Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-023-02078-x (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Effects of concave facing profile on the internal stability

of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls
Bin Ge1 • Yufeng Gao1 • Fei Zhang1

Received: 24 May 2023 / Accepted: 2 September 2023 / Published online: 21 September 2023
Ó The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that concave cross-sectional geometry can enhance slope stability, reduce sediment
loss, and improve mining efficiency. However, studies on the use of concave facing in geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS)
walls are limited. This study idealizes the concave facing as a circular arc whose concavity is determined by the wall
height, batter and mid-chord offset. Based on the limit equilibrium analysis, a modified top-down procedure is proposed to
investigate the impact of concave facing on the internal stability of GRS walls. Using the presented method, the distribution
of required tension along the reinforcement layer and necessary connection load can obtain while considering the pullout
capacity at a given layout and factor of safety. Sensitivity analysis, including the mid-chord offset, wall batter, rein-
forcement length, vertical spacing, and facing blocks, are carried out to explore the impacts of facing profile concavity on
the internal stability of GRS walls. Results show that concave facing can significantly reduce the required tension along the
reinforcement, and the required connection strength is sensitive to the variation in the facing profile. Increasing the wall
batter can result in a greater reduction of maximum required tension for the concave wall, but it can also increase the
connection load for most reinforcements. The concavity of the facing has no effect on the optimal reinforcement length,
which is found to be 0.7 times the wall height. The differences in maximum required tension for various facing concavities
gradually diminish when considering the toe resistance.

Keywords Concave facing  Geosynthetics  Internal stability  Limit equilibrium analysis  Reinforced soil wall

List of symbols I Central angle

A A log-spiral constant value K Normalized resultant force
CL Chord length L Reinforcement length
Ci Reinforcement interaction coefficient with lT-i Vertical distance between the pole O’’ and the
reinforced soil ith layer
Fs Factor of safety on soil strength lu Vertical distance between the emerging point
Fs-po Factor of safety on pullout and pole O’’
H Height of the GRS wall MCO Mid-chord offset
He Effective height of stacked facing blocks MCOmax Maximum value of MCO
Hu Height of the block Mw Moment generated by the weight of sliding soil
mass
n Number of reinforcement layers in the GRS
& Yufeng Gao wall
yfgao66@163.com
nr Number of reinforcement layers intersected by
Bin Ge the analyzed slip surface
bin.ge@hhu.edu.cn
ns Number of elements of the sliding mass
Fei Zhang O Origin of the cartesian coordinate system
feizhang@hhu.edu.cn
O’ Center of the circular arc
1
Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Education for O’’ Pole of the log-spiral
Geomechanics and Embankment Engineering, College of Pr Pullout capacity accumulated from the front/
Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hohai University, rear end of reinforcement layer
Nanjing 210098, China

123
5942 Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957

Rca Radius of the circular arc among different elements [15]. The design of GRS walls is
Rc Coverage ratio of reinforcements flexible and can accommodate various geometric combi-
Rh Horizontal shear resistance provided by the nations, such as wall batter and height, backslope crest and
facing blocks arrangement of offsets. In common practice, the majority
Sv Reinforcement spacing of constructed GRS walls are traditionally given a planar
Sf-i, Sr-i Overlying soil areas between point (x, y) and facing profile. There are few studies that consider the sta-
both ends of the ith reinforcement layer, bility of GRS walls/slopes with non-planar facing profiles,
respectively such as bilinear [17, 18] and concave [22]. However, some
Ti Required tensile force mobilized by the ith Japanese castles are constructed with stone walls featuring
layer a distinctive concave facing profile (e.g., castles in Nagoya,
Tmax Maximum required reinforcement tension Kumamoto and Himeji), which enhances the shear strength
To Minimum required connection strength on the respective stone surface to the maximum [20].
Treq(x) Required tensile force at the position of x on the While this curved shape may have originated from expe-
reinforcement layer rience and aesthetics, its potential engineering benefits
Wj Weight of the jth soil element have not yet been fully explored.
Wu Depth of the block Previous studies on unreinforced slopes have shown that
xcc, ycc Coordinate of O’ in the Cartesian coordinate employing concave surfaces can improve slope stability,
system reduce sediment loss, enhance the economic benefits and
xcl, ycl Coordinate of O’’ in the Cartesian coordinate reduce energy usage for mining [8, 9, 16, 20, 21, 23–25].
system Rieke-Zapp and Nearing [16] and Jeldes et al. [9] reported
xj, yj Coordinate of point on the log-spiral slip that the concave slopes exhibit superior erosion resistance
surface compared to the slopes with other contours. Wang et al.
xj Abscissa of the left midpoint of the jth soil [25] conducted a series of small shaking table tests and FE
element analyses to compare the dynamic responses of slopes with
bj Angle corresponding to point (xj, yj) planar, concave and convex facings. They found that the
b1, b2 Angles corresponding to the emerging and convex slope is the most vulnerable to failure, while the
entry points, respectively concave slopes is the most stable. Inspired by the afore-
c Soil unit weight mentioned Japanese castle walls with concave facing pro-
cb Bulk unit weight of the block files, Utili and Nova [20] assumed both the slope and slip
db-b, db-f Block-block/ Block-foundation friction angle surfaces to be log-spirals. They employed the limit analysis
g Relative reduction of total Treq(x) between GRS (LA) method and found that the concave profile can sig-
walls with planar and concave facing profiles nificantly improve stability number by approximately
h Central angle of the circular arc 30.5%. Vahedifard et al. [23] characterized the slope pro-
lM Value of MCO/MCOmax file by a circular arc defined by a single variable, the mid-
u Internal friction angle of soil chord offset (MCO) and integrated the formulation of the
x Batter of the equivalent planar wall facing circular arc profile into a stability method based on limit
Dhj Thickness of the jth soil element equilibrium (LE) to analyze the relationship between the
Db Incremental angle stability number, failure mode, seismicity, and mid-chord
offset. Hassanikhah and Drumm [8] conducted numerical
simulations to investigate the evolution of planar and
concave slopes under weather cycles (erosion). Results
showed that slopes designed to be concave may perform
better than planar slopes. Vo and Russell [24] conducted a
1 Introduction series of stability analyses for unsaturated and non-ho-
mogenous soil slopes with concave or convex surfaces, and
Geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) walls have many ben- presented stability charts which show the slope profiles at
efits, such as better seismic performance, ductility and the onset of static equilibrium. In summary, it appears that
flexibility, versatility in backfill selection, rapid construc- using a concave profile provides many benefits for slopes.
tion, low construction and maintenance costs, environ- In contrast, studies on walls with concave facing profiles
mentally friendly and enhanced aesthetic appeal are limited. Stathas et al. [19] proposed a special concave
[2, 7, 13, 14]. The use of geosynthetic materials to soil facing comprising three different options, where each
creates a complicated system that involves interaction option is designed to have several Porcupine Blocks.
Through centrifuge tests and numerical analyses, the

123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
results indicated that block offsets enhance the stability of
the wall against overturning and sliding. Besides, only
Vahedifard et al. [22] analyzed the impact of concave
facing profiles on the stability of GRS walls. They carried
out a series of LE analyses to find the optimal circular arc
facing profile which yields the least required reinforcement
tension. However, the global stability method adopted in
Vahedifard et al. [22] cannot account for the connection
load at the facing and the distribution of tensile force along
each reinforcement layer. Vahedifard et al. [22] also pre-
sented a chart illustrating the relationship between soil
volume reduction and relative facing concavity. Results
indicate that the soil volume per unit length (i.e., DA)
reduces linearly with the relative concavity of the facing
profile (i.e., MCO/MCOmax), and the reduction magnitude
increases as the batter of the structure increases. Table 1
displays the data from Vahedifard et al. [22], along with the
data further processed by the authors. Note that, DA/
(0.5H2tanx) represents the soil volume reduction beneath
the facing, while the soil under the crest of the structure
remains unchanged. Table 1 reveals that for steeper batters
(i.e., x = 10° and 20°), the percentage of maximum soil
volume reduction is more than 34%, and even beyond 50%
for gentler batters (i.e., x = 30° and 40°).
For a given layout, the top-down method can be used to
analyze the internal stability of GRS structures and assess
the demand for the required tensile force along each rein-
forcement layer with respect to pullout resistance [12]. It is
a unified method for designing GRS structures with any
batter that excludes the arbitrary distinction (i.e., 70° face
inclination) between the two design approaches [4] for
GRS walls and slopes. Leshchinsky et al. [10] pioneered to
develop the top-down method to calculate the required
tensile force along each reinforcement layer in GRS
structures. Subsequently, several studies have been con-
ducted using this method, considering different aspects
such as seismic effects [5, 11, 26] and facing blocks
Table 1 Maximum soil volume reduction for different wall batters
when MCO/MCOmax = 1.0
x Vahedifard Further processed data
(°) et al. [22]
DA/H2 DA/ Percentage of volume reduction
(0.5H2tanx) beneath the facing (%)
10 0.0300 0.3403 34.03
20 0.0668 0.3671 36.71
30 0.1204 0.4171 41.71
40 0.2112 0.5034 50.34
x wall batter, DA area confined between the tested concave profile
and the planar profile, H wall height, MCO concavity of facing with
circular arc profile, MCOmax Maximum MCO
5943
influences [11, 12]. In these studies, some used planar slip
surfaces (proposed by Culmann [3]) to analyze the internal
stability of vertical walls, while others used log-spiral slip
surfaces for inclined walls. Note that if the top-down pro-
cedure is used to investigate the impact of facing concavity
on the GRS wall’s internal stability, the wall batter must be
greater than zero.
This study aims to assess the internal stability of GRS
walls with concave facings that are idealized by a circular
arc. The aforementioned LE-based top-down procedure
combined with the log-spiral failure mechanism is utilized
here to determine the distribution of required reinforcement
tension and connection strength for each reinforcement
layer. Parametric studies are conducted (i.e., mid-chord
offset, wall batter, reinforcement length, vertical spacing,
and facing blocks) to study the impact of facing profile
concavity on the internal stability of GRS walls.
2 Stability analysis of GRS walls
with concave facings
2.1 Definition of problem
Figure 1 shows the geometry of a GRS wall with a concave
facing. There are n equally spaced reinforcement layers in
the wall, where the reinforcement spacing is denoted as Sv
and each layer has a length of L. The profile of the wall
facing is assumed to be a circular arc and is controlled by
the wall height H, batter x and mid-chord offset MCO.
Note that x is the batter of the equivalent planar wall
facing, and MCO is the distance between the midpoints of
the circular arc and the equivalent planar wall facing. The
minimum value of MCO is zero, and the wall facing is
ordinary planar. MCO gradually increases until the tangent
at the vertex of the wall facing becomes vertical, at which
point MCO reaches its maximum value MCOmax. At this
stage, the center of the circular arc O’ is at the same ele-
vation as the wall crest. If it continues to increase, the top
portion of the wall facing will exhibit ‘‘overhanging cliffs’’.
However, such a phenomenon is outside the scope of this
Fig. 1 Definition and notation of a GRS wall with concave facing
123
5944 Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957

8    
study and will not be considered hereafter. MCOmax can be > h H2 MCO
>
> x ¼ R cos x þ ¼  þ
expressed as: >
> cc ca 2
  >
>
>  2  cos x
8MCO 2
H 1 1 >
> 2MCO cos x
MCOmax ¼  ð1Þ >
< cos x þ 2 tan1
2 cos x sin x tan x    H 
>
> h H2 MCO
MCO varies in the range of 0 to MCOmax, representing > ycc ¼ Rca sin x þ
> ¼ þ
> 2
different degrees of concavity of the wall facing. It is noted
>
>
>  2  x
8MCOcos 2
>
> 1 2MCO cos x
that the maximum value of x should be limited to less than >
: sin x þ 2 tan
H
45° to prevent any intersection between the foundation and
ð10Þ
the circular arc with maximum concavity (i.e.,
MCO = MCOmax). The circle center coordinate (xcc, ycc), For any given concave wall facing profile and rein-
radius Rca, central angle h are functions of MCO, H and x. forcement layout, internal stability is carried out in this
According to Fig. 1, the chord length CL can be written as: study to calculate the required tension along each rein-
H h forcement layer. Several assumptions are taken into
CL ¼ ¼ 2Rca sin ð2Þ account in formulating this problem as follows:
cos x 2
Then, the radius Rca can be expressed as: (1) The reinforced and retained soil is cohesionless and
H possesses the same strength. The foundation soil is
Rca ¼ ð3Þ stable and there are no deep-seated failure surfaces to
2 cos x sin h2
be considered.
In addition, the distance from the chord to the center O’ (2) The trace of any slip surface follows the log-spiral
is equal to the difference between Rca and MCO: geometrical characteristics. In cases where the rein-
h forcement layers are not infinitely long, some slip
Rca  MCO ¼ Rca cos ð4Þ surfaces may partially pass through the reinforced
2
area but intersect at least one reinforcement layer.
Hence: (3) The required tension for each reinforcement layer
MCO intersected by the analyzed log-spiral slip surface is
Rca ¼ ð5Þ
1  cos h2 the same.

The formula of the central angle h can be obtained by

combining Eqs. (3) and (5): 2.2 Procedure of the top-down method
 
1 2MCO cos x The presented LE method in this study is modified from the
h ¼ 4 tan ð6Þ
H top-down procedure reported by Leshchinsky et al.
The cosine function in Eq. (5) can be converted into the [10–12]. Considering the pullout capacity at both ends of
tangent function using the tangent half-angle formulas in reinforcement layers, it calculates the required tension
trigonometry: Treq(x) along each reinforcement layer and provides the
minimum required connection strength To at the facing.
h 1  tan2 ðh4Þ H 2  4 cos2 xMCO2
cos ¼ ¼ ð7Þ Previous studies have demonstrated the reasonableness of
2 1 þ tan2 ðh4Þ H 2 þ 4 cos2 xMCO2 the top-down method in analyzing vertical walls using the
By substituting Eqs. (6) and (7) into Eq. (5), the planar slip surfaces [6, 26]. Leshchinsky et al. [12] utilized
expression of Rca can be obtained in terms of H, x and the Bishop’s method to assess the effects of block facing
MCO: units. By using log-spiral surfaces, Ge et al. [5] investi-
gated the impact of seismic amplification on the required
H2 MCO tension distribution of GRS walls with batters.
Rca ¼ þ ð8Þ
8MCO cos2 x 2 A modified LE top-down method is presented here for
The coordinate of any point (x, y) on the circular arc analyzing the internal stability of GRS walls with concave
satisfies the equation: facings. As shown in Fig. 2, a log-spiral slip surface
intersecting nr reinforcement layers defines the sliding soil
ðx  xcc Þ2 þðycc  yÞ2 ¼ R2ca ð9Þ
mass. O’’ is the pole of the log-spiral and its coordinates
where the expressions of xcc and ycc can be obtained are (xcl, ycl). b1 and b2 are the angles corresponding to the
according to Fig. 1 and Eqs. (6) and (8): emerging point and entry point, respectively. Point O is the
origin of the Cartesian coordinate system used here, located

123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
Fig. 2 Notation for the internal stability of a GRS wall with a concave
facing
at the toe of the GRS wall. The coordinates of any point (xj,
yj) on the log-spiral slip surface can be written in the
Cartesian coordinate system as:
8
> tan u
< xj ¼ xcl þ A expð b Þ sin bj
Fs j ð11Þ
> tan u
: yj ¼ ycl  A expð bj Þ cos bj
Fs
where bj is the angle between the vertical line and the line
connecting the point (xj, yj) and pole O’’; A is a log-spiral
constant value; u is the friction angle of reinforced and
retained soil; Fs is the prescribed factor of safety on the soil
strength.
Due to the inherent characteristics of the log-spiral, no
additional static assumptions are needed, and the consid-
eration of the moments related to the normal stress acting
on the slip surface is excluded. While temporarily
neglecting the effect of the facing blocks, the tensile force
Ti for the ith reinforcement layer is calculated via estab-
lishing the moment equilibrium equation between the
weight of the sliding mass and the tension supplied by the
reinforcements:
X
nr
Mw  Ti lTi ¼ 0
i¼1
where Mw is the moment generated by the weight of sliding
soil mass; nr is the number of reinforcement layers inter-
sected by the analyzed log-spiral surface; Ti is the calcu-
lated tensile force at the intersection on the ith layer; lT-i is
the vertical distance between the pole O’’ and the ith layer.
5945
Furthermore, the moment Mw is obtained by discretizing
the sliding soil mass horizontally into ns soil elements and
summing them up. Each element corresponds to Db = (b2-
b1)/ns. The thickness and weight of the jth element are
denoted as Dhj and Wj, respectively. The right midpoint of
the jth soil element is located on the slip surface, with the
coordinates of (xj, yj) that can be obtained by Eq. (11). In
addition, the coordinates of the left midpoint are denoted as
(xj, yj). The moment Mw can be calculated by means of
discretization:
Xns  
  xj þ xj
Mw ¼ c Dhj xj  xj  xcl ð13Þ
j¼1
2
where c is the soil unit weight; xj is the abscissa of the left
midpoint of the jth soil element, and it can be obtained by
using Eq. (9). The thickness Dhj is written as:
     
Db tan u Db
Dhj ¼ A exp  bj  cos bj 
  2 Fs   2 
Db tan u Db
 A exp  bj þ cos bj þ ð14Þ
2 Fs 2
Substituting Eqs. (9), (11), (13) and (14) into Eq. (12)
will get the calculated tension Ti for each reinforcement
layer intersected by the analyzed log-spiral slip surface.
Note that, in Fig. 2, the slip surface emerging at the toe
of the wall is only the last step of the top-down method,
which is used here to introduce the establishment of the
moment equilibrium equation. However, in the top-down
procedure, the emerging point will appear at the front end
of the ith (i [ 1) reinforcement layer and the toe of the wall
at different steps, and the specific steps will be introduced
later. In addition, the slip surface may also enter at the wall
facing in this study, not necessarily at the wall crest, but it
must ensure that there is no occurrence of ‘‘overhanging
cliffs’’.
As mentioned above, the top-down procedure has been
previously introduced in detail, such as by Leshchinsky
et al. [10–12], Han and Leshchinsky [6], Zhang et al. [26]
and Ge et al. [5]. Here, a brief introduction of the top-down
procedure is presented. This method calculates or updates
the demand for the tension distribution of all the rein-
forcements above the emerging point. Hence, the top-down
procedure can be presented step-by-step according to the
position of the emerging point of the slip surface. It should
ð12Þ be noted that each reinforcement is divided into a number
of segments before the calculation. Figure 3 illustrates the
procedure of producing the required tensile force of the 1st-
3rd reinforcement layers. In the first step, as shown in
Fig. 3a, all the possible log-spirals emerge at the front end
of 2nd layer. The calculated tension Ti at each segment
x intersected by a log-spiral can be obtained by using
Eq. (12), and it is noted as Treq(x). The required tension for
123
5946 Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957

ends. In Fig. 3, each reinforcement layer has a line, named

as Pr line, with different slopes at the end. The Pr line
represents the magnitude of the available pullout resistance
accumulated from the end of reinforcement. The expres-
sions of the front end and rear end pullout resistance at
point (x, y) on the ith layer can be written as Eq. (15) and
Eq. (16), respectively:
Tfi ð xÞ ¼ 2cSfi ð xÞ tan uCi Rc =Fspo ð15Þ
Tri ð xÞ ¼ 2cSri ð xÞ tan uCi Rc =Fspo ð16Þ
where Sf-i(x) and Sr-i(x) are the overlying soil areas between
point (x, y) and both ends of the ith reinforcement layer,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 4; Ci is the reinforcement
interaction coefficient with reinforced soil which is set to
be 0.8 here; Rc is the coverage ratio of reinforcements
which is chosen to be 1.0; Fs-po is the factor of safety on
pullout which is recommended to be 1.5 by AASHTO [1].
In step 3, the calculated tension near the rear end of the
top layer is larger than the available pullout resistance.
More forces are needed to be mobilized for the lower
layer(s) to compensate for the lesser force supplied by the
top layer and to meet the LE requirement. The iterative
calculation presented above continues until the wall toe
becomes the emerging point. All the reinforcement layers
in the GRS wall own the distribution of required tension
along the length. Finally, to guarantee the mobilization of
reinforcement tension near the facing, the original pullout
resistance line Pr at the front end needs to be translated
upwards by a distance of To. The translated Pr line is
tangent to the previously calculated Treq(x) distribution
curve. To is the minimum required connection strength
between the wall facing and the reinforcement.

2.3 Verification of the present method

To validate the method used in this study, the required

Fig. 3 Iterative calculation process for the distribution of required tensile force of GRS walls with concave facings presented
tension along each reinforcement in a GRS wall with a concave facing by Vahedifard et al. [22] is included here for comparison.

all the segments will be obtained after considering all the

log-spirals intersecting the 1st layer. Figure 3b shows that
for the calculation in the second step, all the slip surfaces
emerge at the front of 3rd layer. Some log-spirals intersect
both the 1st layer and 2nd layer (representing internal
failure surfaces) while others only intersect the 2nd layer
(representing compound failure surfaces) near the rear end.
The calculated total force is uniformly assigned to each
layer that intersected by the same log-spiral. Meanwhile, if
the previously calculated force at the same point is smaller,
it will be replaced, otherwise it will remain unchanged.
It should be noted that, the mobilization of reinforce-
ment tension is limited by the pullout capacity at the both Fig. 4 Definition of Sf-i(x) and Se-i(x) for point (x, y) on the ith
reinforcement

123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
Fig. 5 Comparison of normalized resultant force K
Note that Vahedifard et al. [22] utilized the LE log-spiral
global stability formulation to calculate the normalized
resultant force K corresponding to different values of
MCO/MCOmax, named as lM in this study. Figure 5 shows
that the calculated results of K versus lM for GRS walls
derived from this study are in good agreement with those
reported by Vahedifard et al. [22]. Additionally, a com-
parison with the illustrative design example of a GRS wall
in Vahedifard et al. [22] is conducted here. Unlike the
previous case, a horizontal toe resistance Rh at the bottom
of the wall was considered in the calculation. The model
parameters are set as follows: x = 15°, H = 4.8 m,
c = 20kN/m3, u = 34°, L = 3.5 m, n = 7, Sv = 0.6 m, and
Rh = 0.2RTmax-i. As shown in Table 2, the results obtained
from the presented method and Vahedifard et al. [22]
exhibit minor differences, confirming the satisfactory
agreement between the two approaches.
In the subsequent parametric analysis, the influence of
facing blocks is taken into account, consistent with the
method used by Leshchinsky et al. [11]. The facing blocks
provide horizontal shear resistance Rh at the emerging
point of the analyzed slip surface. Hence, the moment
corresponding to facing blocks should be added into
Eq. (12) as:
Table 2 Comparison of required reinforcement tension
x (°) u (°) Rh/RTmax-i MCO K = RTmax-i/(cH2)
Vahedifard et al. [22]
15 34 0.2 0 0.088
0.326 0.076
5947
X
nr
Mw  Ti lTi  Rh lu ¼ 0 ð17Þ
i¼1
where Rh = cbWuHetand; Wu and cb are the depth and bulk
unit weight of the block; He is the effective height of
stacked facing blocks above the emerging point; d = db-b
represents the block-block friction angle, and d = db-f
represents the block-foundation friction angle; lu is the
vertical distance between the emerging point and pole O’’.
Leshchinsky et al. [11] conducted the top-down analyses
on a wall with H = 5 m, x = 0°, c = 20kN/m3, u = 30°,
n = 9, Sv = 0.5 m, L = 3.5 m, Wu = 0.3 m and diverse
facing units/toe resistance to explore the effect of facing
blocks. The same parameters are applied to the present
method for benchmarking. As shown in Fig. 6, the distri-
butions of the required reinforcement force Treq(x) rendered
from the present method are found to be highly consistent
with those obtained by Leshchinsky et al. [11].
In summary, the results calculated by the proposed
method are compatible with those obtained by Vahedifard
et al. [22] and Leshchinsky et al. [11]. It confirms the
validity and accuracy of the present method in analyzing
GRS walls composed of concave facing profiles and block
units.
3 Parametric study
3.1 Baseline case
The properties of baseline case used in this study are given
as: x = 15°, H = 6 m, c = 20kN/m3, u = 30°,
L = 0.7H = 4.2 m, Sv = 0.6 m, n = 9, and three lM values
(0, 0.5, 1.0) are considered simultaneously. lM = 0 is the
lower limit of MCO/MCOmax that represents a planar fac-
ing profile, and lM = 1.0 represents the degree of facing
concavity reaches its physical limit. lM = 0.5 is the mid-
point value. The wall facing profile gradually becomes
more concave as lM changes from 0 to 1.0.
Figure 7 shows the results of To and Tmax for the base-
line case. In Fig. 7a, the required maximum tension Tmax is
uniformly distributed amongst all reinforcement layers for
RTmax-i (kN/m)
This study Vahedifard et al. [22] This study
0.087 40.8 40.3
0.078 35.1 36.0
123
5948
Fig. 6 Comparison of required tension distribution Treq(x) along reinforcement layers
different lM values. Meanwhile, as illustrated in Fig. 7b,
the loci of Tmax for different lM are all along the trace of a
singular log-spiral which means that the layout (e.g., length
and spacing) of reinforcement layers for baseline case are
sufficient to mobilize the required tensile resistance. It is
found that a concave facing profile can benefit the decrease
of Tmax (up to 9.1%, at MCO = 1.0) but increase the values
of To at the middle and bottom layers. However, it has little
effect on the locus of Tmax, at least for the baseline case.
Further examination of the effects of design parameters is
elaborated in the subsequent sections.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of Treq(x) along each
reinforcement layer for the baseline case. As the value of
lM increases, Tmax decreases for all layers. In general, as
lM increases, Treq(x) decreases in the middle and rear
sections of the reinforcement layer except for segments
123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
where the rear end pullout resistance limits the reduction.
Furthermore, Treq(x) adjacent to the wall facing increases,
and for the 5-9th layers, the value of minimum required
connection strength To increases, which is also shown in
Fig. 7. To further explain this phenomenon, Fig. 9 illus-
trates the distribution of Treq(x) and front end pullout line
Pr (the tangent one is after upward translation). As can be
seen, for upper reinforcement layers, the original front end
resistance curve for the planar wall facing is below that for
concave facing. However, the situation gets inverted as the
depth increases. It is attributed to that the portion of the
reinforcement layer under the concave wall facing increa-
ses with depth, but it is subjected to less overburden
pressure than that under the planar facing. The concave
facing profile (determined by wall batter, height and facing
concavity) affects the distribution of overburden pressure
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
Fig. 7 Influence of lM on: a To and Tmax; b locus of Tmax for the baseline case
on the front portion of the reinforcement. The minimum
required connection load To at the front end is determined
by the Pr line and its upward translation distance. Hence, To
is susceptible to the wall facing profile.
3.2 Influence of wall batter
As previously discussed, wall batter can apparently affect
the distribution of front end pullout resistance. The results
of two different wall batters (i.e., x = 5° and x = 30°) are
given here as a comparison. Figure 10a shows the effect of
lM on the required maximum reinforcement tension Tmax
and connection strength To for the wall batter x = 5°.
There is a clear difference in the distribution of To for
middle layers with baseline case (x = 15°). The To values
of the 3rd-5th layers decrease as the wall facing becomes
more curved. Figure 11 shows the Pr line and distribution
of Treq(x) for the 4th and bottom layers. It can be seen that
the original Pr lines for the planar and concave wall facing
are very close when x = 5°, which is different from that
when x = 15° (i.e., baseline case). It highlights that the
minor difference in the distribution of Pr line may signif-
icantly affect the results of To. Besides, the distribution of
Tmax is no longer uniform when x = 5°, and Tmax is only
reduced by 5.4% due to the concave facing. As shown in
Fig. 10b, the upper three layers are restricted by the rear
end pullout capacity whereas the lower six layers are
dominated by a compound failure surface. It seems that the
wall facing profile has little effect on Tmax and locus of
Tmax for steep walls (e.g., x = 5°).
In Fig. 12, for x = 30°, the reduction in Tmax due to the
concave facing is very similar for MCO of 0.5 and 1.0, and
all loci of Tmax are along the singular log-spiral. Significant
differences in the values of To for different wall facing
5949
profiles are observed. Large connection strength is needed
for the lower reinforcements when lM increases, except for
the bottommost layer. As can be seen in Fig. 12a, for the
6th layer, the value of To is 4.03kN/m for lM = 1.0, which
is 2.14 times that for lM = 0. Moreover, the value of Tmax
is reduced by 10.2% due to the concave facing profile
while the reduction rates are 5.4 and 9.1% for x = 5° and
15°, respectively. It can be concluded that an increase in
the wall batter leads to a more significant reduction in Tmax
when MCO = 1.0, but it has a more adverse effect on To.
3.3 Influence of reinforcement spacing
Figure 13a, b show the values of To and Tmax for the nar-
row and loose reinforcement layouts, respectively. It
should be noted that the walls with reinforcement spacing
Sv = 0.3 m and Sv = 0.9 m have 19 and 6 equally spaced
layers, respectively. Both results seem to follow a similar
pattern with the results from the baseline case, and
increasing the value of lM results in a decrease of Tmax.
Interestingly, when lM rises from 0 to 1.0, the maximum
reduction in Tmax due to the facing concavity is the same
for different spacings, which is 9.1%.
3.4 Influence of reinforcement length
Reinforcement length is one of the important factors to
provide stability for GRS walls. Figures 14 and 15 are
plotted to investigate the impact of reinforcement length on
the walls with different facing concavities. In Fig. 14, the
non-dimensional coefficient KT represents the total
required reinforcement tension calculated from the top-
down method used in the present study. As can be seen, the
value of KT gradually decreases with the reinforcement
123
5950 Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957

b Fig. 8 Distribution of Treq(x) along each reinforcement layer for the

baseline case

Fig. 9 Distribution of Treq(x) and Pr line along typical reinforcement

layers for the baseline case

length and then reaches a constant value until the rein-

forcement length L beyond Lo = 0.7H. In general, the
profile of the wall facing has no effect on the value of Lo.
L = 0.7H is sufficient to enable the reinforcement in the
wall to mobilize its intrinsic tensile force, at least to uni-
formly mobilize Tmax without the limitation of pullout
capacity. Besides, as presented in Fig. 15, for each value of
lM, the reinforcement length ranging from 0.5H to
0.7H does not affect the distribution of To along the wall
height except for the bottom two layers. It is noteworthy to
mention that shorter reinforcement lengths may produce
different results due to the influence of pullout resistance,
but it is not considered in this study.

123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
Fig. 10 Influence of lM on: a To and Tmax; b locus of Tmax for x = 5°
Fig. 11 Distribution of Treq(x) and Pr line along the 4th and 9th
reinforcement layers for x = 5°
Fig. 12 Influence of lM on: a To and Tmax; b locus of Tmax for x = 30°
5951
3.5 Influence of facing blocks
Previous studies on the impact of facing blocks conducted
by Leshchinsky et al. [11, 12] demonstrate that considering
small block facing units could affect the values of Tmax and
To for walls with planar wall facings. A similar case with
cb = 24kN/m3, Wu = Hu = 0.3 m, db-b = 50° and db-f = 0°-
50° is utilized here while the concave facing profiles are
taken into analysis. cb is the bulk unit weight of blocks, Wu
and Hu are the depth and height of the block, respectively,
db-b and db-f are the block-block and block-foundation
interface friction angles, respectively. Only horizontal
frictional resistance between facing blocks or the bottom
block and foundation soil is considered as resisting force in
the moment equilibrium. Note that this horizontal shear
resistance is the function of the aforementioned parameters
of facing blocks and the number of blocks stacked at the
123
5952
Fig. 13 Influence of lM on To and Tmax for a Sv = 0.3 m; b Sv = 0.9 m
Fig. 14 Variation of KT with different L/H
Fig. 15 Influence of L on To for: a lM = 0; b lM = 0.5; c lM = 1.0
emerging point of the analyzed slip surface in the top-down
procedure.
123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
Figure 16 shows the effect of db-b and db-f on Tmax and
To. For db-b = 50° and db-f = 0, a comparison with the
results depicted in Fig. 7 reveals that without the toe
resistance, the inclusion of db-b has no effect on Tmax.
However, To is more sensitive to the occurrence of shear
resistance from facing blocks. To of the top two layers
drops significantly as lM increases. Nevertheless, the
connection for the middle layers requires larger strength.
With the increase of db-f or the toe resistance, the differ-
ence in Tmax as well as in To of the lower layers diminishes.
Furthermore, To of the upper layers decreases to near zero,
especially for lM = 1.0.
In general, incorporating facing blocks for walls with
concave facing profiles may lead to the result that minor
connection strength is required for the upper layers.
Besides, the difference in the requirement of Tmax for
reinforcement layers among the walls with different lM
diminishes as the toe resistance increases.
4 Variation of g with lM
The top-down method presented in this study can be
employed to calculate the required tensile force Treq(x) for
all the segments along each reinforcement layer. At the end
of this procedure, the potential slip surface that intersects
with any of the reinforcement layers can attain the same Fs.
In other words, all the calculated tensions along the rein-
forcement layers are meaningful as they can produce a
limit state where the soil strength is uniformly mobilized
throughout the wall. Hence, the total maximum Treq(x) at
all the segments for reinforcements represents the required
force provided by the reinforcements to ensure the stability
of the reinforced mass. A reduction in this value suggests
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957 5953

that the GRS wall system, including the wall geometry, soil
property as well as reinforcement layout, is rationally and
optimally designed. In order to compare the difference
between the total Treq(x) obtained from the wall with planar
facing and with concave facing, a dimensionless coefficient
g is introduced here. g represents the relative reduction of
total Treq(x), and is defined as:
Kp  Kc
g¼ ð18Þ
Kp
where Kp and Kc are the sum of Treq(x) at all the segments
on the reinforcements of the wall with planar facing and the
wall with concave facing, respectively.

4.1 Under different wall batters

Figure 17 shows the variation of g with lM under different

wall batters. Note that the reinforcement length L is
selected as 20 m to exclude the influence of the rear end
pullout resistance and compound failure on the mobiliza-
tion of Treq(x) and the u values of 30° and 40° represent the
quality of soil compaction during construction. For
u = 30° (i.e., Fig. 17a), a linear relationship between g and
lM is demonstrated for x ranging from 5° to 20°.
According to AASHTO [1] and FHWA [4], a wall is
defined when the face inclination is more than 70°.
Therefore, it can be observed that as the concavity of the
wall facing increases, the reduction in the total required
reinforcement tension increases correspondingly. However,
when x = 30° (as a steep slope), the increase of the slope
concavity does not continually bring out the increase of g;
instead, a peak value exists. As lM exceeds 0.9, an increase
in the curvature results in a decrease in g. This indicates
that the optimal concavity of the GRS slope is not at lM-
= 1.0 as in the case of a GRS wall, but rather is less than
1.0. Similarly, for u = 40°, only the steep slope has an
optimal lM value less than 1.0, which is 0.6. Moreover,
compared to the results of u = 30°, the concave wall facing
leads to a greater reduction in the total required rein-
forcement tension.

4.2 Under different wall heights

The height of GRS walls is also a significant factor that

affects the wall stability. The variation of g with lM under
Fig. 16 Influence of facing blocks on To and Tmax for a db-b = 50°, db- different H are presented in Figs. 18 and 19 in order to
f = 0°; b db-b = 50°, db-f = 30°; b db-b = 50°, db-f = 50° considering analyze the influence of wall heights. Figure 18a, b show
different values of lM

123
5954 Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957

Fig. 17 Variation of g with lM under different wall batters for a u = 30°; b u = 40°

Fig. 18 Variation of g with lM under different wall heights for a u = 30°; b u = 40° with wall batter x = 15°

Fig. 19 Variation of g with lM under different wall heights for a u = 30°; b u = 40° with wall batter x = 35°

123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
Fig. 20 Variation of g with lM under different reinforcement spacings for a u = 30°; b u = 40° with wall batter x = 15°
Fig. 21 Variation of g with lM under different reinforcement spacings for a u = 30°; b u = 40° with wall batter x = 30°
the results for u = 30° and u = 40°, respectively, under
x = 15°. It can be seen that g increases slightly with the
increase of H, but the effect of H gradually diminishes as
lM decreases. Figure 19 examines the effect of H on the
steep GRS slope (i.e., x = 30°). In Fig. 19a, slope height
H has no effects on the variation of g with lM for u = 30°.
Nevertheless, in Fig. 19b, the GRS slope obtained the
largest g when using the concave facing profile for
u = 40°. Besides, when the GRS structure is equipped with
a planar facing (i.e., lM = 0), the wall/slope height H has
no effect on the relative reduction of the total required
reinforcement tension.
4.3 Under different spacings
Figures 20 and 21 illustrate the variation of g with lM
under different reinforcement spacings for the GRS wall
and steep slope, respectively. For the GRS walls with
5955
x = 15°, the impact of increasing the reinforcement spac-
ing Sv on the curve of g versus lM is similar to the impact
of reducing the wall height on the curve shown in Fig. 18.
For the GRS slopes with x = 30°, the reinforcement
spacing Sv has an influence on the curve of g-lM merely at
u = 40°. Especially, the effect of Sv on g is pronounced for
larger lM, and the value of g increases with denser rein-
forcements. In general, for GRS walls, the value of g
increases continuously with increasing lM and reaches a
maximum value at lM = 1.0. For steep GRS slopes, the
value of g increases with increasing lM and then decreases
after reaching a peak. The optimal values of lM for GRS
slopes are 0.9 and 0.6 for u = 30° and 40°, respectively.
123
5956
5 Conclusions
This paper investigates the internal stability of GRS walls
featuring a concave (circular arc) facing profile. A LE-
based top-down procedure combined with log-spiral slip
surfaces is used here to calculate the distribution of
required tension and connection strength for each rein-
forcement layer. Parametric studies are conducted to
explore the effects of various factors, such as mid-chord
offset, wall batter, reinforcement length, vertical spacing,
and facing blocks, on the required tension and connection
loads. The following conclusions can be drawn from this
study.
(1) Using a concave facing profile can reduce the
required tensile force Treq(x) along most of the
reinforcement length. As a result, it decreases the
maximum required tension Tmax amongst all the
reinforcements but increases the minimum required
connection load To for the middle and bottom layers.
The concave facing profile affects the overburden
pressure near the front end of reinforcements, which
leads to the required connection strength To being
sensitive to the wall facing profile.
(2) The increase in the wall batter and concavity can
significantly reduce Tmax compared to the walls with
planar wall facings; however, a large number of
reinforcement layers results in great values of To.
(3) For different vertical reinforcement spacings, the
concave facing profile has no effect on the reduction
degree of Tmax. In addition, the effect of reinforce-
ment length on To is minimal, and the optimal length
for reinforcement is 0.7H, which is irrelevant to the
profile of the wall facing.
(4) When only taking into account the block-to-block
resistance, the effect of facing concavity on Tmax is
the same as that in the baseline model. However, the
difference in Tmax obtained for different facing
concavities gradually disappears as the resistance
of the toe resistance increases. The presence of
facing blocks can significantly reduce the required
connection load To of the reinforcement layers at the
top of the GRS wall.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 52078185 and
52322808), the Graduate Research and Innovation Projects of Jiangsu
Province (Grant No. KYCX23_0700) and the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. B220202013).
Data availability Data will be made available upon reasonable
request.
123
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
References
1. AASHTO (2020) Standard specifications for highway bridges.
AASHTO, Washington, DC
2. Alhajj Chehade H, Dias D, Sadek M, Jenck O, Hage Chehade F
(2021) Pseudo-static analysis of reinforced earth retaining walls.
Acta Geotech 16:2275–2289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-
021-01148-2
3. Culmann K (1866) Die graphische statik. Theorie der stutz und
futtermauern, Meyer und Zeller, Zurich, Switzerland.
4. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) (2009) Design and
construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced
soil slope. FHWA, Washington, DC
5. Ge B, Ruan HN, Shu S, Zhang F, Gao YF (2022) Effects of
seismic amplification on the stability design of geosynthetic-re-
inforced soil walls. Geotext Geomembranes 50(5):881–895.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2022.05.003
6. Han J, Leshchinsky D (2006) General analytical framework for
design of flexible reinforced earth structures. J Geotech Geoen-
viron 132(11):1427–1435. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-
0241(2006)132:11(1427)
7. Han J, Jiang Y, Cao X (2018) Recent advances in geosynthetics-
reinforced retaining walls for highway applications. Front Struct
Civ Eng 12(2):239–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-
0424-8
8. Hassanikhah A, Drumm EC (2020) Stability and evolution of
planar and concave slopes under unsaturated and rainfall condi-
tions. Int J Geomech 20(7):04020099. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001662
9. Jeldes IA, Drumm EC, Yoder DC (2015) Design of stable con-
cave slopes for reduced sediment delivery. J Geotech Geoenviron
141(2):04014093. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0001211
10. Leshchinsky D, Ling HI, Hanks G (1995) Unified design
approach to geosynthetic-reinforced slopes and segmental walls.
Geosynth Int 2(5):845–881. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2.0039
11. Leshchinsky D, Kang B, Han J, Ling HI (2014) Framework for
limit state design of geosynthetic-reinforced walls and slopes.
Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol 1(2):129–164. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40515-014-0006-3
12. Leshchinsky D, Leshchinsky B, Leshchinsky O (2017) Limit
state design framework for geosynthetic-reinforced soil struc-
tures. Geotext Geomembranes 45(6):642–652. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.geotexmem.2017.08.005
13. Ling HI, Leshchinsky D, Chou NNS (2001) Post-earthquake
investigation on several geosynthetics-reinforced soil retaining
walls and slopes during the Ji-Ji earthquake of Taiwan. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 21(4):297–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-
7261(01)00011-2
14. Ling HI, Mohri Y, Leshchinsky D, Burke C, Matsushima K, Liu
HB (2005) Large-scale shaking table tests on modular-block
reinforced soil retaining walls. J Geotech Geoenviron
131(4):465–476. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2005)131:4(465)
15. Ling HI, Liu H (2009) Deformation analysis of reinforced soil
retaining walls-simplistic versus sophisticated finite element
analyses. Acta Geotech 4:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11440-009-0091-6
16. Rieke-Zapp DH, Nearing MA (2005) Slope shape effects on
erosion: a laboratory study. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69(5):1463–1471.
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0015
17. Ruan XB, Leshchinsky D, Leshchinsky BA (2015) Global sta-
bility of bilinear reinforced slopes. Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol
2:34–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-014-0015-2
Acta Geotechnica (2023) 18:5941–5957
18. Ruan XB, Guo X, Luo YS, Sun SL (2017) Seismic design of
bilinear geosynthetic-reinforced slopes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
100:454–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.06.020
19. Stathas D, Wang JP, Ling HI (2021) Behavior of concave seg-
mental soil retaining wall using Porcupine Blocks. Int J Geomech
21(8):04021138. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.
0002082
20. Utili S, Nova R (2007) On the optimal profile of a slope. Soils
Found 47(4):717–729. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.47.717
21. Utili S, Agosti A, Morales N, Valderrama C, Pell R, Albornoz G
(2022) Optimal pitwall shapes to increase financial return and
decrease carbon footprint of open pit mines. Mining Metall
Explor 39:335–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-022-00546-8
22. Vahedifard F, Shahrokhabadi S, Leshchinsky D (2016) Geosyn-
thetic-reinforced soil structures with concave facing profile.
Geotext Geomembranes 44(3):358–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2016.01.004
23. Vahedifard F, Shahrokhabadi S, Leshchinsky D (2016) Optimal
profile for concave slopes under static and seismic conditions.
Can Geotech J 53(9):1522–1532. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-
2016-0057
5957
24. Vo T, Russell AR (2017) Stability charts for curvilinear slopes in
unsaturated soils. Soils Found 57(4):543–556. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.sandf.2017.06.005
25. Wang GL, Zhang L, Huang ZW, Liu BL, Qiu PY (2019) Analysis
of the seismic effect of slopes with different shapes under
dynamic loads. Geotech Geol Eng 37(3):1779–1791. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10706-018-0722-5
26. Zhang F, Zhu YM, Chen YB, Yang SC (2021) Seismic effects on
reinforcement load and lateral deformation of geosynthetic-rein-
forced soil walls. Front Struct Civ Eng 15(4):1001–1015. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11709-021-0734-8
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the
accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
123