8 1345.6 562.9 1.222 0.879 Yes
maximum 975.3 2682.1 1320.0 1.397 1.104 Yes minimum 474.6 996.8 442.3 1.168 0.932 Yes
minimum 716.0 1954.6 1028.1 1.294 1.201 Yes
*
B ⫽ 4.2 m.
*
B ⫽ 5 m. Vu ⫽ total factored vertical load; Muv ⫽ moment due to
factored vertical loads; Mh ⫽ moment due to factored horizontal loads;
x0 ⫽ location of Vu from A (Fig. 1); e ⫽ eccentricity of Vu from the Table 9
center of dimension B. Summary of sliding check for the reinforced soil mass (ASD and
LFD methods)

Backfill surface Hunfac (kN/m) Qall* (kN/m) Hunfac ⬍ Qall?

Table 7
Summary of overturning check for the reinforced soil mass (sloping Broken 514.5 517.7 Yes
backfill surface) (LRFD method) Sloping 588.2 596.5 Yes
Horizontal 293.3 335.5 Yes
Limit state Vu Muv Muh x0 (m) e e⬍
(kN/m) (kN- (kN- B/4?* *
FSslid ⫽ 1.5 assumed. Hunfac ⫽ total service horizontal load; Qall ⫽
m/m) m/m) allowable sliding resistance.

Strength I
maximum 1015.3 2831.2 1149.0 1.657 0.643 Yes LFD methods are: 6.3 m (BC), 6.6 m (SC) and 5.3 m
minimum 728.3 1987.9 788.7 1.646 0.654 Yes (HC), all governed by the sliding criterion [Eq. (19b),
Strength III Part I]. The respective L values for the LRFD method
maximum 1015.3 2831.2 900.8 1.901 0.399 Yes are 5 m, 4.6 m and 4.2 m, in which the first two L values
minimum 728.3 1987.9 540.5 1.987 0.313 Yes
Strength V are controlled by the overturning rule [Eq. (17a), Part I]
maximum 1015.3 2831.2 1092.3 1.713 0.587 Yes with Extreme Event I limit state and the minimum load
minimum 728.3 1987.9 732.0 1.724 0.576 Yes factors for permanent loads (␥p) and the third L value is
Extreme governed by the minimum practical criterion—L ⫽ 0.7
Event I H. The savings of soil reinforcements resulting from the
maximum 1015.3 2831.2 1504.5 1.307 0.993 Yes
minimum 728.3 1987.9 1144.2 1.158 1.142 Yes LRFD method are: 20.6% (BC), 15.2% (SC), and 20.7%
(HC). It is also interesting to note from the results that
*
B ⫽ 4.6 m. in the ASD and LFD methods SC requires slightly
 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 813

Table 10 Table 12
Summary of sliding check for the reinforced soil mass (broken backfill Summary of sliding check for the reinforced soil mass (horizontal
surface) (LRFD method) backfill surface) (LRFD method)

Limit state Vu QJ Qr Hu Hu ⬍ Qr? Limit state Vu QJ Qr Hu Hu ⬍ Qr?

(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)

Strength I Strength I
maximum 975.3 546.3 491.7 324.0 Yes maximum 640.8 358.9 323.0 193.5 Yes
minimum 716.0 401.1 361.0 214.5 Yes minimum 474.6 265.9 239.3 133.2 Yes
Strength III Strength III
maximum 975.3 546.3 491.7 273.7 Yes maximum 640.8 358.9 323.0 150.7 Yes
minimum 716.0 401.1 361.0 164.2 Yes minimum 474.6 265.9 239.3 90.4 Yes
Strength V Strength V
maximum 975.3 546.3 491.7 312.5 Yes maximum 640.8 358.9 323.0 183.7 Yes
minimum 716.0 401.1 361.0 203.0 Yes minimum 474.6 265.9 239.3 123.4 Yes
Extreme Extreme
Event I Event I
maximum 975.3 546.3 491.7 414.3 Yes maximum 640.8 358.9 323.0 234.0 Yes
minimum 716.0 401.1 361.0 304.9 Yes minimum 474.6 265.9 239.3 173.7 Yes

QJ ⫽ nominal sliding resistance; Qr ⫽ design sliding strength; Hu ⫽

total factored horizontal load.

Table 11 Table 13
Summary of sliding check for the reinforced soil mass (sloping backfill Summary of bearing check for the reinforced soil mass (ASD and
surface) (LRFD method) LFD methods)

Limit state Vu QJ Qr Hu Hu ⬍ Qr? Backfill q (MPa) qult (MPa) qall* (MPa) q ⬍ qall?
(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) surface

Strength I Broken 0.213 1.283 0.428 Yes

maximum 1015.3 568.7 511.9 399.9 Yes Sloping 0.203 1.405 0.468 Yes
minimum 728.3 408.0 367.2 264.7 Yes Horizontal 0.167 1.233 0.411 Yes
Strength III
maximum 1015.3 568.7 511.9 337.8 Yes
*
FSbrg ⫽ 3.0 assumed. q ⫽ average/uniform pressure due to service
minimum 728.3 408.0 367.2 202.7 Yes loads; qult ⫽ ultimate bearing pressure; qall ⫽ allowable bearing press-
Strength V ure.
maximum 1015.3 568.7 511.9 385.7 Yes
minimum 728.3 408.0 367.2 250.6 Yes
Extreme
Event I Table 14
maximum 1015.3 568.7 511.9 481.8 Yes Summary of bearing check for the reinforced soil mass (broken backfill
minimum 728.3 408.0 367.2 346.7 Yes surface) (LRFD method)

Limit state e (m) B⬘ ⫽ B qult qr q (MPa) q ⬍ qr?

⫺ 2e (MPa) (MPa)
higher (4.8%) L value than BC, while in the LRFD (m)
method BC requires slightly higher (8.7%) L value.
The active earth pressure coefficients (ka) are: 0.281 Strength I
(BC), 0.382 (SC), and 0.271 (HC), typically. The heights maximum 0.705 3.591 1.600 0.720 0.272 Yes
minimum 0.663 3.675 1.629 0.733 0.195 Yes
from the bottom of wall to the top of lateral earth press- Strength III
ure diagram (h) are: 8 m (BC), 8 m (SC), and 6 m (HC), maximum 0.498 4.003 1.742 0.784 0.244 Yes
as computed by Eq. (7) in Part I. These lead to the corre- minimum 0.382 4.237 1.822 0.820 0.169 Yes
sponding earth pressure forces (EH) of 185.0 kN/m, Strength V
251.8 kN/m and 100.5 kN/m [Eq. (8), Part I]. The equiv- maximum 0.657 3.685 1.633 0.735 0.265 Yes
minimum 0.598 3.803 1.673 0.753 0.188 Yes
alent soil height to the design vehicular loading (heq) is Extreme
typically 600 mm for the ASD and LFD methods regard- Event I
less of wall height [1], which gives the live-load sur- maximum 1.104 2.793 1.327 0.597 0.349 Yes
charge loads (LS) of 27.7 kN/m (BC), 37.8 kN/m (SC) minimum 1.206 2.588 1.256 0.565 0.277 Yes
and 20.1 kN/m (HC) [Eq. (10), Part I]. For the LRFD
Note: B ⫽ 5 m. B⬘ ⫽ effective width of reinforced soil mass; qr ⫽
method, heq values are 630 mm (BC and SC) and 730 design bearing strength.
mm (HC), which result in higher LS values of 29.1 kN/m
814 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 15 for the BC (5.1% higher), 39.7 kN/m for the SC (5.6%
Summary of bearing check for the reinforced soil mass (sloping back- higher), and 24.5 kN/m for the HC (21.9% higher). The
fill surface) (LRFD method)
maximum wall acceleration coefficient (Am) is typically
Limit state e (m) B⬘ ⫽ B qult qr q (MPa) q ⬍ qr? 0.2286 [Eq. (11), Part I].
⫺ 2e (MPa) (MPa)
(m) 2.2. Unfactored forces and moments for the reinforced
Strength I
mass
maximum 0.643 3.314 0.899 0.405 0.306 Yes
minimum 0.654 3.293 0.896 0.403 0.221 Yes The unfactored forces and bending moments at the toe
Strength III (A, Fig. 1) of the reinforced soil mass are summarized
maximum 0.399 3.803 0.980 0.441 0.267 Yes in Tables 1 and 2 (ASD and LFD) and Tables 3 and 4
minimum 0.313 3.975 1.009 0.454 0.183 Yes
Strength V (LRFD), which were computed based on Eqs. (5a)–(14)
maximum 0.587 3.425 0.918 0.413 0.296 Yes in Part I. For earthquake force consideration, a typical
minimum 0.576 3.449 0.921 0.415 0.211 Yes response modification factor (an implicit ductility factor)
Extreme of 1.5 was used [1,2].
Event I
maximum 0.993 2.614 0.781 0.352 0.389 No
minimum 1.142 2.317 0.734 0.330 0.314 Yes 2.3. Overturning, sliding and bearing checks

Note: B ⫽ 4.6 m. Overturning results for the reinforced soil mass are
summarized in Table 5 (ASD and LFD) and Tables 6–
8 (LRFD), as obtained from Eqs. (15)–(18b) in Part I.
Table 16 In the ASD and LFD methods, it appears that the eccen-
Summary of bearing check for the reinforced soil mass (horizontal tricity criterion [Eq. (18b), Part I], rather than the
backfill surface) (LRFD method)
moment criterion [Eq. (18a), Part I], always controls the
Limit state e (m) B⬘ ⫽ B qult qr q (MPa) q ⬍ qr? overturning stability, as seen from Table 5. While for
⫺ 2e (MPa) (MPa) the LRFD method, the Extreme Event I limit state with
(m) the minimum ␥p factors represents the most critical over-
turning case (Tables 6–8).
Strength I
maximum 0.671 2.858 1.022 0.460 0.224 Yes
Sliding results for the reinforced soil mass are shown
minimum 0.652 2.897 1.030 0.464 0.164 Yes in Table 9 (ASD and LFD) and Tables 10–12 (LRFD),
Strength III as obtained from Eqs. (19a)–(20b) in Part I. For the ASD
maximum 0.471 3.259 1.108 0.499 0.197 Yes and LFD methods, since the sliding criterion controls the
minimum 0.381 3.438 1.147 0.516 0.138 Yes L value as stated above, the total service horizontal loads
Strength V
maximum 0.625 2.950 1.042 0.469 0.217 Yes
(Hunfac) are quite close to the allowable sliding resist-
minimum 0.590 3.021 1.057 0.476 0.157 Yes ances (Qall), as seen in Table 9. While for the LRFD
Extreme method the total factored horizontal loads (Hu) are less
Event I than the design sliding strengths (Qr) by a margin of at
maximum 0.879 2.443 0.932 0.420 0.262 Yes least 15.5% (BC), 5.6% (SC) and 27.4% (HC), Tables
minimum 0.932 2.336 0.909 0.409 0.203 Yes
10–12.
Note: B ⫽ 4.2 m. Bearing results for the reinforced soil mass are shown
in Table 13 (ASD and LFD) and Tables 14–16 (LRFD),

Table 17
Summary of MSE wall system settlements (⌬v)

Method Backfill B (m) Df/B ␮1 Hs/B ␮2 Ms (MPa) q (MPa) ⌬v (mm)

surface

ASD broken 6.3 0.16 0.9 1.59 0.7 33.5 0.146 17.3
LFD sloping 6.6 0.15 0.9 1.52 0.7 33.5 0.159 19.7
horizontal 5.3 0.19 0.9 1.89 0.8 33.5 0.113 12.9
LRFD broken 5.0 0.20 0.9 2.00 0.85 33.5 0.144 16.4
sloping 4.6 0.22 0.9 2.17 0.9 33.5 0.161 17.9
horizontal 4.2 0.24 0.9 2.38 0.93 33.5 0.113 11.8

Df ⫽ the soil cover depth in the front of the wall ( ⫽ 1 m); Hs ⫽ soil depth below the footing ( ⫽ 10 m); ␮1, ␮2 ⫽ settlement influence factors;
Ms ⫽ soil modulus.
 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 815

Table 18
Summary of Pi, Tstrip and breakage/yielding checks for the soil reinforcements (broken backfill surface) (ASD method)

Layer Shi (mm) Nstrip (per m) z (mm) k Load group Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) ␴t (MPa) ␴t ⬍ ␴all?

1 500 2.00 375 0.389 I,III,IV,VI 13.03 6.51 92.7 Yes

II,V 13.09 6.55 93.1 Yes
VII 16.71 8.36 118.9 Yes
2 500 2.00 1125 0.370 I,III,IV,VI 15.94 7.97 113.4 Yes
II,V 16.07 8.04 114.4 Yes
VII 19.69 9.85 140.1 Yes
3 500 2.00 1875 0.350 I,III,IV,VI 18.47 9.23 131.4 Yes
II,V 18.67 9.34 132.9 Yes
VII 22.29 11.15 158.6 Yes
4 500 2.00 2625 0.331 I,III,IV,VI 20.53 10.27 146.1 Yes
II,V 20.82 10.41 148.1 Yes
VII 24.44 12.22 173.9 Yes
5 500 2.00 3375 0.312 I,III,V,VI 22.11 11.06 157.4 Yes
II,V 22.48 11.24 160.0 Yes
VII 26.10 13.05 185.7 Yes
6 500 2.00 4125 0.292 I,III,IV,VI 24.67 12.34 175.6 Yes
II,V 23.94 11.97 170.4 Yes
VII 27.56 13.78 196.1 Yes
7 500 2.00 4875 0.273 I,III,IV,VI 27.11 13.56 192.9 Yes
II,V 26.21 13.10 186.5 Yes
VII 29.83 14.91 212.2 Yes
8 500 2.00 5625 0.271 I,III,IV,VI 31.35 15.67 223.1 Yes
II,V 30.17 15.08 214.6 Yes
VII 33.79 16.89 240.4 Yes

Shi ⫽ horizontal spacing of soil reinforcements at Layer i; Nstrip ⫽ number of strips per 1 m length of wall; z ⫽ vertical location of soil reinforcement
from the top of wall; k ⫽ active earth pressure coefficient; Pi ⫽ factored force at the level of soil reinforcement; Tstrip ⫽ tension force of metal
strip; ␴t ⫽ actual tensile stress; ␴all ⫽ allowable tensile stress.

Table 19
Summary of Pi, Tstrip and breakage/yielding checks for the soil reinforcements (sloping backfill surface) (ASD method)

Layer Shi (mm) Nstrip per m) z (mm) k Load group Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) ␴t (MPa) ␴t ⬍ ␴all?

1 500 2.86 375 0.389 I,III,IV,VI 14.27 7.14 101.5 Yes

II,V 13.97 6.98 99.4 Yes
VII 17.59 8.79 125.1 Yes
2 500 2.86 1125 0.370 I,III,IV,VI 17.63 8.81 125.4 Yes
II,V 17.34 8.67 123.4 Yes
VII 20.96 10.48 149.1 Yes
3 500 2.86 1875 0.350 I,III,IV,VI 20.62 10.31 146.7 Yes
II,V 20.37 10.18 144.9 Yes
VII 23.99 11.99 170.7 Yes
4 500 2.86 2625 0.331 I,III,IV,VI 23.14 11.57 164.7 Yes
II,V 22.96 11.48 163.4 Yes
VII 26.58 13.29 189.1 Yes
5 500 2.86 3375 0.312 I,III,V,VI 25.18 12.59 179.1 Yes
II,V 25.06 12.53 178.3 Yes
VII 28.68 14.34 204.1 Yes
6 500 2.86 4125 0.292 I,III,IV,VI 26.70 13.35 190.0 Yes
II,V 26.67 13.33 189.7 Yes
VII 30.29 15.14 215.5 Yes
7 500 2.86 4875 0.273 I,III,IV,VI 27.71 13.86 197.2 Yes
II,V 27.76 13.88 197.5 Yes
VII 31.38 15.69 223.3 Yes
8 500 2.86 5625 0.271 I,III,IV,VI 31.88 15.94 226.8 Yes
II,V 30.71 15.36 218.5 Yes
VII 34.33 17.17 244.3 Yes
816 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 20
Summary of Pi, Tstrip and breakage/yielding checks for the soil reinforcements (horizontal backfill surface) (ASD method)

Layer Shi (mm) Nstrip per m) z (mm) k Load group Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) ␴t (MPa) ␴t ⬍ ␴all?

1 675 1.48 375 0.417 I–VI 2.21 1.49 21.2 Yes

VII 5.11 3.45 49.1 Yes
2 675 1.48 1125 0.397 I–VI 6.31 4.26 60.6 Yes
VII 9.22 6.22 88.6 Yes
3 675 1.48 1875 0.378 I–VI 10.01 6.76 96.1 Yes
VII 12.91 8.72 124.1 Yes
4 675 1.48 2625 0.358 I–VI 13.29 8.97 127.7 Yes
VII 16.19 10.93 155.6 Yes
5 675 1.48 3375 0.339 I–VI 16.16 10.91 155.2 Yes
VII 19.07 12.87 183.2 Yes
6 675 1.48 4125 0.320 I–VI 18.62 12.57 178.9 Yes
VII 21.53 14.53 206.8 Yes
7 675 1.48 4875 0.300 I–VI 20.67 13.95 198.5 Yes
VII 23.58 15.91 226.5 Yes
8 675 1.48 5625 0.281 I–VI 22.31 15.06 214.3 Yes
VII 25.21 17.02 242.2 Yes

as obtained from Eqs. (21)–(30) in Part I. The bearing
capacity factors are: Nq ⫽ 33.3, Nc ⫽ 46.1, and N␥ ⫽
48.0, typically. Table 13 indicates that high percentage
(66.7%) of bearing capacity would still remain available
if either the ASD method or the LFD method is used.
This overestimation of bearing capacity from the current
design methods (ASD or LFD) is especially evident
when the backfill surface is sloped. The minimum per-
centages of remaining bearing capacity for the LRFD
method are: 71.1% (BC), ⫺ 9.5% (SC) (“–” meaning
lack of capacity), and 60.3% (HC) (Tables 14–16). It
appears, when the backfill surface is sloped (i.e., SC
case), that the bearing capacity estimated by the LRFD
method, correponding to Extreme Event I Limit State
(i.e., the one with earthquake forces involved), would be
unsafely low. This phenomenon is certainly undesirable,
and requires further investigation and correction. The
conservatism of available bearing capacity derived from
the LRFD method for the BC and HC cases is also noted.
2.4. Settlement of MSE wall system, ⌬v
methods give approximately the same ⌬v value (Table
17).
2.5. Shi, Pis and Hm values
The required horizontal spacings for the soil reinforce-
ments (Shi) for both the ASD and LFD methods are vir-
tually the same, namely 500 mm for BC and SC and
675–700 mm for HC, while for the LRFD method they
are 725 mm (BC), 650 mm (SC) and 1100 mm (HC),
as governed by the breakage/yielding criterion of soil
reinforcements [Eq. (38), Part I]. The larger Shi values
from the LRFD method result in significant cost savings
for soil reinforcements as: 31% (BC), 23% (SC), and
54.5% (HC).
For each design method, the computed internal inertia
forces (Pis) are 43.4 kN/m (BC and SC) and 34.9 kN/m
(HC), and the incremental dynamic inertia forces at a
level of soil reinforcement (Hm) are 5.431 kN/m (BC
and SC) and 4.360 kN/m (HC) [Eqs. (32a) and (32b),
Part I].

Table 17 summarizes the ⌬v values estimated by Eq.
(31) in Part I, in which the typical soil modulus (Ms) of
33.5 MPa was used. Furthermore, the length-to-width
ratio for the reinforced soil mass was assumed to be
greater than 10 (typically true). At such high
length/width ratio, the settlement influence factor (␮1) is
found to be insensitive to soil cover-to-mass width ratio
(Df/B). ␮1 remains at approximately 0.9, as also sug-
gested by the others [3,4] Compared to the ASD and
LFD methods, the LRFD method requires narrower
reinforced soil mass (i.e., smaller B value) and thus leads
to larger soil depth-to-mass width ratio (Hs/B) and larger
␮2 influence factor [3,4]. As a result, all three design
2.6. Pi and Tstrip values
The factored forces at the levels of soil reinforcements
(Pi) [Eq. (33), Part I] and the tension forces of soil
reinforcements (Tstrip) [Eq. (35a), Part I] are shown in
Tables 18–20 (ASD), Tables 21–23 (LFD) and Tables
24–26 (LRFD), in which the vertical spacing of soil
reinforcements (S) was kept at 750 mm for all cases
studied for comparison purposes. As seen from these
tables, Pi and TStrip values are primarily affected by the
lateral earth pressure coefficient (k) which varies from
0.389 (Layer 1, Fig. 1) to 0.271 (Layer 8, Fig. 1) for
BC and SC or from 0.417 to 0.281 for HC, independent
 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 817

Table 21
Summary of Pi, Tstrip and breakage/yielding checks for the soil reinforcements (broken backfill surface) (LFD method)

Layer Shi (mm) Nstrip (per m) z (mm) k Load group Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) ␴t (MPa) ␴t ⬍ ␴all?

1 500 2.11 375 0.389 I 16.92 8.46 120.4 Yes

II 17.02 8.51 121.1 Yes
III,IV 16.94 8.47 120.5 Yes
V 16.37 8.18 116.5 Yes
VI 16.29 8.14 115.9 Yes
VII 20.64 10.32 146.9 Yes
2 500 2.11 1125 0.370 I 20.66 10.33 147.0 Yes
II 20.87 10.43 148.5 Yes
III,IV 20.70 10.35 147.3 Yes
V 20.06 10.03 142.8 Yes
VI 19.91 9.95 141.6 Yes
VII 24.49 12.24 174.2 Yes
3 500 2.11 1875 0.350 I 23.85 11.93 169.7 Yes
II 24.19 12.09 172.1 Yes
III,IV 23.93 11.96 170.3 Yes
V 23.26 11.63 165.5 Yes
VI 23.01 11.50 163.7 Yes
VII 27.81 13.90 197.9 Yes
4 500 2.11 2625 0.331 I 26.42 13.21 188.0 Yes
II 26.88 13.44 191.3 Yes
III,IV 26.52 13.26 188.7 Yes
V 25.85 12.92 183.9 Yes
VI 25.50 12.75 181.5 Yes
VII 30.50 15.25 217.0 Yes
5 500 2.11 3375 0.312 I 29.49 14.75 209.9 Yes
II 28.93 14.47 205.9 Yes
III,IV 29.26 14.63 208.2 Yes
V 27.82 13.91 197.9 Yes
VI 28.13 14.07 200.2 Yes
VII 32.55 16.28 231.6 Yes
6 500 2.11 4125 0.292 I 33.38 16.69 237.5 Yes
II 32.09 16.05 228.3 Yes
III,IV 33.08 16.54 235.4 Yes
V 30.86 15.43 219.6 Yes
VI 31.80 15.90 226.3 Yes
VII 35.71 17.86 254.1 Yes
7 500 2.11 4875 0.273 I 37.04 18.52 263.6 Yes
II 35.41 17.71 252.0 Yes
III,IV 36.66 18.33 260.8 Yes
V 34.05 17.02 242.3 Yes
VI 35.25 17.62 250.8 Yes
VII 39.03 19.52 277.7 Yes
8 500 2.11 5625 0.271 I 43.32 21.66 308.2 Yes
II 41.16 20.58 292.8 Yes
III,IV 42.80 21.40 304.6 Yes
V 39.57 19.79 281.6 Yes
VI 41.16 20.58 292.8 Yes
VII 44.78 22.39 318.6 Yes

of the design method chosen. Secondly, the design mag-
nitudes of Pi and Tstrip are controlled by the load combi-
nation with seismic loading, i.e. Load Group VII (ASD
and LFD) or Extreme Event I Limit State (LRFD).
Thirdly, for the ASD and LFD methods SC has the high-
est Pi and Tstrip results, while for the LRFD method BC
has the highest values. HC has the lowest Pi and Tstrip
values in all cases. Lastly, the LRFD method generally
gives higher Pi and Tstrip values (13% for BC; 23% for
SC; and 4% for HC) than the ASD or LFD method,
which arises mainly from the different load factors
applied to the design methods.
2.7. PfR values
The design pullout capacity/resistance values (PfR) are
presented in Tables 27–29 (ASD and LFD) and Tables
30–32 (LRFD), as computed by Eq. (36) in Part I with
818 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 22
Summary of Pi, Tstrip and breakage/yielding checks for the soil reinforcements strips (sloping backfill surface) (LFD method)

Layer Shi (mm) Nstrip (per m) z (mm) k Load group Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) ␴t (MPa) ␴t ⬍ ␴all?

1 500 2.86 375 0.389 I 18.98 9.49 135.0 Yes

II 18.46 9.23 131.3 Yes
III,IV 18.86 9.43 134.2 Yes
V 17.75 8.87 126.3 Yes
VI 18.13 9.07 129.0 Yes
VII 22.08 11.04 157.1 Yes
2 500 2.86 1125 0.370 I 23.45 11.72 166.8 Yes
II 22.96 11.48 163.4 Yes
III,IV 23.33 11.67 166.0 Yes
V 22.08 11.04 157.1 Yes
VI 22.44 11.22 159.6 Yes
VII 26.58 13.29 189.1 Yes
3 500 2.86 1875 0.350 I 27.41 13.71 195.1 Yes
II 27.00 13.50 192.1 Yes
III,IV 27.32 13.66 194.4 Yes
V 25.96 12.98 184.7 Yes
VI 26.27 13.13 186.9 Yes
VII 30.62 15.31 217.9 Yes
4 500 2.86 2625 0.331 I 30.75 15.38 218.8 Yes
II 30.43 15.22 216.6 Yes
III,IV 30.68 15.34 218.3 Yes
V 29.26 14.63 208.2 Yes
VI 29.50 14.75 209.9 Yes
VII 34.06 17.03 242.3 Yes
5 500 2.86 3375 0.312 I 33.41 16.70 237.7 Yes
II 33.21 16.61 236.3 Yes
III,IV 33.36 16.68 237.4 Yes
V 31.93 15.97 227.2 Yes
VI 32.08 16.04 228.2 Yes
VII 36.83 18.42 262.1 Yes
6 500 2.86 4125 0.292 I 35.37 17.68 251.7 Yes
II 35.30 17.65 251.2 Yes
III,IV 35.35 17.68 251.5 Yes
V 33.94 16.97 241.5 Yes
VI 33.99 17.00 241.9 Yes
VII 38.92 19.46 276.9 Yes
7 500 2.86 4875 0.273 I 37.71 18.86 268.3 Yes
II 36.69 18.35 261.1 Yes
III,IV 37.34 18.67 265.7 Yes
V 35.28 17.64 251.0 Yes
VI 35.90 17.95 255.5 Yes
VII 40.31 20.16 286.8 Yes
8 500 2.86 5625 0.271 I 43.85 21.93 312.0 Yes
II 41.84 20.92 297.7 Yes
III,IV 43.38 21.69 308.7 Yes
V 40.23 20.11 286.2 Yes
VI 41.71 20.86 296.8 Yes
VII 45.46 22.73 323.4 Yes

the resistance factor for pullout (␾fs) of 0.67 for the ASD
and LFD methods and 0.90 for the LRFD method.
2.8. Correction losses and breakage/yielding checks of
soil reinforcements
sponding thicknesses (te) are 1.48 mm (ASD and LFD),
and 1.98 mm (LRFD). The remaining life for the metal
strips is 84 years for all cases investigated.
2.9. Pconn values

The widths of metal strip at the end of service life The forces at the connections between the wall and
(we) are 47.48 mm for the ASD and LFD methods, and soil reinforcements (Pconn) are presented in Tables 33
47.98 mm for the LRFD method, typically. The corre- and 34 (ASD), Tables 35 and 36 (LFD) and Tables 37–
 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 819

Table 23
Summary of Pi, Tstrip and breakage/yielding checks for the soil reinforcements (horizontal backfill surface) (LFD method)

Layer Shi (mm) Nstrip (per )m z (mm) k Load group Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) ␴t (MPa) ␴t ⬍ ␴all?

1 700 1.43 375 0.417 I–IV 2.87 2.01 28.6 Yes

V,VI 2.76 1.93 27.5 Yes
VII 5.78 4.04 57.5 Yes
2 700 1.43 1125 0.397 I–IV 8.21 5.75 81.8 Yes
V,VI 7.89 5.52 78.6 Yes
VII 11.11 7.78 110.7 Yes
3 700 1.43 1875 0.378 I–IV 13.01 9.11 129.6 Yes
V,VI 12.51 8.76 124.6 Yes
VII 15.92 11.14 158.6 Yes
4 700 1.43 2625 0.358 I–IV 17.28 12.09 172.1 Yes
V,VI 16.61 11.63 165.5 Yes
VII 20.18 14.13 201.1 Yes
5 700 1.43 3375 0.339 I–IV 21.01 14.71 209.3 Yes
V,VI 20.20 14.14 201.2 Yes
VII 23.92 16.74 238.2 Yes
6 700 1.43 4125 0.320 I–IV 24.21 16.95 241.1 Yes
V,VI 23.28 16.29 231.9 Yes
VII 27.11 18.98 270.1 Yes
7 700 1.43 4875 0.300 I–IV 26.87 18.81 267.7 Yes
V,VI 25.84 18.09 257.4 Yes
VII 29.78 20.84 296.6 Yes
8 700 1.43 5625 0.281 I–IV 29.00 20.30 288.9 Yes
V,VI 27.88 19.52 277.7 Yes
VII 31.90 22.33 317.8 Yes

冢 冣
39 (LRFD). For the top half of the wall (Layers 1–4,
0.85fc⬘
冪1 ⫺ 0.85f ⬘
Fig. 1), Pconn is typically equal to 85% of Tstrip. While 2K
for the bottom half (Layers 5–8, Fig. 1), Pconn is 100% ␳⫽ 1⫺ (2b)
f␥ c
of Tstrip for the ASD and LFD methods, but varying from
86.9% (Layer 5) to 98.1% (Layer 8) for the LRFD
method. The trends for Pi and Tstrip described in the and
above hold for Pconn, since they are interrelated.
Mu
2.10. Wall design K⫽ (2c)
␾bbd 2
The unfactored and factored wall forces are shown in where ␳ is the steel ratio, b the section width, fc⬘ the
Tables 40 and 41, while the factored ones are summar- uniaxial compressive strength of concrete at 28-day cur-
ized in Tables 42–44. The wall thickness was kept at ing ( ⫽ 28 MPa), fy the yielding stress of reinforcing
375 mm for all cases for comparison purposes. bars ( ⫽ 420 MPa), Mu the factored bending moment,
In the ASD method, the required reinforcing steel and ⌽b is the resistance factor for bending ( ⫽ 0.90).
area, As, is computed by [1]: The calculated ␳ value was checked against the mini-
mum and maximum code requirements, as follows [1,2]:
M
As ⫽ (1)
fsjd ␳min required for moment of 1.2Mcr (3a)
Ɐ␳Ɐ0.75␳b,ASD and LFD
where M is the required unfactored moment, fs allowable
tensile stress of steel ( ⫽ 168 MPa), j a design constant and
( 苲 0.875), and d is the effective depth from the centroid
of reinforcing steel to the utmost fiber of concrete sec- 0.03fc⬘
tion. ⱕ␳ (3b)
f␥
In the LFD and LRFD methods, As is determined
by [1,2]: ⱕ ␳max resulting in c/d less than 0.42, LRFD

As ⫽ ␳bd (2a) where Mcr is the moment for initial concrete cracking,
820 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 24
Summary of Pi, Tstrip and breakage/yielding checks for the soil reinforcements (broken backfill surface) (LRFD method)

Layer Shi (mm) Nstrip (per m) z (mm) k Limit state Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) ␴t (MPa) ␴t ⬍ ␴r?

1 725 1.38 375 0.389 Strength I 16.04 11.63 122.2 Yes

Strength III 16.38 11.88 124.8 Yes
Strength V 16.12 11.69 122.7 Yes
Extreme I 19.90 14.43 151.6 Yes
2 725 1.38 1125 0.370 Strength I 19.70 19.70 150.0 Yes
Strength III 20.23 20.23 154.0 Yes
Strength V 19.81 19.81 150.9 Yes
Extreme I 23.69 23.69 180.4 Yes
3 725 1.38 1875 0.350 Strength I 22.78 16.51 173.4 Yes
Strength III 23.53 17.06 179.2 Yes
Strength V 22.94 16.63 174.7 Yes
Extreme I 26.93 19.52 205.0 Yes
4 725 1.38 2625 0.331 Strength I 26.65 19.32 202.9 Yes
Strength III 26.16 18.96 199.2 Yes
Strength V 26.28 19.05 200.1 Yes
Extreme I 29.48 21.38 224.5 Yes
5 725 1.38 3375 0.312 Strength I 31.75 23.02 241.8 Yes
Strength III 29.58 21.45 225.3 Yes
Strength V 31.23 22.64 237.9 Yes
Extreme I 33.80 24.51 257.4 Yes
6 725 1.38 4125 0.292 Strength I 36.85 26.72 280.6 Yes
Strength III 33.94 24.61 258.5 Yes
Strength V 36.15 26.21 275.3 Yes
Extreme I 38.35 27.81 292.1 Yes
7 725 1.38 4875 0.273 Strength I 42.02 30.47 320.0 Yes
Strength III 38.20 27.69 290.9 Yes
Strength V 41.09 29.79 313.0 Yes
Extreme I 42.85 31.07 326.3 Yes
8 725 1.38 5625 0.271 Strength I 50.67 36.74 385.9 Yes
Strength III 45.37 32.89 345.5 Yes
Strength V 49.37 35.80 376.0 Yes
Extreme I 50.41 36.55 383.9 Yes

Note: ␴r ⫽ design tensile resistance ( ⫽ 386.8 MPa).

␳b the steel ratio at the balanced stress condition, and c V

is the distance between the neutral axis (zero stress sate) v⫽ ⱕ vall ⫽ 0.079√fc⬘,ASD (7)
bd
and utmost fiber of the section, which were computed
by [1,2]: and
frIg vu ⱕ ␾vvn,LFD and LRFD
Mcr ⫽ (4) (8)
c
in which
0.85␤1fc⬘ 599.843
␳b ⫽ (5)
fy 599.843 ⫹ fy vn ⫽ 0.166√fc⬘for the LFD
and or
Asfy
c⫽ (6) ⫽ smaller of 0.083␤√fc⬘bd and (9)
0.85fc⬘␤1b
0.25fc⬘bd for the LRFD
where fr is the allowable rupture strength of concrete
( ⫽ 0.623√fc⬘ ⫽ 12.8MPa), Ig the gross moment of iner- where v is the unfactored shear stress, V the unfactored
tia, fy ⫽ 420 MPa, and ␤1 is a coefficient depending on shear, vall allowable shear stress, fc⬘ ⫽ 28 MPa, Vu the
fc⬘ value ( ⫽ 0.85 for fc⬘ ⭐ 28 MPa). factored shear, Vn the nominal shear resistance, ␾v the
The shear was checked by [1,2]: resistance factor for shear ( ⫽ 0.85 for the LFD, 0.90
 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 821

Table 25
Summary of Pi, Tstrip and breakage/yielding checks for the soil reinforcements (sloping backfill surface) (LRFD method)

Layer Shi (mm) Nstrip (per m) z (mm) k Limit state Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) ␴t (MPa) ␴t ⬍ ␴r?

1 650 1.54 375 0.389 Strength I 17.84 11.60 121.8 Yes

Strength III 17.27 11.23 117.9 Yes
Strength V 17.71 11.51 120.9 Yes
Extreme I 21.05 13.69 143.7 Yes
2 650 1.54 1125 0.370 Strength I 22.15 14.40 151.2 Yes
Strength III 21.75 14.14 148.5 Yes
Strength V 22.06 14.34 150.6 Yes
Extreme I 25.48 16.56 174.0 Yes
3 650 1.54 1875 0.350 Strength I 25.89 16.83 176.8 Yes
Strength III 25.73 16.72 175.7 Yes
Strength V 25.85 16.80 176.5 Yes
Extreme I 29.39 19.10 200.7 Yes
4 650 1.54 2625 0.331 Strength I 28.90 18.78 197.3 Yes
Strength III 28.99 18.84 197.9 Yes
Strength V 28.91 18.79 197.4 Yes
Extreme I 32.57 21.17 222.4 Yes
5 650 1.54 375 0.312 Strength I 33.99 22.10 232.1 Yes
Strength III 31.49 20.47 215.0 Yes
Strength V 33.31 21.65 227.4 Yes
Extreme I 35.50 23.08 242.4 Yes
6 650 1.54 4125 0.292 Strength I 39.91 25.94 272.5 Yes
Strength III 36.08 23.45 246.3 Yes
Strength V 39.01 25.35 266.3 Yes
Extreme I 40.76 26.49 278.3 Yes
7 650 1.54 4875 0.273 Strength I 46.03 29.92 314.3 Yes
Strength III 41.10 26.72 280.6 Yes
Strength V 44.86 29.16 306.3 Yes
Extreme I 46.08 29.95 314.6 Yes
8 650 1.54 5625 0.271 Strength I 56.12 36.48 383.2 Yes
Strength III 49.42 32.12 337.4 Yes
Strength V 54.51 35.43 372.2 Yes
Extreme I 54.87 35.66 374.6 Yes

Table 26
Summary of Pi, Tstrip and breakage/yielding checks for the soil reinforcements (horizontal backfill surface) (LRFD method)

Layer Shi (mm) Nstrip (per m) z (mm) k Limit state Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) ␴t (MPa) ␴t ⬍ ␴r?

1 1100 0.91 375 0.417 I, III, V 2.98 3.28 34.4 Yes

Extreme I 5.89 6.48 68.0 Yes
2 1100 0.91 1125 0.397 I, III, V 8.52 9.38 98.5 Yes
Extreme I 11.43 12.57 132.1 Yes
3 1100 0.91 1875 0.378 I, III, V 13.51 14.86 156.1 Yes
Extreme I 16.42 18.06 189.7 Yes
4 1100 0.91 2625 0.358 I, III, V 17.94 19.74 207.3 Yes
Extreme I 20.85 22.93 240.9 Yes
5 1100 0.91 3375 0.339 I, III, V 21.82 24.00 252.1 Yes
Extreme I 24.73 27.20 285.7 Yes
6 1100 0.91 4125 0.320 I, III, V 25.14 27.65 290.5 Yes
Extreme I 28.05 30.85 324.1 Yes
7 1100 0.91 4875 0.300 I, III, V 27.90 30.69 322.4 Yes
Extreme I 30.81 33.89 356.0 Yes
8 1100 0.91 5625 0.281 I, III, V 30.11 33.12 347.9 Yes
Extreme I 33.02 36.32 381.5 Yes
822 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 27
Summary of allowable pullout capacity, PfR (broken backfill surface cases) (ASD and LFD methods)

Layer z⬘ Load group f* Le (mm) As (mm2) Pfs (kN) PfR (kN)

1 1434 I–VI 1.30 4182 397156 13.91 9.27

VII 1.04 4182 397156 11.13 7.42
2 2184 I–VI 1.19 4182 397156 19.45 12.96
VII 0.95 4182 397156 15.56 10.37
3 2934 I–VI 1.08 4182 397156 23.79 15.86
VII 0.87 4182 397156 19.03 12.69
4 3684 I–VI 0.98 4275 405954 27.54 18.36
VII 0.78 4275 405954 22.03 14.69
5 4434 I–VI 0.87 4275 448686 32.65 21.77
VII 0.70 4275 448686 26.12 17.42
6 5184 I–VI 0.77 5175 491418 36.71 24.47
VII 0.61 5175 491418 29.37 19.58
7 5934 I–VI 0.66 5625 534150 39.33 26.22
VII 0.53 5625 534150 31.46 20.98
8 6684 I–VI 0.65 6075 576882 47.16 31.44
VII 0.52 6075 576882 37.73 25.15

z⬘ ⫽ vertical distance from the top of the lateral earth pressure diagram to the level of soil reinforcement; f* ⫽ apparent coefficient of friction; Le
⫽ effective pullout length; As ⫽ total surface area of soil reinforcement along effective pullout length; Pfs ⫽ nominal pullout resistance.

Table 28
Summary of allowable pullout capacity, PfR (sloping backfill surface cases) (ASD and LFD methods)

Layer z⬘ (mm) Load group f* Le (mm) As (mm2) Pfs (kN) PfR (kN)

1 1434 I–VI 1.30 4482 425644 14.91 9.94

VII 1.04 4482 425644 11.92 7.95
2 2184 I–VI 1.19 4482 425644 20.84 13.89
VII 0.95 4482 425644 16.67 11.12
3 2934 I–VI 1.08 4482 425644 25.50 17.00
VII 0.87 4482 425644 20.40 13.60
4 3684 I–VI 0.98 4575 434442 29.47 19.65
VII 0.78 4575 434442 23.58 15.72
5 4434 I–VI 0.87 5025 477174 34.73 23.15
VII 0.70 5025 477174 27.78 18.52
6 5184 I–VI 0.77 5475 519906 38.84 25.89
VII 0.61 5475 519906 31.07 20.71
7 5934 I–VI 0.66 5925 562638 41.43 27.62
VII 0.53 5925 562638 33.14 22.09
8 6684 I–VI 0.65 6375 605370 49.49 32.99
VII 0.52 6375 605370 39.59 26.40

for the LRFD) [1,2], and ␤ may be set equal to 2.0 for ␾c ⫽ 0.70(LFD) or 0.75(LRFD) (11a)
vertical stirrups with 45° potential concrete cracks.
when Pu > 0.10fc⬘Ag,
The axial load was checked by (neglecting the verti-
cal steel)[1,2]:
or
Pu ⱕ ␾c[0.80(0.85fc⬘Ag)] (10)

where Pu is the required design axial load, Ag the gross
cross-sectional area, and ␾c is the resistance factor for
axial compression.
␾c is 0.35 for the ASD method, and varies between
0.70 or 0.75 and 0.90 for the LFD and LRFD methods
depending upon the magnitude of axial load (Pu),
namely [1,2]
⫽ 0.70 (LFD) or 0.75 (LRFD) to 0.90 by linear (11b)
interpolation when Pu ⱕ 0.10fc⬘Ag.
The wall designs are summarized in Table 45. As
shown in the table, the minimum wall thickness of 375
mm is found to be adequate for all cases. Moreover, the
 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 823

Table 29
Summary of allowable pullout capacity, PfR (horizontal backfill surface cases) (ASD and LFD methods)

Layer z⬘ Load group f* Le (mm) As (mm2) Pfs (kN) PfR (kN)

1 375 I–VI 1.45 3500 332360 3.40 2.26

VII 1.16 3500 332360 2.72 1.81
2 1125 I–VI 1.34 3500 332360 9.44 6.29
VII 1.07 3500 332360 7.55 5.04
3 1875 I–VI 1.23 3500 332360 14.49 9.66
VII 0.99 3500 332360 11.59 7.73
4 2625 I–VI 1.13 3500 332360 18.53 12.36
VII 0.90 3500 332360 14.83 9.88
5 3375 I–VI 1.02 3725 353726 22.97 15.31
VII 0.82 3725 353726 18.38 12.25
6 4125 I–VI 0.92 4175 396458 28.19 18.79
VII 0.73 4175 396458 22.55 15.04
7 4875 I–VI 0.81 4625 439190 32.62 21.75
VII 0.65 4625 439190 26.10 17.40
8 5625 I–VI 0.70 5075 481922 35.87 23.91
VII 0.56 5075 481922 28.70 19.13

Table 30
Summary of design pullout resistance, PfR (broken backfill surface cases) (LRFD method)

Layer z⬘ Limit state f* Le (mm) As (mm2) Pfs (kN) PfR (kN)

1 1434 I, III, V 1.68 2882 276614 12.53 11.28

Extreme I 1.34 2882 276614 10.02 9.02
2 2184 I, III, V 1.51 2882 276614 17.16 15.45
Extreme I 1.21 2882 276614 13.73 12.36
3 2934 I, III, V 1.34 2882 276614 20.48 18.43
Extreme I 1.07 2882 276614 16.38 14.74
4 3684 I, III, V 1.17 2975 285505 23.19 20.87
Extreme I 0.94 2975 285505 18.55 16.70
5 4434 I, III, V 1.00 3425 328690 27.50 24.75
Extreme I 0.80 3425 328690 22.00 19.80
6 5184 I, III, V 0.83 3875 371876 30.25 27.23
Extreme I 0.67 3875 371876 24.20 21.78
7 5934 I, III, V 0.66 4325 415062 30.82 27.74
Extreme I 0.53 4325 415062 24.65 22.19
8 6684 I, III, V 0.65 4775 458247 37.46 33.72
Extreme I 0.52 4775 458247 29.97 26.97

ASD method appears to result in under-reinforced wall 2.12. Sample calculations

sections, and is most conservative in terms of axial com-
pressive load resistance.
2.11. Footing design
The footing designs are summarized in Table 46,
where the footing width was set at 1050 mm for all stud-
ied cases for comparison purposes. The required footing
thicknesses are governed by the shear criterion, Eqs. (7)
and (8). As shown in Table 46, the ASD method is most
conservative since it requires more reinforcing steel and
footing thickness.
For illustrative purposes, sample calculations for the
key LRFD results are offered hereafter, in which the
broken backfill surface case (BC) and Strength I Limit
State with the maximum permanent loading condition
are selected. The unfactored forces must be precalcu-
lated, as shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Muv ⫽ 1.25 DC ⫹ 1.50 DW ⫹ 1.35 EV ⫹ 1.50 EH
⫹ 1.75 LL ⫽ 1.25 ⫻ 0 ⫹ 1.50 ⫻ 0 ⫹ 1.35 ⫻
(1412.6 ⫹ 219.7 ⫹ 185.4) ⫹ 1.50 ⫻ 152.0 ⫹ 1.75
⫻ 0 (Referring to Table 3 results) ⫽ 2682.0 kN-
m/m, and
824 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 31
Summary of design pullout resistance, PfR (sloping backfill surface cases) (LRFD method)

Layer z⬘ Limit state f* Le (mm) As (mm2) Pfs (kN) PfR (kN)

1 1434 I, III, V 1.68 2482 238226 10.79 9.71

Extreme I 1.34 2482 238226 8.63 7.77
2 2184 I, III, V 1.51 2482 238226 14.78 13.30
Extreme I 1.21 2482 238226 11.83 10.64
3 2934 I, III, V 1.34 2482 238226 17.64 15.87
Extreme I 1.07 2482 238226 14.11 12.70
4 3684 I, III, V 1.17 2575 247118 20.08 18.07
Extreme I 0.94 2575 247118 16.06 14.45
5 4434 I, III, V 1.00 3025 290303 24.29 21.86
Extreme I 0.80 3025 290303 19.43 17.49
6 5184 I, III, V 0.83 3475 333489 27.13 24.42
Extreme I 0.67 3475 333489 21.70 19.53
7 5934 I, III, V 0.66 3925 376674 27.97 25.17
Extreme I 0.53 3925 376674 22.37 20.14
8 6684 I, III, V 0.65 4375 419860 34.33 30.89
Extreme I 0.52 4375 419860 27.46 24.71

Table 32
Summary of design pullout resistance, PfR (horizontal backfill surface) (LRFD method)

Layer z⬘ Limit state f* Le (mm) As (mm2) Pfs (kN) PfR (kN)

1 375 I, III, V 1.92 2400 230323 3.12 2.80

Extreme I 1.53 2400 230323 2.49 2.24
2 1125 I, III, V 1.75 2400 230323 8.53 7.67
Extreme I 1.40 2440 230323 6.82 6.14
3 1875 I, III, V 1.58 2400 230323 12.84 11.55
Extreme I 1.26 2400 230323 10.27 9.24
4 2625 I, III, V 1.41 2400 230323 16.05 14.44
Extreme I 1.13 2400 230323 12.84 11.55
5 3375 I, III, V 1.24 2625 251916 19.86 17.88
Extreme I 0.99 2625 251916 15.89 14.30
6 4125 I, III, V 1.07 3075 295102 24.57 22.11
Extreme I 0.86 3075 295102 19.65 17.69
7 4875 I, III, V 0.90 3525 338287 28.04 25.23
Extreme I 0.72 3525 338287 22.43 20.19
8 5625 I, III, V 0.73 3975 381473 29.66 26.69
Extreme I 0.59 3975 381473 23.73 21.35

Muh ⫽ 1.25 DC ⫹ 1.50 DW ⫹ 1.35 EV ⫹ 1.50 EH ⫹ 1.75 LS ⫽ 1.25 ⫻ 0 ⫹ 1.50 ⫻ 0 ⫹ 1.35 ⫻ 0 ⫹

⫹ 1.75 LS ⫽ 1.25 ⫻ 0 ⫹ 1.50 ⫻ 0 ⫹ 1.35 ⫻ 0 ⫹
1.50 ⫻ 486.5 ⫹ 1.75 ⫻ 114.9 (Referring to Table
4 results) ⫽ 930.8 kN-m/m, as indicated in Table 6.
Vu ⫽ 1.25 DC ⫹ 1.50 DW ⫹ 1.35 EV ⫹ 1.50 EH
⫹ 1.75 LL ⫽ 1.25 ⫻ 0 ⫹ 1.50 ⫻ 0 ⫹ 1.35 ⫻ (565.1
⫹ 82.4 ⫹ 41.2) ⫹ 1.50 ⫻ 30.4 ⫹ 1.75 ⫻ 0
(Referring to Table 3 results) ⫽ 975.3 kN/m, as indi-
cated in Tables 6 and 10.
x0 ⫽ (Muv ⫺ Muh)/Vu ⫽ (2682.0 ⫺ 930.8)/975.3 ⫽
1.796 m, and e ⫽ B/2-x0 ⫽ 5/2-1.796 ⫽ 0.704 m,
as indicated in Table 6.
Q␶ ⫽ Vu (0.8 tan ␾s) ⫽ 975.3x(0.8 ⫻ tan350) ⫽
546.3 kN/m, Qr ⫽ ␾␶ Q␶ ⫽ 0.9 ⫻ 546.3 ⫽ 491.7
kN/m, and
Hu ⫽ 1.25 DC ⫹ 1.50 DW ⫹ 1.35 EV ⫹ 1.50 EH
1.50 ⫻ 182.4 ⫹ 1.75 ⫻ 28.7 (Referring to Table 4
results) ⫽ 324.0 kN/m, as indicated in Table 10.
B⬘ ⫽ B ⫺ 2e ⫽ 5-2 ⫻ 0.704 ⫽ 3.59 m, qult ⫽ 0.5
(␥ B⬘ N␥ s␥ i␥ ⫹ (Df Nq sq iq ⫽ [0.5 ⫻ (1592 ⫻
9.81) ⫻ 3.59 ⫻ 48.0 ⫻ 1.0 ⫻ 0.915 ⫹ (1592 ⫻
9.81) ⫻ 1.0 ⫻ 33.3 ⫻ 1.0 ⫻ 0.708]) ÷ 106 ⫽ 1.6
MPa,
qr ⫽ ␾brg qult ⫽ 0.45 ⫻ 1.6 ⫽ 0.72 MPa, and q ⫽
Vu/B⬘ ⫽ (975.3/3.59) ÷ 103 ⫽ 0.272 MPa, as indi-
cated in Table 14.
Pi ⫽ (k ␥p ␴v) hi ⫽ 0.389 ⫻ 1.00 ⫻ 0.055 N/mm2
⫻ 750 mm ⫽ 16.04 N/mm or kN/m, Tstrip ⫽ Pi/Nstrip
⫽ 16.04 (kN/m)/(1.38 strips/m) ⫽ 11.63 kN,
␴t ⫽ Tstrip/(Ae ⫽ be te) ⫽ [11.63 kN/(47.984 mm ⫻
1.984 mm)] ⫻ 103 ⫽ 122.2 N/mm2 or MPa, and
 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 825

Table 33
Summary of wall-reinforcement connection design forces, Pconn (broken and sloping backfill surface cases) (ASD method)

Layer z (mm) Load group Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) Pconn (kN) Pconn/Tstrip (%)

1 375 I,III,IV, 13.03/14.27 6.51/ 7.14 5.54/6.07 85/85*

II,V 13.09/13.97 6.55/ 6.98 5.56/5.94 85/85
VII 16.71/17.59 8.36/ 8.79 7.10/7.47 85/85
2 1125 I,III,IV,VI 15.94/17.63 7.97/ 8.81 6.78/7.49 85/85
II,V 16.07/17.34 8.04/ 8.67 6.83/7.37 85/85
VII 19.69/20.96 9.85/10.48 8.37/8.91 85/85
3 1875 I,III,IV,VI 18.47/20.62 9.23/10.31 7.85/8.76 85/85
II,V 18.67/20.37 9.34/10.18 7.94/8.66 85/85
VII 22.29/23.99 11.15/11.99 9.47/10.20 85/85
4 2625 I,III,IV,VI 20.53/23.14 10.27/11.57 8.73/9.84 85/85
II,V 20.82/22.96 10.41/11.48 8.85/9.76 85/85
VII 24.44/26.58 12.22/13.29 10.39/11.30 85/85
5 3375 I,III,IV,VI 22.11/25.18 11.06/12.59 11.06/12.59 100.0/100.0
II,V 22.48/25.06 11.24/12.53 11.24/12.53 100.0/100.0
VII 26.10/28.68 13.05/14.34 13.05/14.34 100.0/100.0
6 4125 I,III,IV,VI 24.67/26.70 12.34/13.35 12.34/13.35 100.0/100.0
II,V 23.94/26.67 11.97/13.33 11.97/13.33 100.0/100.0
VII 27.56/30.29 13.78/15.14 13.78/15.14 100.0/100.0
7 4875 I,III,IV,VI 27.11/27.71 13.56/13.86 13.56/13.86 100.0/100.0
II,V 26.21/27.76 13.10/13.88 13.10/13.88 100.0/100.0
VII 29.83/31.38 14.91/15.69 14.91/15.69 100.0/100.0
8 5625 I,III,IV,VI 31.35/31.88 15.67/15.94 15.67/15.94 100.0/100.0
II,V 30.17/30.71 15.08/15.36 15.08/15.36 100.0/100.0
VII 33.79/34.33 16.89/17.17 16.89/17.17 100.0/100.0

*
For broken/sloping backfill surface case respectively (typically).

Table 34 3. Summary and conclusions

Summary of wall-reinforcement connection design forces, Pconn
(horizontal backfill surface) (ASD method)
Complete designs of three typical MSE wall systems
Layer z (mm) Load Pi Tstrip Pconn Pconn/Tstrip are demonstrated in details in the above, followed by
group (kN/m) (kN) (kN) (%) comparisons and discussions. A summary for the key
system design parameters is shown in Table 47. Based
1 375 I–VI 2.11 1.49 1.27 85
on the results obtained, the following conclusions are
VII 5.11 3.45 2.93 85
2 1125 I–VI 6.31 4.26 3.62 85 offered:
VII 9.22 6.22 5.29 85
3 1875 I–VI 10.01 6.76 5.74 85
쐌 The forces and moments are generally governed by
VII 12.91 8.72 7.41 85 a load combination associated with seismic loading,
4 2625 I–VI 13.29 8.97 7.63 85 namely Load Group VII for the ASD and LFD
VII 16.20 10.93 9.29 85 methods or Extreme Event I limit state for the
5 3375 I–VI 16.16 10.91 10.91 100.0 LRFD method.
VII 19.07 12.87 12.87 100.0
6 4125 I–VI 18.62 12.57 12.57 100.0
쐌 For the ASD and LFD methods, the required length
VII 21.53 14.53 14.53 100.0 of soil reinforcements (L) is generally governed by
7 4875 I–VI 20.67 13.95 13.95 100.0 the sliding criterion, Hunfac ⱕ Qall/FSslid, while for the
VII 23.58 15.91 15.91 100.0 LRFD method it is generally controlled by the over-
8 5625 I–VI 22.31 15.06 15.06 100.0 turning criterion, e ⱕ B/4. The LRFD method results
VII 25.21 17.02 17.02 100.0
in significant cost saving for the soil reinforcements
(20–50% depending on the backfill surface condition),
as compared to the current design method (ASD or
␴r ⫽ ␾y ␴y ⫽ 0.85 ⫻ 455 ⫽ 386.8 MPa, as indicated LFD).
in Table 24. 쐌 The assumption of a fixed value of 600 mm for heq
Pfs ⫽ f* ␥r z⬘ [As ⫽ ⌺(be Le)] ⫽ 1.68 ⫻ (1920 kg/m3 used in the current design method (ASD or LFD
⫻ 9.81 m/s2) ⫻ 1434 mm ⫻ (2 sides ⫻ 47.984 mm method) could lead to an unsafe MSE wall design,
⫻ 2882 mm) ÷ 1012 ⫽ 12.53 kN, and particularly for relatively short walls (H ⱕ 6 m).
PfR ⫽ ␾fs Pfs ⫽ 0.90 ⫻ 12.53 ⫽ 11.28 kN, as indi- 쐌 For the ASD or LFD method, the overturning of the
cated in Table 30. reinforced soil mass is generally governed by the
826 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 35
Summary of wall-reinforcement connection design forces, Pconn (broken and sloping backfill surface cases) (LFD method)

Layer z (mm) Load group Pi (kN/m) Tstrip (kN) Pconn (kN) Pconn/Tstrip (%)

1 375 I 16.92/18.98 8.46/9.49 7.19/8.07 85/85*

II 17.02/18.46 8.51/9.23 7.24/7.85 85/85
III,IV 16.94/18.86 8.47/9.43 7.20/8.01 85/85
V 16.37/17.75 8.18/8.87 6.96/7.54 85/85
VI 16.29/18.13 8.14/9.07 6.92/7.71 85/85
VII 20.64/22.08 10.32/11.04 8.77/9.38 85/85
2 1125 I 20.66/23.45 10.33/11.72 8.78/9.96 85/85
II 20.87/22.96 10.43/11.48 8.87/9.76 85/85
III,IV 20.70/23.33 10.35/11.67 8.80/9.92 85/85
V 20.06/22.08 10.03/11.04 8.53/9.38 85/85
VI 19.91/22.44 9.95/11.22 8.46/9.54 85/85
VII 24.49/26.58 12.24/13.29 10.41/11.30 85/85
3 1875 I 23.85/27.41 11.93/13.71 10.14/11.65 85/85
II 24.19/27.00 12.09/13.50 10.28/11.47 85/85
III,IV 23.93/27.32 11.96/13.66 10.17/11.61 85/85
V 23.26/25.96 11.63/12.98 9.88/11.03 85/85
VI 23.01/26.27 11.50/13.13 19.78/11.16 85/85
VII 27.81/30.62 13.90/15.31 11.82/13.01 85/85
4 2625 I 26.42/30.75 13.21/15.38 11.23/13.07 85/85
II 26.88/30.43 13.44/15.22 11.43/12.93 85/85
III,IV 26.52/30.68 13.26/15.34 11.27/13.04 85/85
V 25.85/29.26 12.92/14.63 10.99/12.44 85/85
VI 25.50/29.50 12.75/14.75 10.84/12.54 85/85
VII 30.50/34.06 15.25/17.03 12.96/14.47 85/85
5 3375 I 29.49/33.41 14.75/16.70 14.75/16.70 100.0/100.0
II 28.93/33.21 14.47/16.61 14.47/16.61 100.0/100.0
III,IV 29.26/33.36 14.63/16.68 14.63/16.68 100.0/100.0
V 27.82/31.93 13.91/15.97 13.91/15.97 100.0/100.0
VI 28.13/32.08 14.07/16.04 14.07/16.04 100.0/100.0
VII 32.55/36.83 16.28/18.42 16.28/18.42 100.0/100.0
6 4125 I 33.38/35.37 16.69/17.68 16.69/17.68 100.0/100.0
II 32.09/35.30 16.05/17.65 16.05/17.65 100.0/100.0
III,IV 33.08/35.35 16.54/17.68 16.54/17.68 100.0/100.0
V 30.86/33.94 15.43/16.97 15.43/16.97 100.0/100.0
VI 31.80/33.99 15.90/17.00 15.90/17.00 100.0/100.0
VII 35.71/38.92 17.86/19.46 17.86/19.46 100.0/100.0
7 4875 I 37.04/37.71 18.52/18.86 18.52/18.86 100.0/100.0
II 35.41/36.69 17.71/18.35 17.71/18.35 100.0/100.0
III,IV 36.66/37.34 18.33/18.67 18.33/18.67 100.0/100.0
V 34.05/35.28 17.02/17.64 17.02/17.64 100.0/100.0
VI 35.25/35.90 17.62/17.95 17.62/17.95 100.0/100.0
VII 39.03/40.31 19.52/20.16 19.52/20.16 100.0/100.0
8 5625 I 43.32/43.85 21.66/21.93 21.66/21.93 100.0/100.0
II 41.16/41.84 20.58/20.92 20.58/20.92 100.0/100.0
III,IV 42.80/43.38 21.40/21.69 21.40/21.69 100.0/100.0
V 39.57/40.23 19.79/20.11 19.79/20.11 100.0/100.0
VI 41.16/41.71 20.58/20.86 20.58/20.86 100.0/100.0
VII 44.78/45.46 22.39/22.73 22.39/22.73 100.0/100.0

*
For broken/sloping condition, respectively.

eccentricity criterion, e ⱕ B/4, while for the LRFD
method it is generally controlled by the Extreme
Event I limit state with the minimum ␥p factors.
쐌 In general, all three design methods appear overestim-
ating the bearing capacity by a good margin. The
underestimation on the bearing capacity for the sloped
backfill surface condition as arising from the LRFD
method is noted. Such conservatism and inconsistency
on bearing capacity deserve further investigation.
쐌 All three design methods produce approximately the
same acceptable settlement ( ⱕ 25 mm) for a typical
MSE wall system since settlement is a serviceability
issue.
쐌 For the three backfill surface conditions studied, the
horizontal condition (HC) is generally least critical.
For the ASD and LFD methods, the sloping condition
(SC) is generally more critical than the broken con-
dition (BC) ( 苲 5% for strength considerations, and
 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 827

Table 36 Table 37
Summary of wall-reinforcement connection design forces, Pconn Summary of wall-reinforcement connection design forces, Pconn
(horizontal backfill surface) (LFD method) (broken backfill surface) (LRFD method)

Layer z (mm) Load Pi Tstrip Pconn Pconn/Tstrip Layer z (mm) Limit state Pi Tstrip Pconn Pconn/Tstrip
group (kN/m) (kN) (kN) (%) (kN/m) (kN) (kN) (%)

1 375 I–IV 2.87 2.01 1.71 85 1 375 Strength I 16.04 11.63 9.89 85
V,VI 2.76 1.93 1.64 85 Strength III 16.38 11.88 10.10 85
VII 5.78 4.04 3.44 85 Strength V 16.12 11.69 9.93 85
2 1125 I–IV 8.21 5.75 4.88 85 Extreme 19.90 14.43 12.26 85
V,VI 7.89 5.52 4.70 85 Event I
VII 11.11 7.78 6.61 85 2 1125 Strength I 19.70 14.28 12.14 85
3 1875 I–IV 13.01 9.11 7.74 85 Strength III 20.23 14.66 12.46 85
V,VI 12.51 8.76 7.44 85 Strength V 19.81 14.36 12.21 85
VII 15.92 11.14 9.47 85 Extreme 23.69 17.17 14.60 85
4 2625 I–IV 17.28 12.09 10.28 85 Event I
V,VI 16.61 11.63 9.89 85 3 1875 Strength I 22.78 16.51 14.04 85
VII 20.18 14.13 12.01 85 Strength III 23.53 17.06 14.50 85
5 3375 I–IV 21.01 14.71 14.71 100.0 Strength V 22.94 16.63 14.14 85
V,VI 20.20 14.14 14.14 100.0 Extreme 26.93 19.52 16.59 85
VII 23.92 16.74 16.74 100.0 Event I
6 4125 I–IV 24.21 16.95 16.95 100.0 4 2625 Strength I 26.65 19.32 16.42 85
V,VI 23.28 16.29 16.29 100.0 Strength III 26.16 18.96 16.12 85
VII 27.11 18.98 18.98 100.0 Strength V 26.28 19.05 16.19 85
7 4875 I–IV 26.87 18.81 18.81 100.0 Extreme 29.48 21.38 18.17 85
V,VI 25.84 18.09 18.09 100.0 Event I
VII 29.78 20.84 20.84 100.0 5 3375 Strength I 31.75 23.02 20.00 86.9
8 5625 I–IV 29.00 20.30 20.30 100.0 Strength III 29.58 21.45 18.63 86.9
V,VI 27.88 19.52 19.52 100.0 Strength V 31.23 22.64 19.67 86.9
VII 31.90 22.33 22.33 100.0 Extreme 33.80 24.50 21.29 86.9
Event I
6 4125 Strength I 36.85 26.71 24.21 90.6
Strength III 33.94 24.61 22.30 90.6
Strength V 36.15 26.21 23.75 90.6
Extreme 38.35 27.81 25.20 90.6
苲 14% for settlement). However, for the LRFD Event I
method BC is more critical than SC in terms of soil 7 4875 Strength I 42.02 30.46 28.75 94.4
reinforcement length (L) and design pullout strength Strength III 38.20 27.69 26.14 94.4
(PfR) ( ⱕ 10%). Strength V 41.09 29.79 28.12 94.4
쐌 Minimum thickness of 375 mm is generally sufficient Extreme 42.85 31.07 29.32 94.4
Event I
for a typical wall with height of 6 m or less. However, 8 5625 Strength I 50.67 36.74 36.05 98.1
the ASD method would result in under-reinforced Strength III 45.37 32.89 32.28 98.1
wall sections and thus more minor concrete cracks. Strength V 49.37 35.79 35.12 98.1
Extreme 50.41 36.55 35.86 98.1
In general, the strength based LFD method results in Event I
virtually the same MSE wall designs as the service-load
based the ASD method. The ASD method gives the most
conservative design, while the LRFD method is more
Appendix
rational and results in more economical design in most
cases. The above conclusions are valid for MSE walls
Conversion of units
located in a low to moderate seismic zone. More para-
metric studies may be carried out to investigate the MSE
1 mm ⫽ 0.03937 in; 1 m ⫽ 3.2808 ft;
walls exposed to higher seismicity.
1 kN ⫽ 0.2248 kip; 1 kN/m ⫽ 0.0685 kip/ft;
The more complex calculations involving in the
1 kN-m ⫽ 0.7376 kip-ft
LRFD method can be greatly facilitated by a special
1 MPa ⫽ 0.145 ksi.
computer program such as the one used in this study.
The LRFD-based analysis/design procedure described in
this paper is therefore recommended for all future MSE
wall designs. As a final note, in complex situations that
a numerical method would be desired, one can employ
either the finite difference method or finite element
method as discussed in the literature [5].
828 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 38 Table 39
Summary of wall-reinforcement connection design forces, Pconn Summary of wall-reinforcement connection design forces, Pconn
(sloping backfill surface) (LRFD method) (horizontal backfill surface) (LRFD method)

Layer z (mm) Limit state Pi Tstrip Pconn Pconn/Tstrip Layer z (mm) Limit state Pi Tstrip Pconn Pconn/Tstrip
(kN/m) (kN) (kN) (%) (kN/m) (kN) (kN) (%)

1 375 Strength I 17.84 11.60 9.86 85 1 375 I, III, V 2.21 2.43 2.06 85
Strength III 17.27 11.23 9.54 85 Extreme I 5.89 6.48 5.50 85
Strength V 17.71 11.51 9.78 85 2 1125 I, III, V 6.31 6.95 5.90 85
Extreme 21.05 13.68 11.63 85 Extreme I 11.43 12.57 10.69 85
Event I 3 1875 I, III, V 10.01 11.01 9.36 85
2 1125 Strength I 22.15 14.40 12.24 85 Extreme I 16.42 18.06 15.35 85
Strength III 21.75 14.14 12.02 85 4 2625 I, III, V 13.29 14.62 12.43 85
Strength V 22.06 14.34 12.19 85 Extreme I 20.85 22.93 19.49 85
Extreme 25.48 16.56 14.08 85 5 3375 I, III, V 16.16 17.78 15.44 86.9
Event I Extreme I 24.73 27.20 23.63 86.9
3 1875 Strength I 25.89 16.83 14.31 85 6 4125 I, III, V 18.62 20.48 18.56 90.6
Strength III 25.73 16.72 14.21 85 Extreme I 28.05 30.85 27.96 90.6
Strength V 25.85 16.80 14.28 85 7 4875 I, III, V 20.67 22.74 21.46 94.4
Extreme 29.39 19.10 16.24 85 Extreme I 30.81 33.89 31.98 94.4
Event I 8 5625 I, III, V 22.31 24.54 24.08 98.1
4 2625 Strength I 28.90 18.78 15.97 85 Extreme I 33.02 36.32 35.64 98.1
Strength III 28.99 18.84 16.02 85
Strength V 28.91 18.79 15.97 85
Extreme 32.57 21.17 18.00 85
Event I
5 3375 Strength I 33.99 22.09 19.19 86.9 Table 40
Strength III 31.49 20.47 17.78 86.9 Unfactored vertical loads and moments (V, Mv) at the bottom center
Strength V 33.31 21.65 18.81 86.9 of the wall (all methods, all backfill surface cases)
Extreme 35.50 23.08 20.05 86.9
Event I Load type V (kN/m) Moment arm Moment about
6 4125 Strength I 39.91 25.94 23.51 90.6 from the bottom the center, Mv
Strength III 36.08 23.45 21.25 90.6 centre (m) (kN-m/m)
Strength V 39.01 25.35 22.98 90.6
Extreme 40.76 26.49 24.01 90.6 DC1 160.0 0.00 0.0
Event I DC2 53.0 0.00 0.0
7 4875 Strength I 46.03 29.92 28.24 94.4 DW 15.0 0.05* 2.5
Strength III 41.10 26.72 25.21 94.4 LL 50.0 0.00 0.0
Strength V 44.86 29.16 27.52 94.4 Total 278.0 2.5
Extreme 46.08 29.95 28.27 94.4 *
Event I 50 mm minimum eccentricity assumed for live loads.
8 5625 Strength I 56.12 36.48 35.80 98.1 DC1 ⫽ direct dead weight from the superstructure; DC2 ⫽ direct dead
Strength III 49.42 32.12 31.52 98.1 weight from the wall.
Strength V 54.51 35.43 34.77 98.1
Extreme 54.87 35.66 34.99 98.1
Event I Table 41
Unfactored horizontal loads and moments (Hunfac, Mh) at the bottom
center of the wall (all methods and backfill surface cases)

Load group Hunfac (kN/m) Moment arm Moment about

from the toe (m) the toe, Mv (kN-
m/m)

BR 3.0 6.00 18.0

WS 6.0 6.00 36.0
WL 3.0 6.00 18.0
EQLL 7.6 6.00 45.7
EQDC1 24.4 6.00 146.3
EQDC2 8.1 3.00 24.2
EQDW 2.3 6.00 13.7
Total 54.4 302.0

EQDC1 ⫽ EQ from DC1; EQDC2 ⫽ EQ from DC2.

 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830 829

Table 42 Table 45
Combined loads and moments at the bottom center of the wall (all Summary of wall design
backfill surface cases) (ASD method)
ASD LFD LFRD
Load group V (kN/m) Mv (kN- Hunfac (kN) Mh (kN-
m/m) m/m) wall thickness (mm) 375 375 375
concrete cover (mm) 50 50 50
I 278.0 2.5 3.0 18.0 fy of steel (MPa) 420 420 420
II 228.0 0.0 6.0 36.0 required moment (kN-m) 153.3 199.3 208.4
III 278.0 2.5 7.8 46.8 required steel ratio 0.0033 0.0053 0.0055
IV 278.0 2.5 6.0 36.0 required steel area 1059 1728 1782
V 228.0 0.0 6.0 36.0 required shear (kN) 28.2 36.7 38.6
VI 278.0 2.5 7.8 46.8 design shear strength (kN) 134.8 240.8 256.9
VII – – 28.2 153.3 required axial force (kN) 278.0 404.9 376.2
Service* 278.0 2.5 5.7 34.2 design axial strength (kN) 328.2 770.5 805.6

*
Similar to Service I limit state of the LRFD method. Note: Forces and moments are for 1 m length of the wall.
fy ⫽ yielding stress of reinforcing steel bars.

Table 43
Factored loads and moments at the bottom center of the wall (all back- Table 46
fill surface cases) (LFD method) Summary of footing design

Load group V (kN/m) Mv (kN- Hu (kN) Muh (kN) ASD LFD LFRD
m/m)
footing thickness 800 650 600
I 404.9 5.4 3.9 23.4 footing width (mm) 1050 1050 1050
II 296.4 0.0 7.8 46.8 concrete cover (mm) 50 50 50
III 361.4 3.3 10.1 60.8 fy of steel (MPa) 420 420 420
IV 361.4 3.3 7.8 46.8 required moment (kN-m) 157.0 203.2 212.5
V 285.0 0.0 7.5 45.0 required steel ratio 0.0018 0.0019 0.0021
VI 347.5 3.1 9.8 58.5 required steel area (mm2) 1314 1095 1091
VII – – 36.7 199.3 required shear (kN) 297.8 425.8 398.5
Service* 278.0 2.5 5.7 34.2 design shear strength (kN) 300.8 426.1 415.0

*
Similar to Service I limit state of the LRFD method. Note: Forces and moments are for 1 m length of the wall.

Table 44
Factored loads and moments at the bottom center of the wall (all back-
fill surface cases)(LRFD method)

Limit state Vu (kN/m) Muv (kN- Hu (kN) Muh (kN-

m/m) m/m)

Strength I
maximum 376.2 4.4 5.3 31.5
minimum 288.9 4.4 5.3 31.5
Strength III
maximum 288.7 0.0 8.4 75.6
minimum 201.4 0.0 8.4 75.6
Strength V
maximum 356.2 3.4 7.7 45.9
minimum 268.9 3.4 7.7 45.9
Extreme
Event I
maximum 313.7 1.3 38.6 207.1
minimum 226.4 1.3 38.6 207.1
Service I 278.0 2.5 5.7 34.2
830 Y. Chen / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 809–830

Table 47
Summary of key system design parameters

ASD LFD LRFD

H (m) 6 6 6
H1 (m) 7.059/7.059/6.000 7.059/7.059/6.000 7.059/7.059/6.000a
H2 (m) 8.000/8.000/6.000 8.000/8.000/6.000 8.000/8.000/6.000
h (m) 8.000/8.000/6.000 8.000/8.000/6.000 8.000/8.000/6.000
L (m) 6.300/6.600/5.300 6.300/6.600/5.300 5.000/4.600/4.200
heq1 (mm) 600 600 630/630/730
heq2 (mm) 600 600 730/730/730
I (deg.) 9.5/26.6/0.0 9.5/26.6/0.0 9.5/26.6/0.0
ka 0.281/0.382/0.271 0.281/0.382/0.271 0.281/0.382/0.271b
Am 0.2286 0.2286 0.2286
Pis (kN) 43.4/43.4/34.9 43.4/43.4/34.9 43.4/43.4/34.9c
ko 0.426 0.426 0.426
ka 0.271 0.271 0.271d
z1 (m) ⫺ 1.059/ ⫺ 1.059/0.0 ⫺ 1.059/ ⫺ 1.059/0.0 ⫺ 1.059/ ⫺ 1.059/0.0
z2 (m) 4.941/4.941/6.000 4.941/4.941/6.000 4.941/4.941/6.000
Nq 33.3 33.3 33.3
Nc 46.1 46.1 46.1
N␥ 48.0 48.0 48.0
iq 0.773/0.757/0.799 0.773/0.757/0.799 0.708/0.656/0.737
ic 0.766/0.749/0.792 0.766/0.749/0.792 0.699/0.645/0.729
i␥ 0.597/0.573/0.638 0.597/0.573/0.638 0.502/0.430/0.543
␥(g) 1490.5/1472.7/1564. 1490.5/1472.7/1564. 1592.0/1634.8/1685.7
q (MPa) 0.213/0.202/0.165 0.213/0.202/0.165 0.349/0.389/0.262e
qult (MPa) or 1.288/1.410/1.261 1.288/1.410/1.261 1.101/0.948/1.122e
qall or qr (MPa) 0.430/0.470/0.421 0.430/0.470/0.421 0.496/0.426/0.505e
S (mm) 750 750 750
Shi (mm) 500/500/675 500/500/700 725/650/1100
Hm (kN) 5.431/5.431/4.360 5.431/5.431/4.360 5.431/5.431/4.360
we (mm) 47.48 47.48 47.98
te (mm) 1.48 1.48 1.98
total service life (years) 16 16 16
remaining life (years) 84 84 84
␴all or ␴r (MPa) 250.3f 250.3 386.4

a
For broken/sloping/horizontal backfill surface cases respectively (typically).
b
For computing EH.
c
Forces are for 1 m length of the wall typically.
d
For computing Pi.
e
Extreme Event I limit state with maximum (␥ factors for the LRFD.
f
Actual ␴all value for the ASD to be increased according to Table 6 of Part I of the paper. heq1 ⫽ equivalent soil height for live load for stability
computations of the reinforced soil mass; heq2 ⫽ equivalent soil height for live load for wall design; z1 ⫽ vertical location of at-rest earth pressure
coefficient ko from the top of wall (-: upward); z2 ⫽ vertical location from the top of wall; g ⫽ gravity acceleration ( ⫽ 9.81 m/s2).

References
[1] AASHTO. Standard specifications for highway bridges, 16th ed.
Washington, DC: Am. Assoc. of State Hwy. and Transp. Off.,
1996
[2] AASHTO. LRFD bridge design specifications, 1st ed. Washington,
DC: Am. Assoc. of State Hwy. and Transp. Off., 1994.
[3] Barker RM, Duncan JM, Rojiani KB, Ooi PSK, Tan CK, Kim SG.
Manuals for the design of bridge foundations. Nat. Coop. Hwy.
Res. Program Rept. 343. Washington DC: Transp. Res. Board,
1991.
[4] D’Appolonia DJ, D’Appolonia E, Brisette RF. Settlement of
spread footings on sand (closure). J. Soil Mechanics and Foun-
dations, ASCE 1970;96(2):754–61.
[5] Desai CS, Christian JT. Numerical methods in geotechnical engin-
eering. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1978.