FHWA-NHI-10-024 (LRFD-Vol 1&2)

this document downloaded from Terms and Conditions of Use:
vulcanhammer.net
All of the information, data and computer software
(“information”) presented on this web site is for general
information only. While every effort will be made to insure
Since 1997, your complete its accuracy, this information should not be used or relied on
for any specific application without independent, competent
online resource for professional examination and verification of its accuracy,
suitability and applicability by a licensed professional. Anyone
information geotecnical making use of this information does so at his or her own risk
and assumes any and all liability resulting from such use.
engineering and deep The entire risk as to quality or usability of the information
foundations: contained within is with the reader. In no event will this web
page or webmaster be held liable, nor does this web page
or its webmaster provide insurance against liability, for
The Wave Equation Page for any damages including lost profits, lost savings or any
other incidental or consequential damages arising from
Piling the use or inability to use the information contained
within.
Online books on all aspects of
This site is not an official site of Prentice-Hall,
soil mechanics, foundations and Pile Buck, the University of Tennessee at
marine construction Chattanooga, or Vulcan Foundation
Equipment. All references to sources of
Free general engineering and software, equipment, parts, service
or repairs do not constitute an
geotechnical software endorsement.
And much more...
Visit our
companion site
http://www.vulcanhammer.org
U. S. Department of Transportation Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-024
Federal Highway Administration FHWA GEC 011 – Volume I
November 2009
NHI Courses No. 132042 and 132043
Design and Construction of

Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume I
Developed following:
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction
Specifications, 4th Edition, 2007, Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2004, with
with 2008 and 2009 Interims. 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Interims.
NOTICE
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect policy of the
Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or
regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade
or manufacturer's names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of
this document.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.
ACCESSION NO.
FHWA-NHI-10-024 FHWA GEC 011-Vol I
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
November 2009
Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume I
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Ryan R. Berg, P.E.; Barry R. Christopher,
Ph.D., P.E. and Naresh C. Samtani, Ph.D., P.E.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.
Ryan R. Berg & Associates, Inc. 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.
2190 Leyland Alcove DTFH61-06-D-00019/T-06-001
Woodbury, MN 55125
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
National Highway Institute
Federal Highway Administration 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

FHWA Technical Consultants: Rich Barrows, P.E., Silas Nichols, P.E., and Daniel Alzamora, P.E.
Technical Consultant: James G. Collin, Ph.D., P.E.
16. ABSTRACT
This manual is the reference text used for the FHWA NHI courses No. 132042 and 132043
on Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes and reflects current
practice for the design, construction and monitoring of these structures. This manual was
prepared to enable the engineer to identify and evaluate potential applications of MSE walls
and RSS as an alternative to other construction methods and as a means to solve construction
problems. The scope is sufficiently broad to be of value for specifications specialists,
construction and contracting personnel responsible for construction inspection, development
of material specifications and contracting methods. With the aid of this text, the engineer
should be able to properly select, design, specify, monitor and contract for the construction of
MSE walls and RSS embankments.
The MSE wall design within this manual is based upon Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) procedures. This manual is a revision (to LRFD) and an update to the FHWA NHI-
00-043 manual (which was based upon allowable stress design (ASD) procedures).
17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Design, Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD), analysis, performance criteria, No restrictions.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls,
Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS), soil reinforcement,
geosynthetics, specifications, contracting methods
19. SECURITY CLASSIF. 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. 21. NO. OF PAGES 22

Unclassified Unclassified 306
SI CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME
ml millimeters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
l liters 0.264 gallons gal
m3 cubic meters 35.71 cubic feet ft3
m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
TEMPERATURE
°C Celsius 1.8 C + 32 Fahrenheit °F
WEIGHT DENSITY
kN/m3 kilonewton / cubic m 6.36 poundforce / cubic foot pcf
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
kN kilonewtons 225 poundforce lbf
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce / sq in. psi
kPa kilopascals 20.9 poundforce / sq ft psf
PREFACE
Engineers and specialty material suppliers have been designing reinforced soil structures for
the past 35 years. Currently, many state DOTs are transitioning their design of substructures
from Allowable Stress Design (ASD) to Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
procedures.
This manual is based upon LRFD for MSE wall structures. It has been updated from the
2001 FHWA NHI-00-043 manual. In addition to revision of the wall design to LRFD
procedures, expanded discussion on wall detailing and general updates throughout the
manual are provided. The primary purpose of this manual is to support educational programs
conducted by FHWA for transportation agencies.
A second purpose of equal importance is to serve as the FHWA standard reference for
highway projects involving MSE wall and reinforced soil structures.
This Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSE) and Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS), Design
and Construction Guidelines Manual which is an update of the current FHWA NHI-00-043,
has evolved from the following AASHTO and FHWA references:
C AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Edition, 2007, with 2008 and 2009
Interim Revisions.
C Earth Retaining Structures, by B.F. Tanyu, P.J. Sabatini, and R.R. Berg, FHWA-NHI-07-
071 (2008).
C AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2004, with 2006
Interim Revisions.
C Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines, by R.D. Holtz, B.R. Christopher, and
R.R. Berg, FHWA HI-07-092 (2008).
C Guidelines for Design, Specification, and Contracting of Geosynthetic Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Slopes on Firm Foundations, by R.R. Berg, FHWA-SA-93-025, January
1993.
C Reinforced Soil Structures - Volume I, Design and Construction Guidelines - Volume II,
Summary of Research and Systems Information, by B.R. Christopher, S.A. Gill, J.P.
Giroud, J.K. Mitchell, F. Schlosser, and J. Dunnicliff, FHWA RD 89-043 (1990).
C Design and Construction Monitoring of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Structures, by
J.A. DiMaggio, FHWA, (1994).
C AASHTO Bridge T-15 Technical Committee unpublished working drafts for the update
of Section 11.0 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
FHWA NHI-10-024
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I iii November 2009
The authors recognize the efforts and contributions of Messrs. Richard Barrows, P.E., Silas
Nichols, P.E., and Daniel Alzamora P.E. who were the FHWA Technical Consultants for this
work.
The authors also recognize the contributions of the other Technical Consultants on this
project. They are:
C Tony Allen, P.E. of Washington DOT
C Christopher Benda, P.E. of Vermont DOT
C James Brennan, P.E. of Kansas DOT
C James Collin, Ph.D., P.E. of The Collin Group
C Jerry DiMaggio, P.E. of the National Academy of Sciences
C Kenneth L. Fishman, Ph.D., P.E. of Earth Reinforcement Testing, Inc.
C Kathryn Griswell, P.E. of CALTRANS
C John Guido, P.E. of Ohio DOT
C Dan Johnston, P.E. of South Dakota DOT
C Dov Leshchinsky, Ph.D. of the University of Delaware
C Michael Simac, P.E. of Earth Improvement Technologies, Inc.
C James L. Withiam, Ph.D., P.E. of D’Appolonia Engineers
And the authors acknowledge the contributions of the following industry associations:
C Association of Metallically Stabilized Earth (AMSE)
C Geosynthetic Materials Association (GMA)
C National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA)
A special acknowledgement of Mr. Jerry A. DiMaggio, P.E. who was the FHWA Technical
Consultant for most of the above referenced publications. Mr. DiMaggio's guidance and
input to this and the previous works has been invaluable.
Lastly, the authors wish to acknowledge the extensive work of the late Victor Elias, P.E. for
his vital contributions and significant effort as Lead Author in preparing the earlier two
(1997, 2001) versions of this manual, and as the author of the earlier companion manuals on
corrosion/degradation of soil reinforcements. Mr. Elias was instrumental in the introduction
and implementation of reinforced soil technology in the U.S., as a Vice President for The
Reinforced Earth Company from 1974 to 1985. He was instrumental in research, refinement
of design methods, and standards of practice and codes for MSE walls, as a Consultant from
1985 until 2006.
FHWA NHI-10-024
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I iv November 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume I
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Scope ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Source Documents ................................................................................... 1-2
1.1.3 Terminology............................................................................................. 1-3
1.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 1-4
1.3 LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) ............................... 1-12
CHAPTER 2 SYSTEMS AND PROJECT EVALUATION....................................................... 2-1

2.1 APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 MSE Walls ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Reinforced Soil Slopes............................................................................. 2-4
2.2 ADVANTAGES AND POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES............................... 2-6
2.2.1 Advantages of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls................... 2-6
2.2.2 Advantages of Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS).......................................... 2-6
2.2.3 Potential Disadvantages ........................................................................... 2-7
2.3 RELATIVE COSTS............................................................................................. 2-7
2.4 DESCRIPTION OF MSE/RSS SYSTEMS ....................................................... 2-10
2.4.1 Systems Differentiation ......................................................................... 2-10
2.4.2 Types of Systems ................................................................................... 2-11
2.4.3 Facing Systems ...................................................................................... 2-12
2.4.4 Reinforcement Types ............................................................................. 2-16
2.4.5 Reinforced Fill Materials ....................................................................... 2-17
2.4.6 Appurtenant Materials of Construction ................................................. 2-18
2.5 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE....................................................................... 2-18
2.5.1 Construction of MSEW systems with precast facings........................... 2-18
2.5.2 Construction of MSE systems with Flexible Facings ............................ 2-24
2.5.3 RSS Construction................................................................................... 2-28
2.6 SITE EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 2-28
2.6.1 Site Exploration ..................................................................................... 2-28
2.6.2 Field Reconnaissance............................................................................. 2-30
2.6.3 Subsurface Exploration.......................................................................... 2-30
2.6.4 Laboratory Testing................................................................................. 2-32
2.6.5 Foundation Soils .................................................................................... 2-33
2.7 PROJECT EVALUATION................................................................................ 2-34
2.7.1 Structure Selection Factors .................................................................... 2-34
2.7.2 Geologic and Topographic Conditions .................................................. 2-35
2.7.3 Environmental Conditions ..................................................................... 2-36
2.7.4 Size and Nature of Structure .................................................................. 2-37
2.7.5 Aesthetics............................................................................................... 2-38
2.7.6 Questionable Applications ..................................................................... 2-38
2.8 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROJECT CRITERIA ............................................... 2-38
2.8.1 Alternates ............................................................................................... 2-39
2.8.2 Facing Considerations............................................................................ 2-39
FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I v November 2009
2.8.3 Performance Criteria.............................................................................. 2-40
2.8.4 Design Life............................................................................................. 2-46
2.9 PROPRIETARY ASPECTS .............................................................................. 2-46
2.10 CASE HISTORIES -- MSE WALLS ................................................................ 2-47
2.10.1 Mn/DOT Crosstown Project MSE Walls............................................... 2-47
2.10.2 Veterans Memorial Overpass True Abutment MSE Walls.................... 2-49
2.10.3 SEATAC Runway Extension Wall........................................................ 2-50
2.10.4 Guanella Pass Roadway Reconstruction................................................ 2-51
CHAPTER 3 SOIL REINFORCEMENT PRINCIPLES

AND SYSTEM DESIGN PROPERTIES........................................................................ 3-1
3.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF ENGINEERING PROPERTIES BASED ON SITE
EXPLORATION AND TESTING ...................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Reinforced Fill Soil.................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.2 Retained Backfill and Natural Retained Soil ........................................... 3-8
3.2.3 Electrochemical Properties ...................................................................... 3-9
3.3 REINFORCED SOIL CONCEPTS ................................................................... 3-10
3.3.1 Stress Transfer Mechanisms .................................................................. 3-10
3.3.2 Mode of Reinforcement Action ............................................................. 3-12
3.3.3 Geometric Characteristics...................................................................... 3-12
3.4 SOIL REINFORCEMENT INTERACTION USING NORMALIZED
CONCEPTS ....................................................................................................... 3-13
3.4.1 Evaluation of Pullout Performance........................................................ 3-13
3.4.2 Estimate of the Reinforcement Pullout Capacity in MSE Structures .... 3-16
3.4.3 Interface Shear ....................................................................................... 3-21
3.5 ESTABLISHMENT OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN PROPERTIES ................. 3-22
3.5.1 Strength Properties of Steel Reinforcements ......................................... 3-22
3.5.2 Strength Properties of Geosynthetic Reinforcement.............................. 3-28
3.5.2.a Ultimate Tensile Strength, Tult ................................................... 3-31
3.5.2.b Installation Damage Reduction Factor, RFID ............................. 3-31
3.5.2.c Creep Reduction Factor, RFCR ................................................... 3-32
3.5.2.d Durability Reduction Factor, RFD.............................................. 3-33
3.5.2.e Durability Reduction Factor, RFD, at Wall Face Unit ............... 3-38
3.5.2.f LRFD Geosynthetic Resistance Factor, .................................. 3-38
3.5.2.g Preliminary Design Reduction Factor, RF................................. 3-39
3.5.2.h Serviceability Limit State .......................................................... 3-40
3.6 FACING MATERIALS..................................................................................... 3-41
3.6.1 Precast Concrete Panels ......................................................................... 3-41
3.6.1.a Segmental Panels ....................................................................... 3-41
3.6.1.b Full-Height Panels ..................................................................... 3-42
3.6.2 Modular Block Wall (MBW) Units ....................................................... 3-43
3.6.3 Welded Wire Mesh Facing .................................................................... 3-46
3.6.4 Geosynthetic Wrap-Around Facing ....................................................... 3-47
3.6.5 Other Facings ......................................................................................... 3-47
3.6.6 Two-Stage Facings................................................................................. 3-50
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I vi November 2009
CHAPTER 4 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS .................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS METHODS ............................ 4-1
4.1.1 Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Platform ............................ 4-1
4.1.2 Analysis Methods..................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS........................................................... 4-3
4.3 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS USING LRFD METHODOLOGY ........................ 4-6
4.3.1 Design Steps............................................................................................. 4-7
4.4 MSE WALLS DESIGN GUIDELINES .............................................................. 4-9
4.4.1 Step 1 - Establish Project Requirements.................................................. 4-9
4.4.2 Step 2 - Establish Project Parameters ...................................................... 4-9
4.4.3 Step 3 - Estimate Wall Embedment Depth & Reinforcement Length ... 4-10
4.4.4 Step 4 - Define Nominal Loads ............................................................. 4-11
4.4.5 Step 5 - Summarize Load Combinations, Load Factors, and Resistance
Factors ................................................................................................... 4-17
4.4.6 Step 6 - Evaluate External Stability ....................................................... 4-18
4.4.6.a Evaluate Sliding Stability .......................................................... 4-19
4.4.6.b Evaluate Eccentricity ................................................................. 4-22
4.4.6.c Evaluate Bearing on Foundation................................................ 4-26
4.4.6.d Settlement Estimate ................................................................... 4-31
4.4.7 Step 7 - Evaluate Internal Stability ........................................................ 4-31
4.4.7.a Select Type of Reinforcement ................................................... 4-32
4.4.7.b Define Critical Slip Surface ....................................................... 4-33
4.4.7.c Define Unfactored Loads........................................................... 4-35
4.4.7.d Establish Vertical Layout of Soil Reinforcements..................... 4-38
4.4.7.e Calculate Factored Tensile Forces in Reinforcements............... 4-39
4.4.7.f Calculate Soil Reinforcement Resistance .................................. 4-47
4.4.7.g Select Grade of &/or Number of Elements at Each Level......... 4-49
4.4.7.h Internal Stability with Respect to Pullout Failure...................... 4-49
4.4.7.i Check Connection Strength ....................................................... 4-52
4.4.7.j Lateral Movements .................................................................... 4-57
4.4.7.k Vertical Movement and Bearing Pads ....................................... 4-57
4.4.8 Step 8 - Design of Facing Elements....................................................... 4-58
4.4.8.a Design of Concrete, Steel, and Timber Facings ........................ 4-58
4.4.8.b Design of Flexible Wall Facings................................................ 4-59
4.4.9 Step 9 - Assess Overall Stability............................................................ 4-59
4.4.10 Step 10 - Assess Compound Stability.................................................... 4-61
4.4.11 Step 11 - Wall Drainage Systems .......................................................... 4-65
4.11.a Surface Drainage........................................................................ 4-65
4.11.b Surface Water Runoff ................................................................ 4-65
4.11.c Scour .......................................................................................... 4-65
4.5 TEMPORARY WALLS .................................................................................... 4-66
4.6 DESIGN CHECKLIST...................................................................................... 4-66
4.7 COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN ........................................................................ 4-80
4.8 VENDOR........................................................................................................... 4-80
4.9 STANDARD MSEW DESIGNS....................................................................... 4-80

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I vii November 2009
CHAPTER 5 MSE WALL DESIGN DETAILS ......................................................................... 5-1
5.1 TOP OF WALL ELEMENTS ............................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Copings .................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Traffic Barriers......................................................................................... 5-4
5.1.3 Parapets .................................................................................................... 5-4
5.1.4 Post and Beam Barriers............................................................................ 5-4
5.1.5 Drainage Related to Top of Wall Elements ............................................. 5-6
5.2 BOTTOM OF WALL ELEMENTS .................................................................... 5-6
5.3 DRAINAGE......................................................................................................... 5-8
5.3.1 Internal Drainage Systems ....................................................................... 5-9
5.3.2 External Drainage .................................................................................. 5-17
5.3.3 Filtration and Drainage System Component Requirements................... 5-24
5.3.4 Maintenance of Drainage....................................................................... 5-34
5.4 INTERNAL DETAILS...................................................................................... 5-35
5.4.1 Contact Between Dissimilar Metals....................................................... 5-35
5.4.2 Vertical Obstructions in Reinforced Soil Mass ..................................... 5-35
5.4.3 Horizontal Obstructions in Reinforced Soil Mass ................................. 5-42
5.4.4 Wall Face Penetrations .......................................................................... 5-44
5.4.5 Slip Joints............................................................................................... 5-46
5.4.6 Wall Curves ........................................................................................... 5-47
5.4.7 Wall Corners .......................................................................................... 5-51
5.4.8 Two-Stage Facing .................................................................................. 5-52
5.5 WALL INITIATIONS AND TERMINATIONS .............................................. 5-54
5.6 AESTHETICS.................................................................................................... 5-56
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS WITH COMPLEX GEOMETRICS ........................ 6-1

6.1 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS ..................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.1 MSEW Abutments on Spread Footings................................................... 6-3
6.1.2 MSEW Abutments on Stub Footings Supported by Deep Foundations
through Reinforced Wall Fill ................................................................... 6-6
6.1.3 Alternative Configuration of MSE Walls at Bridge Abutments............ 6-10
6.1.4 Protection of MSE Wall at Abutments .................................................. 6-11
6.2 SUPERIMPOSED (TIERED) MSE WALLS.................................................... 6-13
6.2.1 2-Tier Superimposed Wall..................................................................... 6-13
6.2.2 Superimposed Walls with More than 2-Tiers ........................................ 6-15
6.3 WALLS WITH UNEVEN REINFORCEMENT LENGTHS ........................... 6-16
6.4 BACK-TO-BACK (BBMSE) WALLS ............................................................. 6-17
6.5 SHORED MSE WALLS FOR STEEP TERRAINS AND LOW VOLUME
ROADS .............................................................................................................. 6-19
6.6 STABLE FEATURE MSE (SFMSE) WALLS ................................................. 6-26
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS FOR EXTREME EVENTS...................................... 7-1

7.1 SEISMIC EVENTS ............................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1 External Stability ..................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2 Internal Stability....................................................................................... 7-9
7.1.2.a Tensile Failure ........................................................................... 7-11
7.1.2.b Pullout Failure............................................................................ 7-12

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I viii November 2009
7.1.3 Facing Reinforcement Connections....................................................... 7-13
7.2 VEHICULAR IMPACT EVENTS .................................................................... 7-14
7.2.1 Traffic Barriers....................................................................................... 7-15
7.2.2 Post and Beam Railings ......................................................................... 7-17
7.3 FLOODS AND SCOUR .................................................................................... 7-18

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I ix November 2009
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I x November 2009
LIST OF TABLES – Volume I
Table 1-1. Summary of Reinforcement and Face Details for MSE Wall Systems. .............. 1-7
Table 1-2. Representative List of Geogrid and Geotextile Reinforcement Manufacturers
and Suppliers...................................................................................................... 1-11
Table 2-1. Typical Minimum Length of Reinforcement..................................................... 2-43

Table 2-2. Minimum MSEW Embedment Depths.............................................................. 2-43
Table 2-3. Relationship Between Joint Width and Limiting Differential
Settlements for MSE Precast Panels .................................................................. 2-46
Table 3-1. MSE Wall Select Granular Reinforced Fill Requirements .................................. 3-3
Table 3-2. RSS Granular Reinforced Fill Requirements....................................................... 3-6
Table 3-3. Recommended Limits of Electrochemical Properties for Reinforced Fills with
Steel Reinforcement............................................................................................. 3-9
Geosynthetic Reinforcements ............................................................................ 3-10
Table 3-5. Basic Aspects of Reinforcement Pullout Performance in Granular
and Cohesive Soils of Low Plasticity ................................................................ 3-15
Table 3-6. Summary of Pullout Capacity Design Parameters............................................. 3-17
Table 3-7. Minimum Galvanization Thickness by Steel Thickness.................................... 3-26
Table 3-8. Steel Corrosion Rates for Mildly Corrosive Reinforced Fill ............................. 3-26
Table 3-9. Installation Damage Reduction Factors. ............................................................ 3-32
Table 3-10. Anticipated Resistance of Polymers to Specific Environments......................... 3-34
Table 3-11. Durability (Aging) Reduction Factors for PET. ................................................ 3-36
Table 3-12. Minimum Requirements for use of Default Durability Reduction Factors
(RFD) for Primary Geosynthetic Reinforcement................................................ 3-37
Table 3-13. Minimum Requirements for use of Preliminary Design Reduction Factor (RF)
for Primary Geosynthetic Reinforcement. ......................................................... 3-40
Table 3-14. Additional MBW Cold Weather Requirements Recommended by
Mn/DOT (2008). ................................................................................................ 3-45
Table 4-1. Typical MSE Wall Load Combinations and Load Factors (after Table 3.4.1-1,
AASHTO, 2007) ................................................................................................. 4-4
Table 4-2. Typical MSE Wall Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp (after Table 3.4.1-2,
AASHTO, 2007) ................................................................................................. 4-4
Table 4-3. Basic LRFD Design Steps for MSE Walls .......................................................... 4-8
Table 4-4. Equivalent Height of Soil, heq, for Traffic Loading on Abutments ...........................
Perpendicular to Traffic (Table 3.11.6.4-1, AASHTO {2007}) ....................... 4-17
Table 4-5. External Stability Resistance Factors for MSE Walls (Table 11.5.6-1,
AASHTO {2007}) ............................................................................................ 4-19
Table 4-6. Bearing Resistance Factors (Table 10.6.3.1.2a-1, AASHTO {2007}) ............. 4-29
Table 4-7. Resistance Factors for Tensile and Pullout Resistance for MSE Walls (after
Table 11.5.6-1, AASHTO (2007........................................................................ 4-48
Table 4-8. Example MBW Faced MSE Wall Standard Design (Minnesota DOT, 2008) .. 4-82

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xi November 2009
Table 5-1. Values of B for Various Cu Values for Soils with less than 50% Passing the
No. 200 Sieve ..................................................................................................... 5-27
Table 5-2. Values of B and AOS for Soils with more than 50% Passing the No. 200 Sieve
Based on Type of Geotextile............................................................................... 5-27
Table 5-3. Geotextile Survivability Requirements (AASHTO M 288, 2006) ................... 5-29
Table 5-4. Recommended Minimum Properties for General Geomembrane Installation
Survivability (after Koerner, 1998) ................................................................... 5-33

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xii November 2009
LIST OF FIGURES – Volume I
Figure 1-1. Generic cross section of an MSE structure. ......................................................... 1-4

Figure 1-2. Generic cross sections of reinforced soil slope structures, reinforcements used
to: (a) increase stability of a slope; and (b) provide improved compaction and
surficial stability at edge of a slopes. ................................................................... 1-5
Figure 2-1. Representative MSE applications (a) retaining wall; (b) access ramp; (c)
waterfront structure; and (d) bridge abutment. .................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2. MSE walls to support temporary bridge abutment roadway embankment.......... 2-3
Figure 2-3. MSE wall used to temporarily support a permanent roadway embankment for
phased construction.............................................................................................. 2-3
Figure 2-4. Application of reinforced soil slopes. .................................................................. 2-5
Figure 2-5. Cost evaluation of reinforced soil slopes. .......................................................... 2-10
Figure 2-6. Example MSE wall surface treatments. ............................................................. 2-13
Figure 2-7. Examples of commercially available MBW units (NCMA, 1997).................... 2-14
Figure 2-8. Erection of precast panels. ................................................................................. 2-21
Figure 2-9. Fill spreading and reinforcement connection..................................................... 2-22
Figure 2-10. Compaction of reinforced wall fill..................................................................... 2-23
Figure 2-11. Lift construction sequence for geosynthetic faced MSE walls.......................... 2-25
Figure 2-12. Typical geosynthetic face construction detail.................................................... 2-26
Figure 2-13. Types of geosynthetic reinforced soil wall facing (after Wu, 1994) ................. 2-27
Figure 2-14. Reinforced slope construction: (a) geogrid and fill placement; (b) soil filled
erosion control mat placement; and (c) finished, vegetated 1:1 slope............... 2-29
Figure 2-15. Empirical curve for estimating probable anticipated lateral displacement
during construction for MSE walls (after FHWA 89-043 {Christopher et al.,
1990}) .............................................................................................................. 2-41
Figure 2-16. MSE wall embedment depth requirements, (a) level toe condition and (b)
benched slope toe condition............................................................................... 2-44
Figure 2-17. MSE wall construction on Mn/DOT Crosstown Project, 2008. ........................ 2-48
Figure 2-18. Veterans Memorial Overpass............................................................................. 2-49
Figure 2-19. MSE true bridge abutment ................................................................................. 2-49
Figure 2-20. Typical cross section, VMO project .................................................................. 2-50
Figure 2-21. SeaTac Airport runway extension MSE wall..................................................... 2-51
Figure 2-22. Guanella Pass wire-faced wall ........................................................................... 2-52
Figure 2-23. Guanella Pass architectural concrete faced wall................................................ 2-52
Figure 3-1. Examples of reinforced fill zone extension beyond the reinforced zone............. 3-8
Figure 3-2. Stress transfer mechanisms for soil reinforcement. ........................................... 3-11
Figure 3-3. Coverage ratio.................................................................................................... 3-13
Figure 3-4. Definition of grid dimensions for calculating pullout capacity ......................... 3-18
Figure 3-5. Parameters for metal reinforcement strength calculations showing (a) steel
strips and (b) metallic grids and bar mats .......................................................... 3-24
Figure 3-6. Long-term geosynthetic reinforcement strength concepts................................. 3-29
Figure 3-7. Large, wet-cast concrete face unit with reinforcement placed between units. .. 3-48
Figure 3-8. Large, wet-cast concrete face unit with embedded reinforcement connectors. . 3-49
Figure 3-9. Geocell face unit with vegetation. ..................................................................... 3-49

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xiii November 2009
Figure 4-1. External stability load factors for simple walls.................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-2. External analysis: nominal earth pressures; horizontal backslope with traffic
surcharge (after AASHTO, 2007) ..................................................................... 4-12
Figure 4-3. External analysis: earth pressure; sloping backfill case (after AASHTO,
2007). ................................................................................................................ 4-13
Figure 4-4. External analysis: earth pressure; broken backslope case (after AASHTO,
2007) ................................................................................................................ 4-14
Figure 4-5. Notation for Coulomb active earth pressures used with wall batters, , greater
than 100 (after AASHTO, 2007)..................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-6. Potential external failure mechanisms for a MSE wall...................................... 4-18
Figure 4-7. Calculation of eccentricity and vertical stress for bearing check, for horizontal
backslope with traffic surcharge condition ........................................................ 4-24
Figure 4-8. Calculation of eccentricity and vertical stress for bearing check, for sloping
backslope condition ........................................................................................... 4-25
Figure 4-9. Location of potential failure surface for internal stability design of MSE Walls
(a) inextensible reinforcements and (b) extensible reinforcements ................... 4-34
Figure 4-10. Variation of the coefficient of lateral stress ratio (K/Ka) with depth in a MSE
wall (Elias and Christopher, 1997; AASHTO, 2002; after AASHTO, 2007) .. 4-37
Figure 4-11. Calculation of vertical stress for sloping backfill conditions for internal
stability............................................................................................................... 4-38
Figure 4-12. Distribution of stress from concentrated vertical load for internal and external
stability calculations........................................................................................... 4-44
Figure 4-13. Distribution of stresses from concentrated horizontal loads.............................. 4-45
Figure 4-14. Reinforcement load contributory height ............................................................ 4-46
Figure 4-15. Nominal vertical stress at the reinforcement level in the resistant zone,
beneath a sloping backfill .................................................................................. 4-50
Figure 4-16. Bodkin connection detail (looking at cross section of segmental panel face .... 4-53
Figure 4-17. Determination of hinge height for modular concrete block faced MSE walls
(NMCA, 1997) .................................................................................................. 4-56
Figure 4-18. Typical geometries where MSE wall compound stability is of concern: steep
and tall backslope on top of the wall; tiered walls; slope at the toe of the wall;
and water at toe of the slope .............................................................................. 4-64
Figure 4-19. Example of standard MSEW design. (Minnesota DOT, 2008) ....................... 4-83
Figure 5-1. Example copings for MSE walls.......................................................................... 5-2

Figure 5-2. Example traffic barrier for MSE walls. (a) Barrier behind coping, (b) barrier
on top of panels, (c) barrier on top of modular block units ................................. 5-5
Figure 5-3. Leveling pads, (a) Common size, b) Step detail for precast panel facing units,
(c) Step detail for modular block facing units ..................................................... 5-7
Figure 5-4. Potential sources and flowpaths of water........................................................... 5-10
Figure 5-5. Example layout of filter at joints between segmental precast facing units........ 5-11
Figure 5-6. Layout of drainage fabric and drainage fill at the face for modular block units.
(Collin et al., 2002) ............................................................................................ 5-12
Figure 5-7. Example layout of geotextile filter near the face for welded wire facing units. 5-13
Figure 5-8. Example drainage blanket detail behind the retained backfill ........................... 5-14
Figure 5-9. Example drainage detail using a geocomposite sheet drain............................... 5-15

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xiv November 2009
Figure 5-10. Example drainage detail using a blanket drain with chimney drain (Collin et
al., 2002) ............................................................................................................ 5-16
Figure 5-14. Example detail for wall that may experience inundation................................... 5-17
Figure 5-12. Example MSE wall overflow sill at top of wall................................................. 5-19
Figure 5-13. Example drainage swale near top of wall. ((b) Collin et al., 2002) ................... 5-20
Figure 5-14. (a) Example geomembrane barrier details, (b) Installation of geomembrane
deicing salt runoff barrier, (c) Geomembrane installation around manhole
penetration.......................................................................................................... 5-22
Figure 5-15. Example of undesirable water seepage through pavement due to deficient
grades (Collin et al., 2002)................................................................................. 5-23
Figure 5-16. Example of surface flow erosion at the bottom of an MSE wall ....................... 5-24
Figure 5-17. Examples of avoiding a vertical obstruction without severing soil
reinforcements.................................................................................................... 5-37
Figure 5-18. Vertical obstructions in reinforced soil mass with segmental precast facing
units ................................................................................................................ 5-39
Figure 5-19. Example of a structural frame around vertical obstruction (a) with segmental
precast facing - note that vertically adjacent layers of reinforcement to be
separated by a minimum of 3-in. (75 mm) of wall fill, (b)-(c) with modular
block face – note corner detail ........................................................................... 5-40
Figure 5-20. Example details of reinforcements around vertical obstructions in reinforced
soil mass with modular block units.................................................................... 5-41
Figure 5-21. Navigating horizontal obstruction in MSE walls with inextensible
reinforcements.................................................................................................... 5-43
Figure 5-22. Navigating horizontal obstruction in MSE walls with extensible
reinforcement ..................................................................................................... 5-43
Figure 5-23. Example of backup panels for large horizontal obstructions............................. 5-44
Figure 5-24. Example pipe penetrations through segmental precast panel facing units ........ 5-45
Figure 5-25. Example pipe penetration through modular block facing units ......................... 5-46
Figure 5-26. Example slip joints for segmental precast panel facings ................................... 5-48
Figure 5-27. Example slip joint for modular block wall facings............................................ 5-49
Figure 5-28. Example layout of geogrid reinforcement for walls with curves....................... 5-50
Figure 5-29. Example corner details....................................................................................... 5-51
Figure 5-30. Conceptual connection details for a 2-stage facing system ............................... 5-53
Figure 5-31. Common joint details between segmental precast panel facing units and CIP
structures ............................................................................................................ 5-55
Figure 5-32. Common joint between modular block facing units and CIP structures ........... 5-55
Figure 5-33. Example of MSE wall aesthetics ....................................................................... 5-58
Figure 5-34. Examples of cast-in-place abutment to MSE wall panel transitions.................. 5-59
Figure 6-1. Types of complex MSE structures....................................................................... 6-2

Figure 6-2. Geometry definition, location of critical failure surface and variation of Kr and
F* parameters for analysis of a MSEW abutment on spread footing ................. 6-4
Figure 6-3. Details of a typical pile supported MSE abutment .............................................. 6-7
Figure 6-4. Geometry definition and typical supplemental lateral pressure distribution
from deep foundation on MSE wall face ............................................................. 6-9
Figure 6-5. Example of use of a geosynthetic wrapped face wall behind an integral
abutment............................................................................................................. 6-12

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xv November 2009
Figure 6-6. Example abutment seat detail ............................................................................ 6-12
Figure 6-7. Design rules for a 2-tier superimposed MSE wall system................................. 6-14
Figure 6-8. Dimensioning of MSE wall with uneven reinforcement lengths....................... 6-17
Figure 6-9. Back–to–back MSE walls .................................................................................. 6-18
Figure 6-10. Generic cross-section of a shored MSE (SMSE) wall system for steep terrains
(Morrison et al., 2006) ....................................................................................... 6-19
Figure 6-11. Minimum recommended geometry of a shored MSE wall system in steep
terrains, (a) with extension of upper two rows of reinforcement, and (b) with
the upper two rows connected to the shoring wall (Morrison et al., 2006) ....... 6-21
Figure 6-12. Location of potential failure surface for internal stability design of shored
MSE walls (a) extensible reinforcements, (b) inextensible reinforcements
(Morrison et al., 2006) ....................................................................................... 6-23
stability calculations (Morrison et al., 2006) ..................................................... 6-23
Figure 6-14. Computation for TMAX and evaluation of pullout resistance (after Morrison et
al., 2006) ............................................................................................................ 6-25
Figure 6-15. Example global stability and compound failure surfaces (Morrison et al.,
2006) ................................................................................................................ 6-26
Figure 6-16. Minimum recommended geometry of a stable feature MSE (SFMSE) wall
system ................................................................................................................ 6-28
Figure 7-1. Definition of heights for seismic analyses..................................................................7-3

Figure 7-2. Use of a slope stability approach to compute seismic earth pressure........................7-6
Figure 7-3. Procedure for determination of ky (Anderson et al., 2008)........................................7-7
Figure 7-4. Boundary between WUS and CEUS (Anderson et al. 2008) ...................................7-8
Figure 7-5. Seismic internal stability of a MSE wall............................................................ 7-10
Figure 7-6. Comparison of static and dynamic impact force with 1-inch (25 mm)
maximum displacement (Bligh et al., 2009)...................................................... 7-15

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xvi November 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume II
CHAPTER 8 REINFORCED (STEEPENED) SOIL SLOPES PROJECT EVALUATION..... 8-1

8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 8-1
8.2.1 Types of Systems ..................................................................................... 8-1
8.2.2 Construction Materials............................................................................. 8-2
8.3 DESIGN APPROACH ........................................................................................ 8-2
8.3.1 Use Considerations .................................................................................. 8-2
8.3.2 Design of Reinforcement for Compaction Aid........................................ 8-4
8.3.3 Design of Reinforcement for Steepening Slopes and Slope Repair ........ 8-4
8.3.4 Computer-Assisted Design ...................................................................... 8-6
8.3.5 Evaluation of External Stability .............................................................. 8-8
8.4 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ...................................................................... 8-11
8.5 TREATMENT OF OUTWARD FACE............................................................. 8-15
8.5.1 Grass Type Vegetation........................................................................... 8-15
8.5.2 Soil Bioengineering (Woody Vegetation) ............................................. 8-16
8.5.3 Armored ................................................................................................. 8-19
8.6 DESIGN DETAILS ........................................................................................... 8-20
8.6.1 Guardrail and Traffic Barriers ............................................................... 8-20
8.6.2 Drainage Considerations........................................................................ 8-20
8.6.3 Obstructions ........................................................................................... 8-21
8.7 CASE HISTORIES............................................................................................ 8-21
8.7.1 The Dickey Lake Roadway Grade Improvement Project ...................... 8-21
8.7.2 Salmon-Lost Trail Roadway Widening Project..................................... 8-24
8.7.3 Cannon Creek Alternate Embankment Construction Project ................ 8-26
8.7.4 Pennsylvania SR 54 Roadway Repair Project ....................................... 8-27
8.7.5 Massachusetts Turnpike - Use of Soil Bioengineering.......................... 8-29
8.7.6 242-foot High 1H:1V Reinforced Soil Slope for Airport Runway
Extension................................................................................................ 8-32
8.8 STANDARD RSS DESIGNS............................................................................ 8-34
CHAPTER 9 DESIGN OF REINFORCED SOIL SLOPES ....................................................... 9-1

9.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 REINFORCED SLOPE DESIGN GUIDELINES............................................... 9-3
9.2.1 Step 1 - Establish the geometric, loading, and performance
requirements for design............................................................................ 9-3
9.2.2 Step 2 - Determine the engineering properties of the in-situ soils........... 9-3
9.2.3 Step 3 - Determine the properties of reinforced fill and, if different, the
retained fill ............................................................................................... 9-5
9.2.4 Step 4 - Evaluate design parameters for the reinforcement ..................... 9-5
9.2.5 Step 5 - Check unreinforced stability....................................................... 9-5
9.2.6 Step 6 - Design reinforcement to provide a stable slope ......................... 9-7
9.2.7 Step 7 - Check external stability ............................................................ 9-16
9.2.8 Step 8 - Seismic stability........................................................................ 9-18
9.2.9 Step 9 - Evaluate requirements for subsurface and surface water runoff
control .................................................................................................... 9-19

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xvii November 2009
9.3 COMPUTER ASSISTED DESIGN .................................................................. 9-23
9.4 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................ 9-24
CHAPTER 10 CONTRACTING METHODS AND SPECIFICATIONS

FOR MSE WALLS AND SLOPES............................................................................... 10-1
10.1 POLICY DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 10-2
10.2 SYSTEM OR COMPONENT APPROVALS ................................................... 10-2
10.3 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ................................................. 10-5
10.4 AGENCY OR SUPPLIER DESIGN ................................................................. 10-5
10.4.1 Plan and Elevation Sheets...................................................................... 10-6
10.4.2 Facing/Panel Details ............................................................................ 10-7
10.4.3 Drainage Facilities/Special Details ........................................................ 10-7
10.4.4 Design Computations............................................................................. 10-7
10.4.5 Geotechnical Report............................................................................... 10-7
10.4.6 Construction Specifications ................................................................... 10-8
10.5 END RESULT DESIGN APPROACH ............................................................. 10-8
10.5.1 Geometric Requirements ....................................................................... 10-9
10.5.2 Geotechnical Requirements ................................................................... 10-9
10.5.3 Structural and Design Requirements ..................................................... 10-9
10.5.4 Performance Requirements.................................................................. 10-10
10.6 STANDARD DESIGNS.................................................................................. 10-10
10.6.1 MSEW Standard Designs .................................................................... 10-10
10.6.2 RSS Standard Designs ......................................................................... 10-12
10.7 REVIEW AND APPROVALS ........................................................................ 10-13
10.8 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR
MSEW AND RSS CONSTRUCTION............................................................ 10-14
10.9 EXAMPLE SPECIFICATION FOR MSE WALLS ....................................... 10-15
10.10 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR REINFORCED
SLOPE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 10-41
10.10.1 Specification Guidelines For RSS Construction (Agency Design) 10-42
10.10.2 Specification for Erosion Control Mat or Blanket......................... 10-46
10.10.3 Specification for Geosynthetic Drainage Composite..................... 10-48
10.10.4 Specification Guidelines for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
Slope Systems ................................................................................ 10-52
CHAPTER 11 FIELD INSPECTION AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING..................... 11-1

11.1 PRECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS................................................................... 11-1
11.1.1 Plans and Specifications ........................................................................ 11-3
11.1.2 Review of Site Conditions and Foundation Requirements .................... 11-3
11.2 PREFABRICATED MATERIALS INSPECTION......................................... 11-11
11.2.1 Precast Concrete Elements................................................................... 11-11
11.2.2 Reinforcing Elements........................................................................... 11-13
11.2.3 Facing Joint Materials.......................................................................... 11-15
11.2.4 Reinforced Backfill.............................................................................. 11-15
11.3 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL....................................................................... 11-16
11.3.1 Leveling Pad ........................................................................................ 11-16
11.3.2 Erection of Facing Elements................................................................ 11-16

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xviii November 2009
11.3.3 Reinforced Fill Placement, Compaction .............................................. 11-22
11.3.4 Placement of Reinforcing Elements..................................................... 11-25
11.3.5 Placement of Subsequent Facing Courses (Segmental Facings) ......... 11-26
11.4 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROGRAMS .......................................... 11-35
11.4.1 Purpose of Monitoring Program .......................................................... 11-35
11.4.2 Limited Monitoring Program............................................................... 11-36
11.4.3 Comprehensive Monitoring Program .................................................. 11-37
11.4.4 Program Implementation ..................................................................... 11-37
11.4.5 Data Interpretation ............................................................................... 11-40
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................R-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A LRFD LOAD COMBINATIONS AND LOAD FACTORS, AND LOAD

FACTOR FOR PERMANENT LOADS ....................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B DETERMINATION OF PULLOUT RESISTANCE FACTORS.................B-1

B.1 EMPIRICAL PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE F* AND α .......................B-1
B.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE F* AND α .............B-2
B.3 CONNECTION RESISTANCE AND STRENGTH OF PARTIAL AND
FULL FRICTION SEGMENTAL BLOCK/REINFORCEMENT FACING
CONNECTIONS ...........................................................................................B-5
B.4 CONNECTION RESISTANCE DEFINED WITH
SHORT-TERM TESTING .........................................................................B-12
B.5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................B-15
APPENDIX C TYPICAL DIMENSIONS OF STEEL REINFORCEMENTS .....................C-1
APPENDIX D DETERMINATION OF CREEP STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR ... D-1

D.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... D-1
D.2 STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES FOR EXTRAPOLATING STRESS
RUPTURE DATA -- CONVENTIONAL METHOD.................................. D-5
RUPTURE DATA -- STEPPED ISOTHERMAL METHOD (SIM) ......... D-10
D.4 DETERMINATION OF RFCR .................................................................... D-13
D.5 USE OF CREEP DATA FROM "SIMILAR" PRODUCTS AND
EVALUATION OF PRODUCT LINES .................................................... D-14
D.6 CREEP EXTRAPOLATION EXAMPLES USING STRESS
RUPTURE DATA .......................................................................................E-16
D.6.1 Stress Rupture Extrapolation Example ............................................E-16
D.7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................E-20

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xix November 2009
APPENDIX E EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
E.1 MBW Unit Faced MSE Wall with Broken Back Sloping Fill and Live
Load Surcharge, Reinforced with Geogrid .................................................E.1-1
E.2 Bearing Check for Sloping Toe Conditions, with and without Water........E.2-1
E.3 Segmental Precast Panel MSE Wall with Sloping Backfill Surcharge,
Reinforced with Steel Strips .......................................................................E.3-1
E.4 Segmental Precast Panel MSE Wall with Level Backfill and Live Load
Surcharge, Reinforced with Steel Bar Mats................................................E.4-1
E.5 True Bridge Abutment with Segmental Precast Panel MSE Wall,
E.6 Traffic Barrier Impact Loading on Top of an MSE Wall ...........................E.6-1
E.7 Seismic Loading . . . ., Psuedo-Static Analysis...........................................E.7-1
E.8 Reinforced Soil Slope Design -- Road Widening .......................................E.8-1
E.9 Reinforced Soil Slope Design -- High Slope for New Road Construction.E.9-1
E.10 Reinforced Soil Slope Design -- Facing Stability Calculation .................E.10-1
APPENDIX F OTHER DESIGN PROCEDURES AND ANALSIS MODELS

F.1 ASD Procedure and the Simplified Method .................................................. F-2
F.2 Coherent Gravity Method .............................................................................. F-3
F.3 National Concrete Masonry Association Procedure ...................................... F-5
F.4 GRS ...................................................................................................... F-5
F.5 FHWA Structural Stiffness Method............................................................... F-7
F.6 K-Stiffness Method........................................................................................ F-8
F.7 Deep Patch ................................................................................................... F-11

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xx November 2009
LIST OF TABLES – Volume II
Table 8-1. RSS Slope Facing Options (after Collin, 1996)................................................. 8-14
Table 9-1. Estimated Project Costs. .................................................................................... 9-25
Table 11-1. Outline of MSE/RSS Field Inspection Checklist............................................... 11-2

Table 11-2. Checklist for Drawing Review........................................................................... 11-5
Table 11-3. Checklist for Specification Compliance. ........................................................... 11-7
Table 11-4. Out-of-Tolerance Conditions and Possible Causes.......................................... 11-30
Table 11-5. Checklist for Construction. .............................................................................. 11-32
Table 11-6. Possible Instruments for Monitoring Reinforced Soil Structures. ................... 11-38

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xxi November 2009
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xxii November 2009
LIST OF FIGURES – Volume II
Figure 8-1. Failure modes for reinforced soil slopes including internal failure within the
reinforced soil zone, external failure entirely outside the reinforced soil zone,
and compound failure starting behind and passing through the reinforced soil
zone ………. ........................................................................................................ 8-3
Figure 8-2. Modified limit equilibrium analysis for reinforced slope design......................... 8-5
Figure 8-3. External failure modes for reinforced soil slopes. ............................................... 8-9
Figure 8-4. Construction of reinforced soil slopes. .............................................................. 8-12
Figure 8-5. Welded wire mesh detail for temporary (during construction) or permanent
face support........................................................................................................ 8-15
Figure 8-6. Components of a vegetated reinforced slope (VRSS) system ........................... 8-17
Figure 8-7. Dickey Lake site. ............................................................................................... 8-23
Figure 8-8. Salmon Lost Trail site........................................................................................ 8-25
Figure 8-9. Cannon Creek project. ....................................................................................... 8-26
Figure 8-10. Pennsylvania SR54. ........................................................................................... 8-28
Figure 8-11. Massachusetts Turnpike during construction, immediately after construction
and after the second growing season. ................................................................ 8-31
Figure 8-12. Reinforced soil slope for runway extension at Yeager Airport, Charleston,
West Virginia ..................................................................................................... 8-33
Figure 8-13. Example of standard RSS design....................................................................... 8-36
Figure 9-1. Flow chart of steps for reinforced soil slope design. ........................................... 9-2
Figure 9-2. Requirements for design of reinforced soil slopes............................................... 9-4
Figure 9-3. Critical zone defined by rotational and sliding surface that meet the required
safety factor.......................................................................................................... 9-6
Figure 9-4. Rotational shear approach to determine required strength of reinforcement....... 9-8
Figure 9-5. Chart solution for determining the reinforcement strength requirements.......... 9-10
Figure 9-6. Reinforcement spacing considerations for high slopes...................................... 9-11
Figure 9-7. Developing reinforcement lengths..................................................................... 9-14
Figure 9-8. Failure through the foundation........................................................................... 9-17
Figure 9-9. Seismic stability analysis. .................................................................................. 9-19
Figure 9-10. Subsurface drainage considerations................................................................... 9-20
Figure 11-1. Casting yard for precast facing elements. ........................................................ 11-12
Figure 11-2. Inspect reinforcing elements: top photo shows a variety of reinforcements
including metallic strips, welded wire mesh, and geosynthetics and bottom
photo shows reinforcement length painted on geogrid reinforcement............. 11-14
Figure 11-3. Leveling pads: a) leveling the concrete, b) completed pad, and c) placing the
facing elements on the leveling pad................................................................. 11-17
Figure 11-4. Checking facing element batter and alignment................................................ 11-18
Figure 11-5. Full height facing panels require special alignment care................................. 11-19
Figure 11-6. Setting first row of precast facing elements..................................................... 11-21
Figure 11-7. Placement of reinforced fill. ............................................................................ 11-23
Figure 11-8. Compaction equipment showing: a) large equipment permitted away from
face; and b) lightweight equipment within 3 ft (1 m) of the face. ................... 11-24

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xxiii November 2009
Figure 11-9. Facing connection examples ............................................................................ 11-27
Figure 11-10. Geotextile joint cover and neoprene pads........................................................ 11-29

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I xxiv November 2009
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVES
New methods and technologies of retention and steepened-slope construction continue to be

developed, often by specialty contractors and suppliers, to solve problems in locations of
restricted Right-of-Way (ROW), at marginal sites with difficult subsurface conditions and
other environmental constraints, and to expedite construction. Professionals charged with the
responsibility for planning, designing, and implementing improvements and additions in such
locations should understand the application, limitations and costs associated with a host of
measures and technologies available.
This manual was prepared to assist design engineers, specification writers, estimators,
construction inspectors and maintenance personnel with the selection, design, construction
and maintenance of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSEW) and Reinforced Soil
Slopes (RSS).
The design, construction and monitoring techniques for these structures have evolved over
the last three decades as a result of efforts by researchers, material suppliers and government
agencies to improve some single aspect of the technology or the materials used. This manual
is a comprehensive document that integrates all design, construction, materials, contracting,
and monitoring aspects required for successful project implementation.
This manual has been developed in support of FHWA educational programs on the design,
construction, and maintenance of MSE wall and RSS structures construction. Its principal
function is to serve as a reference source to the materials presented. The manual serves as
FHWA's primary technical guideline on the use of these technologies on transportation
facilities.
1.1.1 Scope
The manual addresses in a comprehensive manner the following areas:

C Overview of MSE development and the cost, advantages, and disadvantages of using
MSE structures.
C Available MSE systems and applications to transportation facilities.
C Basic soil-reinforcement interaction.
C Design of routine and complex MSE walls.
FHWA NHI-10-024 1 – Introduction

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I 1–1 November 2009
C Design of MSE walls for extreme events.
C Design detailing of MSE walls.
C Design of steepened RSS.
C Specifications and contracting approaches for both MSE walls and RSS construction.
C Construction monitoring and inspection.
C Design examples.
C A separate companion manual addresses long-term corrosion of metallic reinforcements
and long-term degradation of polymeric reinforcements. Sections of the
Corrosion/Degradation manual address the background of full-scale, long-term
evaluation programs and the procedures required to develop, implement, and evaluate
them. These procedures have been developed to provide practical information on this
topic for MSE users for non-corrosion or polymer specialists, who are interested in
developing long-term monitoring programs for these types of structures.
As an integral part of this Manual, several example calculations are appended that
demonstrate individual design aspects.
1.1.2 Source Documents
and Construction Guidelines Manual is an update of the current FHWA NHI-00-043 (Elias et
al., 2001), has evolved from the following AASHTO and FHWA references:
Interim Revisions
C Earth Retaining Structures, FHWA-NHI-07-071 (Tanyu et al., 2008)
C AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2004, with 2006, 2007,
2008, and 2009 Interim Revisions
C Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines, FHWA NHI-07-092 (Holtz et al.,
2008)
Stabilized Earth Slopes on Firm Foundations, FHWA-SA-93-025 (Berg, 1993)
Summary of Research and Systems Information, FHWA RD 89-043 (Christopher et al.
1990)
C Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design and
Construction Guidelines, FHWA, (Elias and Christopher, 1997)
Additional guidance, where not available from other sources, was specifically developed for
this manual.

1.1.3 Terminology
Certain interchangeable terms will be used throughout this manual. For clarity, they are
defined as follows:
Inclusion is a generic term that encompasses all man-made elements incorporated in the soil
to improve its behavior. Examples of inclusions are steel strips, geotextile sheets, steel or
polymeric grids, steel nails, and steel tendons between anchorage elements. The term
reinforcement is used only for those inclusions where soil-inclusion stress transfer occurs
continuously along the inclusion.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSE wall or MSEW) is a generic term that includes
reinforced soil (a term used when multiple layers of inclusions act as reinforcement in soils
placed as fill). Reinforced Earth® is a trademark for a specific reinforced soil system.
Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS) are a form of reinforced soil that incorporate planar
reinforcing elements in constructed earth-sloped structures with face inclinations of less than
70 degrees.
Geosynthetics is a generic term that encompasses flexible polymeric materials used in

geotechnical engineering such as geotextiles, geomembranes, geonets, and geogrids.
Facing is a component of the reinforced soil system used to prevent the soil from raveling
out between the rows of reinforcement. Common facings include precast concrete panels,
dry cast modular blocks, gabions, welded wire mesh, shotcrete, timber lagging and panels,
polymeric cellular confinement systems, and wrapped sheets of geosynthetics. The facing
also plays a minor structural role in the stability of the structure. For RSS structures it
usually consists of welded wire mesh, geosynthetic wrap-around, and/or some type of erosion
control material.
Retained backfill is the fill material located behind the mechanically stabilized soil zone.
Reinforced fill is the fill material in which the reinforcements are placed.
Generic cross sections of MSE structures are shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2.

Figure 1-1. Generic cross section of an MSE structure.
1.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Retaining structures are essential elements of every highway design. Retaining structures are
used not only for bridge abutments and wing walls but also for slope stabilization and to
minimize right-of-way for embankments. For many years, retaining structures were almost
exclusively made of reinforced concrete and were designed as gravity or cantilever walls
which are essentially rigid structures and cannot accommodate significant differential
settlements unless founded on deep foundations. With increasing height of soil to be retained
and poor subsoil conditions, the cost of reinforced concrete retaining walls increases rapidly.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSEWs) and Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSSs) are cost-
effective soil-retaining structures that can tolerate much larger settlements than reinforced
concrete walls. By placing tensile reinforcing elements (inclusions) in the soil, the strength
of the soil can be improved significantly. Use of a facing system to prevent soil raveling
between the reinforcing elements allows very steep slopes and vertical walls to be
constructed safely.

(a)
(b)
Figure 1-2. Generic cross sections of reinforced slope structures, reinforcements used to:
(a) increase stability of a slope; and (b) provide improved compaction and
surficial stability at edge of slopes (after Berg et al., 1990).

Inclusions have been used since prehistoric times to improve soil. The use of straw to
improve the quality of adobe bricks dates back to earliest human history. Many primitive
people used sticks and branches to reinforce mud dwellings. During the 17th and 18th
centuries, French settlers along the Bay of Fundy in Canada used sticks to reinforce mud
dikes. Some other early examples of man-made soil reinforcement include dikes of earth and
tree branches, which have been used in China for at least 1,000 years (e.g., western portion of
the Great Wall) and along the Mississippi River in the 1880s. Other examples include
wooden pegs used for erosion and landslide control in England, and bamboo or wire mesh,
used universally for revetment erosion control. Soil reinforcing can also be achieved by
using live plant roots.
The modern methods of soil reinforcement for retaining wall construction were pioneered by
the French architect and engineer Henri Vidal in the early 1960s. His research led to the
invention and development of Reinforced Earth®, a system in which steel strip reinforcement
is used. The first wall to use this technology in the United States was built in 1972 on
California State Highway 39, northeast of Los Angeles. Today, MSE walls are the wall of
choice in most fill situations, and MSE walls are used extensively in the U.S. and worldwide.
The highest permanent wall constructed in the United States is on the order of 150 ft (46 m)
with an exposed height of approximately 135 ft (41 m).
Since the introduction of Reinforced Earth®, several other proprietary and nonproprietary
systems have been developed and used. Table 1-1 provides a partial summary of some of the
current systems by proprietary name, reinforcement type, and facing system.
There are many available systems, as well as new systems that continue to be introduced into
the market. Components, engineering details, system quality controls, etc. vary with each
system. States, therefore, need a process to sort and evaluate MSE wall systems for potential
pre-approval for use on their projects. The Highway Innovative Technology Evaluation
Center (HITEC) provides review and evaluation of MSE walls. HITEC was established in
1994 within the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) organization. HITEC’s
purpose is to accelerate the introduction of technological advances in products, systems,
services, materials, and equipment to the highway and bridge markets. The evaluation of
new and more cost-effective retaining wall systems is performed through HITEC’s
nationally-focused, earth retaining system (ERS) group evaluation program. The published
reports provide reviews of design, construction, performance, and quality assurance
information provided by the wall system suppliers with respect to conformance with the
state-of-practice criteria as outlined in the HITEC Protocol. Wall system suppliers are
encouraged to conduct an independent review of newly developed components and/or
systems related to materials, design, construction, performance, and quality assurance. Some

public agencies, especially state DOTs, require HITEC evaluations or independent
evaluations of wall components or wall systems, and obtaining such reviews has proven
beneficial to wall system suppliers in securing acceptance of their system.
Currently, most process patents covering soil-reinforced system construction or components

have expired, leading to a proliferation of available systems or components that can be
separately purchased and assembled by the erecting contractor. The combination of
components needs to be evaluated to assure compatibility with respect to longevity,
constructability, and connection strength. The remaining patents in force generally cover
only the method of connection between the reinforcement and the facing.
In the United States, a segmental precast facing unit 20 to 25 ft2 (2 to 2.25 m2) generally
square in shape is the facing unit of choice. More recently, larger precast units of up to 50 ft2
(4.6 m2) have been used and are becoming more commonplace. Additionally, smaller dry-
cast concrete masonry units are being used, generally in conjunction with geosynthetic
reinforcements.
Table 1-1. Summary of Reinforcement and Face Details for MSE Wall Systems.
System Name Reinforcement Detail Typical Face Detail1

Stabilized Earth Wall Galvanized welded steel wire mesh with Precast concrete panels 5 ft x 5 ft x 6 in.
T&B Structural Systems LLC W7 to W20 bars. Mesh width and spacing thick or 5 ft x 10 ft x 6 in. thick. Different
6800 Manhattan Blvd, Suite 304 can vary. Epoxy-coated meshes also size panels used at top and bottom to
Ft. Worth Texas 76120 available. match project requirements.
Reinforced Earth® Ribbed galvanized steel strips, 0.157 in. Cruciform and square shaped precast
The Reinforced Earth Company thick, 2 in. wide. Or galvanized steel concrete nominally 5 ft x 5 ft x 5.0 to 5.5
8614 Westwood Center Drive ladder strips, W10 wire, two longitudinal in. thick. Also rectangular shaped precast
Suite 1100 wires and cross bars spaced at 6 in. concrete nominally 5 ft x 10 ft x 5.5 in.
Vienna, VA 22182-2233 thick. Variable height panels used at top
and bottom of wall.
Retained Earth Rectangular grid of W11, W15 or W20 Hexagonal and square precast concrete 5
The Reinforced Earth Company galvanized steel wire, 24 x 6 in. grid. 2, 4, ft x 5 ft x 5.5 in. thick. Also rectangular
8614 Westwood Center Drive 5 or 6 longitudinal bars. Stainless steel shaped precast concrete 5 ft x 10 ft x 5.5
Suite 1100 mesh used in marine and corrosive in. thick. Variable height panels used at
Vienna, VA 22182-2233 environments. top and bottom of wall.
Mechanically Stabilized Embankment Rectangular grid of W11, W15, and W20 Precast concrete; 5 ft square, 6 in. thick.
California Dept. of Transportation galvanized welded wire mats, 6
1801 30th Street longitudinal wires with variable transverse
P.O. Box 168041 spacing.
Sacramento, CA 95816
ARES HDPE Geogrid Precast concrete panel; rectangular 9 ft
Tensar International Corporation wide, 5 ft high, 5.5 in. thick.
5883 Glenridge Drive, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30328
Wire Faced Wall 4 ft wide welded steel wire mesh. Mesh is Welded steel wire mesh facing. Several
T&B Structural Systems LLC 8 in. x 12, 18 or 24 in., of W4.5 to W20 veneer facing options available.
6800 Manhattan Blvd, Ste 304 bars. Size and configuration are variable.
Ft. Worth Texas 76120

Welded Wire Wall Welded steel wire mesh, Galvanized or Welded steel wire mesh, 2’ tall x 8’ wide
Hilfiker Retaining Walls Non-Galvanized. Mesh reinforcements typical. Backing mat, Hardware Cloth or
1902 Hilfiker Lane vary in spacing and gauges to meet project Filter Fabric depending on project. (With
Eureka, CA 95503 design specifications. geotextile or shotcrete, if desired).
Reinforced Soil Embankment Welded steel wire mesh, Galvanized or Precast concrete unit 12.5 ft long, 24 in.
Hilfiker Retaining Walls Non-Galvanized. Mesh reinforcements high.
1902 Hilfiker Lane vary in spacing and gauges to meet project
Eureka, CA 95503 design specifications.
ArtWeld Gabions Welded steel wire mesh, Galvanized or ArtWeld Gabion baskets of various sizes
Hilfiker Retaining Walls Non-Galvanized. Mesh reinforcements and heights designed per project
1902 Hilfiker Lane vary in spacing and gauges to meet project requirements.
Gabion Faced M.S.E. Welded steel wire mesh, Galvanized or ArtWeld Gabions of various sizes and
Hilfiker Retaining Walls Non-Galvanized. Mesh reinforcements heights connected to reinforcing mesh by
1902 Hilfiker Lane vary in spacing and gauges to meet project spiral binders.
Eureka Reinforced Soil Welded steel wire mesh, Galvanized or Precast or cast-in-place concrete facing
Hilfiker Retaining Walls Non-Galvanized. Mesh reinforcements panels, shotcrete, sculpted shotcrete, or
1902 Hilfiker Lane vary in spacing and gauges to meet project stacked stone.
Steepened Slope Welded steel wire mesh, Galvanized or Welded steel wire mesh, 1 to 1 slope
Hilfiker Retaining Walls Non-Galvanized. Mesh reinforcements typical. Hardware Cloth or Filter Fabric
1902 Hilfiker Lane vary in spacing and gauges to meet project depending on project. (With geotextile or
Eureka, CA 95503 design specifications. shotcrete, if desired).
INTER-LOK 0.63 or 0.75 in. reinforcing steel bars fitted Precast concrete panel; cross-shaped 6 ft
Atlantic Concrete Industries with 5 x 10 x 0.4 in. anchor plates and wide and 3 ft high, 8 and 10 in. thick.
P.O. Box 129 connected to a keyplate, and galvanized
Tullytown, PA 19007 after fabrication.
ISOGRID Rectangular grid of W11 x W11 Diamond shaped precast concrete units, 5
Neel Co. 4 bars per grid. ft x 8 ft, 5.5 in. thick.
6520 Deepford Street
Springfield, VA 22150
T-Block Wall System Rectangular 4 ft wide welded steel wire Dry cast concrete block 8 in high x 16 in
T&B Structural Systems LLC mesh of W7 to W20 steel bars. long x 12 in deep.
6800 Manhattan Blvd
Ste 304
Ft. Worth Texas 76120
3
MESA HDPE Geogrid MESA HP (high performance), DOT
Tensar International Corporation OR Standard units (8 in. high by 18 in.
5883 Glenridge Drive, Suite 200 long face, 10.8 in. nominal depth). (dry
Atlanta, GA 30328 cast concrete)
Pyramid™ Galvanized welded wire ladders. Size Dry cast concrete units, 8 in. high, 16 in.
The Reinforced Earth Company varies with design requirements. nominal length at face, 10 in. nominal
8614 Westwood Center Drive depth.
Suite 1100
Vienna, VA 22182-2233
Omega Geostraps composed of high tenacity Cruciform and square shaped precast
The Reinforced Earth Company polyester with polyethylene sheathing. concrete 5 ft x 5 ft x 5.5 in. thick. Also
8614 Westwood Center Drive Reinforcement used in marine and rectangular shaped precast concrete 5 ft x
Suite 1100 corrosive environments only. 10 ft x 5.5 in. thick. Variable height
Vienna, VA 22182-2233 panels used at top and bottom of wall.
GeotrelTM Geostraps composed of high tenacity Welded steel wire mesh with geotextile
The Reinforced Earth Company polyester with polyethylene sheathing. backing.
8614 Westwood Center Dr, Ste 1100 Only used in temporary walls.
Vienna, VA 22182

Terratrel™ Ribbed galvanized steel strips, 0.157 in. Welded steel wire mesh with geotextile
The Reinforced Earth Company thick, 2 in. wide. Or, galvanized steel backing or stone fill at wall face.
8614 Westwood Center Drive ladder strips or mesh. Size varies with
Suite 1100 design requirements.
Vienna, VA 22182-2233
Maccaferri Terramesh System Continuous sheets of galvanized double Rock filled gabion baskets laced to
Maccaferri Gabions, Inc. twisted woven wire mesh with PVC reinforcement.
43A Governor Lane Blvd. coating.
Williamsport, MD 21795
Strengthened Earth Rectangular grid, W7, W9.5 and W14, Precast concrete units, rectangular or wing
Gifford-Hill & Co. transverse bars at 9 and 18 in. shaped, 6 ft x 7 ft x 5.5 in.
2515 McKinney Ave.
Dallas, Texas 75201
MSE Plus Rectangular grid with W8 to W24 Rectangular precast concrete panels 5 ft
SSL longitudinal bars and W8 to W20 high, 5, 6, 10, and 12 ft wide, with a
4740 Scotts Valley Drive transverse. Mesh may have 2 – 6 thickness of 6 or 7 in.
Scotts Valley, CA 95066 longitudinal bars spaced at 6 or 8 in.
KeySystem – Inextensible Galvanized welded wire ladder mat of KeySystem concrete facing unit is 8 in
Keystone Retaining Wall Systems W7.5 to W17 bars with crossbars at 6 – 24 high x 18 in. wide x 12 in. deep (dry cast
4444 W. 78th Street in. concrete).
Minneapolis, MN 55435
KeySystem – Extensible Miragrid high-tenacity polyester geogrid Keystone Compac concrete facing units
Keystone Retaining Wall Systems soil reinforcement by TenCate Mirafi, are 8 in. high x 18 in. wide x 12 in. deep
4444 W. 78th Street polymer coated. (dry cast concrete).
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Tricon System Galvanized welded-wire. Rectangular precast concrete panels with
Tricon Precast Ltd. a face area of 45 sq. ft.
15055 Henry Road
Houston, TX 77060
Versa-Lok Retaining Wall Systems PVC coated PET or HDPE geogrids. Versa-Lok concrete unit 6 in. high x 16 in.
6348 Highway 36 Blvd. long x 12 in. deep (dry cast concrete)
Oakdale, MN 55128
Anchor Wall Systems PVC coated PET geogrid. Anchor Landmark concrete unit 15 in.
5959 Baker Road high x 8 in. long x 12 (small unit) or 12.5
Minnetonka, MN 55345 (large unit) in. deep (dry cast concrete).
EarthTracTM HA Ribbed galvanized steel strips, 0.188 in. Rectangular 5 ft x 10 ft precast concrete
EarthTec Inc. thick by 2.36 in. wide. panels.
413 Browning Ct.
Purcellville, VA 20132
EarthTracTM Wire Ribbed steel strips, 0.188 in. thick by 2.36 Welded wire basket 2.5 ft high by 10 ft
EarthTec Inc. in. wide; galvanized for permanent walls. wide.
413 Browning Ct.
EarthTracTM Synthetic PVC coated high tenacity polyester Precast concrete panels, rectangular or T-
EarthTec Inc. geostraps. shaped.
413 Browning Ct.
1
Additional facing types are possible with most systems.
The use of geotextiles in MSE walls and RSS started after the beneficial effect of
reinforcement with geotextiles was noticed in highway embankments constructed over weak
subgrades. The first geotextile-reinforced wall was constructed in France in 1971, and the
first structure of this type in the United States was constructed in 1974. Geogrids for soil

reinforcement were developed around 1980. The first use of geogrid in earth reinforcement
was in 1981. Extensive use of geogrid products in the United States started in about 1983,
and they now comprise a growing portion of the market. Since the early 1980s, the use of
geosynthetics in reinforced soil structures has increased significantly.
The first reported use of reinforced steepened slopes is believed to be the west embankment
for the Great Wall of China. The introduction and economy of geosynthetic reinforcements
has made the use of steepened slopes economically attractive. A survey of usage in the mid
1980s identified several hundred completed projects. At least an order of magnitude more
RSS structures have been constructed since that study. The highest constructed RSS
structure in the U.S. to date is 242 ft (74 m) (see Chapter 8).
A representative list of geosynthetic reinforcement manufacturers and suppliers is shown in

Table 1-2.
Current Usage: It is believed that MSEWs have been constructed in every state in the
United States. Major users include transportation agencies in Georgia, Florida, Texas,
Pennsylvania, New York, and California, which rank among the largest road building states.
It is estimated that more than 9,000,000 ft2 (850,000 m2) of MSE retaining walls with precast
facing are constructed on average every year in the United States, which may represent more
than half of all retaining wall usage for transportation applications.
The majority of the MSEWs for permanent applications either constructed to date or
presently planned use a segmental precast concrete facing and galvanized steel
reinforcements. The use of geotextile faced MSEWs in permanent construction has been
limited to date. They are quite useful for temporary construction, where more extensive use
has been made.
Recently, modular block dry cast facing units have gained acceptance due to their lower cost
and nationwide availability. These small concrete units are generally mated with grid
reinforcement, and the wall system is referred to as modular block wall (MBW). It is
2
estimated that more than 3,000,000 ft2 (280,000 m ) of MBW walls have been constructed
yearly in the United States when considering all types of transportation related applications.
The current yearly usage for transportation-related applications is estimated at about 100
projects per year.
The use of RSS structures has expanded dramatically in the last decade, and it is estimated
that several hundred RSS structures have been constructed in the United States. Currently,

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol I 1 – 10 November 2009
100 to 150 RSS projects are being constructed yearly in connection with transportation
related projects in the United States, with an estimated projected vertical face area of
2,000,000 ft2/year (190,000 m2/yr).
Table 1-2 – Representative List of Geogrid and Geotextile Reinforcement Suppliers.
ACE Geosynthetics Enterprise Co., Ltd. Belton Industries Inc.

No. 8 Kung 10 Rd. 5600 Oakbrook Pkwy Ste 150
Yu-Shih Ind. Park, Tachia Norcross, GA 30093-1843
Taichung 43768 www.beltonindustries.com
Taiwan
www.geoace.com
Carthage Mills Checkmate Geosynthetics Inc.
4243 Hunt Rd Unit# 412 44500 South Sumas Rd.
Cincinnati, OH 45242-6645 Chilliwack, BC V2R 5M3
www.carthagemills.com Canada
www.checkmategeogrid.com
Colbond Inc. Fiberweb PLC
PO Box 1057 70 Old Hickory Blvd.
1301 Sand Hill Rd Old Hickory, TN 37138
Enka, NC 28728-1057 www.fiberweb.com
www.colbond.com
Dalco Nonwovens Geo-Synthetics Inc.
PO Box 1479 2401 Pewaukee Rd
2050 Evergreen Dr Ne Waukesha, WI 53188
Conover, NC 28613-1479 www.geo-synthetics.com
www.dalcononwovens.com
GSE Lining Technology Inc. Highland Industries Inc
19103 Gundle Rd 629 Green Valley Rd., Suite 210
Houston, TX 77073-3515 Greensboro, NC 27408
www.gseworld.com www.highlandindustries.com
Huesker Inc. Layfield Plastics Inc.

PO Box 411529 11603 180th St SW
Charlotte, NC 28241-1529 Edmonton, AB T5S 2H6
www.hueskerinc.com Canada
www.layfieldgroup.com
Luckenhaus Technical Textiles Inc. Maccaferri Inc.
3130 Bee Tree Ln 10303 Governor Lane Blvd
Signal Mountain, TN 37377-1441 Williamsport, MD 21795-3115
www.maccaferri-usa.com
NAUE America Inc. Propex Geosynthetics
3525 Piedmont Rd NE 6025 Lee Highway, Ste. 425
7 Piedmont Center Ste 300 P.O. Box 22788
Atlanta, GA 30305-1578 Chattanooga, TN 37422
www.naue.com www.propexinc.com
Saint-Gobain Technical Fabrics SKAPS Industries
1795 Baseline Rd 335 Athena Dr
Grand Island, NY 14072-2010 Athens, GA 30601
www.glasrid.com www.nevown.com

Strata Systems, Inc., Div. Glen Raven, Inc. SynTeen Technical Fabrics
PO Box 791 1950 W Meeting St
Statesville, NC 28687-0791 Lancaster, SC 29720-8811
www.geogrid.com www.synteen.com
Tenax Corp. TenCate Geosynthetics
4800 E Monument St 365 S Holland Dr
Baltimore, MD 21205-3031 Pendergrass, GA 30567-4625
www.tencate.com
Tensar International Corporation Thrace-LINQ Inc.
5883 Glenridge Dr NE Ste 200 2550 W 5th North St
Atlanta, GA 30328-5571 Summerville, SC 29483-9665
www.tensar-international.com
TNS Advanced Technologies By Crown Resources Vantage Partners, LLC
856 S Pleasantburg Dr 1000 Bucks Industrial Park Dr
Greenville, SC 29607-2455 Statesville, NC 28625-2575
www.vp-geos.com
* List is from the Geosynthetics Materials Association.
1.3 LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)
The most significant revision/update of this reference manual is the change of design
procedure for MSE walls from an allowable stress design (ASD) basis to load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) basis. Transportation superstructures are designed using LRFD
procedures, and logically the substructures supporting the superstructures should also be
designed on a LRFD basis to provide design consistency on the overall project. Therefore,
FHWA and the AASHTO Subcommittee on Bridges and Substructures established an
October 1, 2010 deadline for implementation of LRFD in wall design.
Although the implementation of LRFD requires a change in design procedures for engineers
accustomed to ASD, many advantages do exist. LRFD separately accounts for uncertainty in
both resistance and load, and when appropriately calibrated, can provide more consistent
levels of safety in the design of superstructure and substructure components in terms of
reliability index. Section 11 of the AASHTO LRFD Specification (2007) provides
information on LRFD for earth retaining structures including mechanically stabilized earth
(MSE) walls. Section 10.4 of AASHTO (2007) provides detailed information on the
evaluation of soil and rock properties to be used for design. Section 3 of AASHTO (2007)
provides detailed information on vertical and lateral loads, and load factors for the design of
retaining walls.
For many years, engineers have designed walls for highway and other applications using
allowable stress design (ASD) methods. (Note that the AASHTO (2002) and FHWA (Elias
et al., 2001) ASD references will not be updated by AASHTO or FHWA, respectively.) In

ASD, all uncertainty in applied loads and material resistance are combined in a factor of
safety or allowable material stress. Furthermore, the factor of safety is independent of the
method used to estimate the resistance. In LRFD, uncertainty in load and material resistance
are accounted for separately. The uncertainty in load is represented by a load factor and the
uncertainty in material resistance is represented by a resistance factor. More importantly, the
resistance factor is a function of the method used to estimate the resistance and thus the
model uncertainty is also included in the design process.
In the AASHTO-LRFD framework, there are four limit states, which represent distinct
structural performance criteria: (1) strength limit states; (2) serviceability limit states; (3)
extreme event limit states; and (4) fatigue limit states. For most earth retaining system
designs, the strength or service limit states control the design. For walls subject to
earthquake or vessel/vehicle impact, the extreme limit states may control.
This manual, and the accompanying training course curriculum materials, have been
prepared assuming that the user is familiar with LRFD general procedures Agencies can
receive detailed training and reference materials on LRFD procedures for substructures from
the FHWA NHI 130082 training course (see www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov).
This manual also provides detailed procedures for the design, specification, and construction
of reinforced soil slopes (RSS). The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007)
do not address RSS structures. Therefore, the design for RSS remains based upon a limit
equilibrium slope stability basis within this manual.

CHAPTER 2
SYSTEMS AND PROJECT EVALUATION
This chapter describes available MSE wall (MSEW) and RSS systems and components, their
application, advantages, disadvantages and relative costs. Subsequently, it reviews typical
construction sequence for MSEW and RSS construction, and outlines required site and
project evaluations leading to the establishment of site-specific project criteria and details.
2.1 APPLICATIONS
2.1.1 MSE Walls
MSEW structures are cost-effective alternatives for most applications where reinforced
concrete or gravity type walls have traditionally been used to retain soil. These include
bridge abutments and wing walls, as well as areas where the right-of-way is restricted, such
that an embankment or excavation with stable side slopes cannot be constructed. They are
particularly suited to economical construction in steep-sided terrain, in ground subject to
slope instability, or in areas where foundation soils are poor.
MSE walls offer significant technical and cost advantages over conventional reinforced
concrete retaining structures at sites with poor foundation conditions. In such cases, the
elimination of costs for foundation improvements such as piles and pile caps, that may be
required for support of conventional structures, have resulted in cost savings of greater than
50 percent on completed projects.
Representative uses of MSE walls for various applications are shown in Figure 2-1.
Temporary MSE wall structures have been especially cost-effective for temporary detours
necessary for highway reconstruction projects. Temporary MSE walls are used to support
temporary roadway embankments and temporary bridge abutments, as illustrated in Figure 2-
2. MSE walls are also used as temporary support of permanent roadway embankments for
phased construction, an example is shown in Figure 2-3.
FHWA NHI-10-024 2 – Systems and Project Evaluation

Figure 2-1. Representative MSE wall applications (a) retaining wall; (b) access ramp; (c)
waterfront structure; and (d) bridge abutment.

Figure 2-2. MSE walls to support temporary bridge abutment and roadway embankment.
phased construction.

2.1.2 Reinforced Soil Slopes
Reinforced soil slopes (RSS) are a form of mechanically stabilized earth that incorporate
planar reinforcing elements (typically geosynthetics) in constructed earth sloped structures
with face inclinations of less than 70 degrees. As shown in Figure 2-4, multiple layers of
reinforcement are placed in the slope during construction or reconstruction to reinforce the
soil and provide increased slope stability. RSS structures are cost-effective alternatives for
new construction and reconstruction where the cost of fill, right-of-way, and other
considerations may make a steeper slope desirable.
There are two primary purposes for using reinforcement in engineered slopes.
C To increase the stability of the slope, particularly if a steeper than safe unreinforced slope
is desirable or after a failure has occurred as shown in Figure 2-4.
C To provide improved compaction at the edges of a slope, thus decreasing the tendency for
surface sloughing as shown in Figure 1-2b.
Reinforcement is used to construct an embankment at an angle steeper than could otherwise

be safely constructed with the same soil. The increase in stability allows for construction of
steepened slopes on firm foundations for new highways and as an alternative to flatter
unreinforced slopes and to retaining walls. Roadways can also be widened over existing
flatter slopes without encroaching beyond existing right-of-ways. In the case of repairing a
slope failure, the new slope will be safer, and reusing the slide debris rather than importing
higher quality backfill may result in substantial cost savings. These applications are
illustrated in Figure 2-4.
The second purpose for using reinforcement is at the edges of a compacted fill slope to
provide lateral resistance during compaction. The increased lateral resistance allows for an
increase in compacted soil density over that normally achieved and provides increased lateral
confinement for the soil at the face. Even modest amounts of reinforcement in compacted
slopes have been found to prevent sloughing and reduce slope erosion. Edge reinforcement
also allows compaction equipment to more safely operate near the edge of the slope.
Further compaction improvements have been found in cohesive soils through the use of
geosynthetics with in-plane drainage capabilities (e.g., nonwoven geotextiles) that allow for
rapid pore pressure dissipation in the compacted soil.

Compaction aids placed as intermediate layers between reinforcement in steepened slopes
may also be used to provide improved face stability and to reduce layers of more expensive
primary reinforcement as shown in Figure 1-2.
Other applications of reinforced slopes have included:

C Decreased bridge spans.
C Temporary road widening for detours.
C Prevention of surface sloughing during periods of saturation.
C Embankment construction with wet, fine-grained soils.
C Permanent levees.
C Temporary flood control structures.
Figure 2-4. Application of reinforced soil slopes.

2.2 ADVANTAGES AND POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES
2.2.1 Advantages of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls
MSE walls have many advantages compared with conventional reinforced concrete and
concrete gravity retaining walls. MSE walls:
C Use simple and rapid construction procedures and do not require as large of construction
equipment.
C Do not require special skills for construction.
C Require less site preparation than other alternatives.
C Need less space in front of the structure for construction operations.
C Reduce right-of-way acquisition.
C Do not need rigid, unyielding foundation support because MSE structures are tolerant to
deformations.
C Are cost effective.
C Are technically feasible to heights in excess of 100 ft (30 m).
Pre-manufactured materials, rapid construction, and, competition among different proprietary

systems has resulted in a cost reduction relative to traditional types of retaining walls. MSE
walls are likely to be more economical than other wall systems for walls higher than about 10
ft (3 m) or where special foundations would be required for a conventional wall.
One of the greatest advantages of MSE walls is their flexibility and capability to tolerate
deformations due to poor subsoil foundation conditions. Also, based on observations in
seismically active zones, these structures have demonstrated a higher resistance to seismic
loading than rigid concrete wall structures.
Precast concrete facing elements for MSE walls can be made with various shapes and
textures (with little extra cost) for aesthetic considerations. Masonry units, timber, and
gabions also can be used to blend in the environment.
2.2.2 Advantages of Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS)
The economic advantages of constructing a safe, steeper RSS than would normally be
possible are the result of material and right-of-way savings. It also may be possible to
decrease the quality of materials required for construction. For example, in repair of
landslides it is possible to reuse the slide debris rather than to import higher quality backfill.
Right-of-way savings can be a substantial benefit, especially for road widening projects in
urban areas where acquiring new right-of-way is always expensive and, in some cases,

unobtainable. RSS also provide an economical alternative to retaining walls. In some cases,
reinforced slopes can be constructed at about one-half the cost of MSEW structures.
The use of vegetated-faced reinforced soil slopes that can be landscaped to blend with natural
environments may also provide an aesthetic advantage over retaining wall structures.
However, there are some potential maintenance issues that must be addressed such as
mowing grass-faced steep slopes; however, these can be satisfactorily handled in design.
In terms of performance, due to inherent conservatism in the design of RSS, they are actually
safer than flatter, unreinforced slopes designed at the same factor of safety. As a result, there
is a lower risk of long-term stability problems developing with a reinforced slope. Such
problems often occur in compacted fill slopes that have been constructed to low factors of
safety and/or with marginal materials (e.g. deleterious soils such as shale, fine grained low
cohesive silts, plastic soils, etc.). The reinforcement may also facilitate strength gains in the
soil over time from soil aging and through improved drainage, further improving long-term
performance.
2.2.3 Potential Disadvantages
The following general potential disadvantages may be associated with all reinforced soil
structures, and are dependent upon local and project conditions:
C Require a relatively large space (e.g., excavation if in a cut) behind the wall or slope face
to install required reinforcement.
C MSE walls require the use of select granular fill. (At some sites, the cost of importing
suitable fill material may render the system uneconomical.) Reinforced fill requirements
for RSS are typically less restrictive.
C The design of soil-reinforced systems often requires a shared design responsibility

between material suppliers and owners.
2.3 RELATIVE COSTS
Site specific costs of a soil-reinforced structure are a function of many factors, including cut-
fill requirements, wall/slope size and type, in-situ soil type, available backfill materials,
facing finish, temporary or permanent application, etc. It has been found that MSE walls
with precast concrete facings are usually less expensive than reinforced concrete retaining

walls for heights greater than about 10 ft (3 m) and average foundation conditions. Modular
block wall (MBW) unit faced walls are competitive with concrete walls at all heights and
also for small projects.
In general, the use of MSE walls results in savings on the order of 25 to 50 percent and
possibly more with a conventional reinforced concrete retaining structure, especially when
the latter is supported on a deep foundation system (poor foundation condition). A
substantial savings is obtained by elimination of the deep foundations, which is usually
possible because reinforced soil structures can accommodate relatively large total and
differential settlements. Other cost saving features include ease of construction and speed of
construction. Typical total costs for permanent transportation MSE walls range from $30 to
$65 per ft2 ($320 to $650 per m2) of face, and generally vary as function of height, size of
project, aesthetic treatment, site accessibility, and cost of select wall fill. However,
reinforced fill costs vary considerably across the U.S. and regional costs may be much higher
than the indicated range (not just for MSE walls, but for other wall types as well). Some
example costs are presented with the case histories in Section 2.10.
The actual cost of a specific MSEW structure will depend on the cost of each of its principal
components. For segmental precast concrete faced structures, typical relative costs are:
C Erection of panels and contractors profit - 20 to 30 percent of total cost.
C Reinforcing materials - 15 to 30 percent of total cost.
C Facing system - 20 to 40 percent of total cost.
C Reinforced wall fill including placement - 30 to 60 percent of total cost, where the fill is a
select granular fill from an off-site borrow source.
The additional cost for panel architectural finish treatment ranges from $0.50 to $1.50 per ft2
($5 to $15 per m2) depending on the complexity of the finish. Traffic barrier costs average
$170 per linear foot ($550 per linear m). In addition, consideration must be given to the cost
of excavation, which may be somewhat greater than for other systems due to the required
width of the reinforcement zone. MBW faced walls at heights less than 15 ft (4.5 m) are
typically less expensive than segmental panel faced walls by 10 percent or more.
The economy of using RSS must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, where use is not
dictated by space constraints. For such cases, an appropriate benefit to cost ratio analysis
should be conducted to determine whether a steeper slope with the reinforcement is justified
economically over the alternative flatter slope with its increased right-of-way and materials
costs, etc. It should be kept in mind that guardrails or traffic barriers are often necessary for
steeper embankment slopes and additional costs such as erosion control systems for slope
face protection must be considered.

With respect to economy, the factors to consider are as follows:
C Cut or fill earthwork quantities.
C Size of slope area.
C Average height of slope area.
C Angle of slope.
C Cost of nonselect versus select backfills.
C Temporary and permanent erosion protection requirements.
C Cost and availability of right-of-way needed.
C Complicated horizontal and vertical alignment changes.
C Need for temporary excavation support systems.
C Maintenance of traffic during construction.
C Aesthetics.
C Requirements for guardrails and traffic barriers.
The actual bid cost of a specific RSS structure depends on the cost of each of its principal
components. Based on limited data, typical relative costs are:
C Reinforcement - 45 to 65 percent of total cost
C Reinforced fill - 30 to 50 percent of total cost
C Face treatment - 5 to 10 percent of total cost
High RSS structures have relatively higher reinforcement and lower backfill costs. Recent
bid prices suggest costs ranging from $10/ft2 to $24/ft2 ($110/m2 to $260/m2) as a function of
height.
For applications in the 30 to 50 ft (10 to 15 m) height range, bid costs of about $16/ft2
($170/m2) have been reported. These prices do not include safety features and drainage
details.
A rapid, first-order assessment of cost items for comparing a flatter unreinforced slope with a
steeper reinforced slope is presented in Figure 2-5.

V3:1 = V V3:1 = L
V2:1 = ⅔V V2:1 = ⅔L
V1:1 = ⅓V V1:1 = ⅓L
COST:
3H:1V = VSOIL + LLAND + Guardrail* (?) + Hydroseeding (?)
2H:1V = ⅔VSOIL + ⅔LLAND + Guardrail + Erosion Control + High Maintenance
1H:1V = ⅓VSOIL + ⅓LLAND + Reinforcement + Guardrail + Erosion Control
* Include guardrail or traffic barrier cost if required.
Figure 2-5. Cost evaluation of reinforced soil slopes.
2.4 DESCRIPTION OF MSE and RSS SYSTEMS
2.4.1 Systems Differentiation
Since the expiration of the fundamental process and concrete facing panel patents obtained
by the Reinforced Earth Company for MSE wall systems and structures, the engineering
community has adopted a generic term Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) to describe this
type of retaining wall construction.
Trademarks, such as Reinforced Earth®, Retained Earth®, Genesis® etc., describe systems
with some present or past proprietary features or unique components marketed by nationwide
commercial suppliers. Other trademark names appear yearly to differentiate systems
marketed by competing commercial entities that may include proprietary or novel
components or for special applications.
A system for either MSEW or RSS structures is defined as a complete supplied package that
includes design, specifications and all prefabricated materials of construction necessary for

the complete construction of a reinforced soil structure. Often technical assistance during the
planning and construction phase is included. Components marketed by commercial entities
for integration by the owner, or others, into a coherent package are not classified as systems.
Generic systems created by combining components are also possible; however, the
components must be tested and evaluated together in the form of the final system.
Components cannot be substituted without complete evaluation of the impact on the system.
2.4.2 Types of Systems
MSE/RSS systems can be described by the reinforcement geometry, stress transfer

mechanism, reinforcement material, extensibility of the reinforcement material, and the type
of facing and connections.
Reinforcement Geometry Three types of reinforcement geometry can be considered:

C Linear unidirectional. Strips, including smooth or ribbed steel strips, or coated
geosynthetic strips over a load-carrying fiber.
C Composite unidirectional. Grids or bar mats characterized by grid spacing greater than
6 in. (150 mm).
C Planar bi-directional. Continuous sheets of geosynthetics, welded wire mesh, and
woven wire mesh. The mesh is characterized by element spacing of less than 6 in. (150
mm).
Reinforcement Material Distinction can be made between the characteristics of metallic and
nonmetallic reinforcements:
C Metallic reinforcements. Typically of mild steel. The steel is usually galvanized.
C Nonmetallic reinforcements. Generally polymeric materials consisting of polyester or
polyethylene.
The performance and durability considerations for these two classes of reinforcement vary
considerably and are detailed in the companion Corrosion/Degradation manual (FHWA NHI-
09-087; Elias et al., 2009).
Reinforcement Extensibility There are two classes of extensibility relative to the soil’s
extensibility:
C Inextensible. The deformation of the reinforcement at failure is much less than the
deformability of the soil. Steel strip and bar mat reinforcements are inextensible.
C Extensible. The deformation of the reinforcement at failure is comparable to or even
greater than the deformability of the soil. Geogrid, geotextile, and woven steel wire mesh
reinforcements are extensible.

2.4.3 Facing Systems
The types of facing elements used in the different MSE systems control their aesthetics
because they are the only visible parts of the completed structure. A wide range of finishes
and colors can be provided in the facing, as shown in the FHWA Federal Lands Highway
Division’s Roadway Aesthetic Treatments Photo Album (RATPA) available at
http://gallery.company39.com/FLH/gallery/. In addition, the facing provides protection
against backfill sloughing and erosion, and provides, in certain cases, drainage paths. The
type of facing influences settlement tolerances. Major facing types are:
C Segmental precast concrete panels. The various shapes and dimensions of segmental
precast panels are summarized in Table 1-1, and examples are illustrated in Figure 2-6
(and in Figure 5-33). The precast concrete panels have a minimum thickness of 5-½
inches (140 mm) and are of a square, rectangular, cruciform, diamond, or hexagonal
geometry. Typical nominal panel dimensions are 5-foot (1.5 m) high and 5- or 10-foot
(1.5 or 3 m) wide. Temperature and tensile reinforcement of the concrete are required
and should be designed in accordance with Section 5 of AASHTO LRFD Specifications
for Highway Bridges (2007).
C Dry cast modular block wall (MBW) units. These are relatively small, squat concrete
units that have been specifically designed and manufactured for retaining wall
applications. The weight of these units commonly ranges from 30 to 110 lbs (15 to 50
kg), with units of 75 to 110 lbs (35 to 50 kg) routinely used for highway projects. Unit
heights typically range from 4 to 12 in. (100 to 300 mm) for the various manufacturers,
with 8-in. (200 mm) typical. Exposed face length usually varies from 8 to 18 in. (200 to
450 mm). Nominal front to back width (dimension perpendicular to the wall face) of
units typically ranges between 8 and 24 in. (200 and 600 mm). Units may be
manufactured solid or with cores. Full height cores are filled with aggregate during
erection. Units are normally dry-stacked (i.e. without mortar or bearing pads) and in a
running bond configuration. Vertically adjacent units may be connected with shear pins,
lips, or keys. They are referred to by trademarked names such as Keystone®, Landmark®,
Mesa®, Versa-Lok®, etc. Several example MBW units are illustrated in Figure 2-7.
C Welded Wire Mesh (WWM). Wire grid can be bent up at the front of the wall to form
the wall face. This type of facing is used for example in the Hilfiker, Tensar, and
Reinforced Earth wire faced retaining wall systems. This type of facing is commonly
used for RSS with face angles of about 45 degrees and steeper.

Figure 2-6. Example MSE wall facing treatments.
(See Figure 5-33 and http://gallery.company39.com/FLH/gallery/ for
additional example facings.)

Figure 2-7. Examples of commercially available MBW units (NCMA, 1997).

C Gabion Facing. Gabions (rock-filled wire baskets) can be used as MSE wall or RSS
facing with reinforcing elements consisting of welded wire mesh, welded bar-mats,
geogrids, geotextiles or the double-twisted woven mesh placed between or integrally
manufactured with the gabion baskets. For example, this facing system is used by
Maccaferri for their Terramesh® wall system.
C Geosynthetic Facing. Geosynthetic reinforcements are looped around at the facing to

form the exposed face of the MSEW or RSS. These faces are susceptible to ultraviolet
light degradation, vandalism, and damage due to fire. Geogrid used for soil
reinforcement can be looped around to form the face of the completed retaining structure
in a similar manner to welded wire mesh and fabric facing. Vegetation can grow through
the grid structure and can provide both ultraviolet light protection for the geogrid and a
pleasing appearance.
C Post-construction Facing. For wrapped faced walls, the facing – whether geotextile,
geogrid, or wire mesh – can be attached after construction of the wall by shotcreting,
guniting, cast-in-place concrete or by attaching prefabricated facing panels made of
concrete, wood, or other materials. This multi-staging facing approach adds cost but is
advantageous where significant settlement is anticipated.
Precast elements can be cast in several shapes and provided with facing textures to match
environmental requirements and blend aesthetically into the environment. Retaining
structures using precast concrete elements as the facings can have surface finishes similar to
any reinforced concrete structure.
Retaining structures with metal facings have the disadvantage of shorter life because of
corrosion, unless provision is made to compensate for it. Facings using welded wire or
gabions have the disadvantages of an uneven surface, exposed backfill materials, more
tendency for erosion of the retained soil, possible shorter life from corrosion of the wires, and
more susceptibility to vandalism. These disadvantages can, of course, be countered by
providing shotcrete or by hanging facing panels on the exposed face and compensating for
possible corrosion with galvanization and thicker wire. The greatest advantages of such
facings are low cost, ease of installation, design flexibility, good drainage (depending on the
type of wall fill) that provides increased stability, and possible treatment of the face for
vegetative and other architectural effects. The facing can easily be adapted and well blended
with natural country environment. These facings, as well as geosynthetic wrapped facings,
are especially advantageous for construction of temporary or other structures with a short-
term design life.

Dry cast segmental block MBW facings may raise some concerns as to durability in
aggressive freeze-thaw environments where deicing salts are used. Recent research has
shown that the MBW mix design must be specifically formulated to produce durable, freeze-
thaw resistant units. Agencies should confirm locally manufactured units resistance with
laboratory freeze-thaw testing. The current specifications in Chapter 10 have been developed
to address this issue. Further, because the cement is not completely hydrated during the dry
cast process, (as is often evidenced by efflorescence on the surface of units), a highly alkaline
regime may establish itself at or near the face area, and may limit the use of some
geosynthetic products as reinforcements.
The slope face of RSS structures is usually vegetated if approximately 1:1 or flatter. The
vegetation requirements vary by geographic and climatic conditions and are therefore, project
specific. Details are outlined in Section 10.5.
2.4.4 Reinforcement Types
Most, although not all, MSE wall systems with precast concrete panels use steel
reinforcements that are typically galvanized. The two types of steel reinforcements currently
in use with segmental panel faced MSE walls are:
1. Steel strips. The currently commercially available strips are ribbed top and bottom, 2 in.
(50 mm) wide and 5/32-inch (4 mm) thick. Smooth strips 2- to 4¾-in. (60 to 120 mm)
wide, 1/8 to 5/32-inch (3 to 4 mm) thick have been used.
2. Steel grids. Welded wire grid using two to six W7.5 to W24 longitudinal wire spaced at
either 6 or 8 in. (150 or 200 mm). The transverse wire may vary from W11 to W20 and
are spaced based on design requirements from 9 to 24 in. (230 to 600 mm). Welded steel
wire mesh spaced at 2 by 2-inch (50 by 50 mm) of thinner wire has been used in
conjunction with a welded wire facing. Some MBW systems use steel grids with two
longitudinal wires.
Most MBW systems use geosynthetic reinforcement, predominantly geogrids. The following
soil reinforcement types are widely used and available:
3. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid. These are of uniaxial manufacture and are
available in up to 6 grades of strength. This type of reinforcement is also used with
segmental panel facing.

4. PVC coated polyester (PET) geogrid. Available from a number of manufacturers. They
are characterized by bundled high tenacity PET fibers in the longitudinal load carrying
direction. For longevity the PET is supplied as a high molecular weight fiber and is
further characterized by a low carboxyl end group number.
Other types of soil reinforcements, and their applications, include:
5. Geotextiles. High strength geotextiles can be used principally in connection with

reinforced soil slope (RSS) construction. Both polyester (PET) and polypropylene (PP)
geotextiles have been used.
6. Double twisted steel mesh. The Terramesh® system by Maccaferri, Inc. uses a metallic,
soft-temper, double twisted mesh soil reinforcement that is galvanized and then coated
with poly vinyl chloride (PVC). This reinforcement is used for RSS and gabion faced
MSE wall construction. Note that this reinforcement is classified as an extensible type
of reinforcement due to its manufacturing geometry even though it is metallic.
7. Geosynthetic strap. Although not (currently) widely used, a geosynthetic strap type
reinforcement has been used with segmental panel faced MSE walls. The strap consists
of PET fibers encased in a polyethylene (PE) sheath.
2.4.5 Reinforced Fill Materials
MSEW Structures MSE walls require high quality wall fill for durability, good drainage,
constructability, and good soil reinforcement interaction which can be obtained from well
graded, granular materials. Many MSE systems depend on friction between the reinforcing
elements and the soil. In such cases, a material with high friction characteristics is specified
and required. Some systems rely on passive pressure on reinforcing elements, and, in those
cases, the quality of reinforced wall fill is still critical. These performance requirements
generally eliminate soils with high clay contents.
From a reinforcement capacity point of view, lower quality wall fills could be used for
MSEW structures; however, a high quality granular wall fill has the advantages of better
drainage, providing better durability for metallic reinforcement, and requiring less
reinforcement. There are also significant handling, placement and compaction advantages in
using granular soils. These include an increased rate of wall erection and improved
maintenance of wall alignment tolerances. Appropriate use of lower quality reinforced fill
and design considerations for its use is discussed in Chapter 3.

RSS Structures Reinforced Soil Slopes are normally not constructed with rigid facing
elements. Slopes constructed with a flexible face can thus readily tolerate minor distortions
that could result from settlement, freezing and thawing, or wetting-drying of the backfill. As
a result, any soil meeting the requirements for embankment construction could be used in a
reinforced slope system. However, a higher quality material offers fewer durability concerns
for the reinforcement, and is easier to handle, place and compact, which speeds up
construction.
2.4.6 Appurtenant Materials of Construction
Walls using precast concrete panels require bearing pads in their horizontal joints that
provide some compressibility and movement between panels during elastic compression and
settlement of the reinforced fill and preclude concrete-to-concrete contact. These materials
are generally EPDM rubber or HDPE. The compressibility and thickness of the horizontal
joint material should be a function of the wall height. Walls with heights greater than 50 ft
(15 m) may require thicker or more compressible joints to accommodate the larger vertical
loads due to the weight of panels in the lower third of the structure.
All joints of precast concrete panels are covered with a geotextile filer strip to prevent the
migration of fines from the reinforced wall fill.
Bearing pads are not routinely used with MBW units. A zone of aggregate fill, usually 1-ft
wide, is used behind the MBW units and within units with cores. This gravel readily
compacted and conforms to the MBW unit. A filter is required between the gravel zone and
wall fill, and can either be a soil filter or a geotextile filter (see Chapter 5).
2.5 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
The following is an outline of the principal sequence of construction for MSEW and RSS.
Specific systems, special appurtenances and specific project requirements may vary from the
general sequence indicated.
2.5.1 Construction of MSEW systems with precast panel facings
The construction of MSEW systems with a precast panel facing is carried out as follows:

C Preparation of subgrade. This step involves removal of unsuitable materials from the
area to be occupied by the retaining structure. All organic matter, vegetation, slide debris
and other unstable materials should be stripped off and the subgrade compacted.
In unstable foundation areas, ground improvement methods, such as excavation and

replacement, or dynamic compaction, stone columns, wick drains, etc. (see FHWA NHI-
06-019 and NHI-06-020, Elias et al., 2006) would be constructed prior to wall erection.
C Placement of a leveling pad for the erection of the facing elements. This generally
unreinforced concrete pad is often only 1 ft (300 mm) wide and 6 in. (150 mm) thick and
is used for MSEW construction only, where concrete panels are subsequently erected. A
wider concrete pad is recommended for MBW unit erection.
The purpose of this pad is to serve as a guide for facing panel erection and is not intended
as a structural foundation support.
C Erection of the first row of facing panels on the prepared leveling pad. Facings may
consist of either precast concrete panels or dry cast MBW units.
The first row of facing panels may be full, or half-height panels, depending upon the type
of facing used. Only the first tier of panels must be braced to maintain stability and
alignment. Subsequent rows of panels are simply wedged and clamped to adjacent
panels. For construction with MBW units, full sized blocks are used throughout with no
shoring.
The erection of facing panels and placement of the soil backfills should proceed
simultaneously.
C Placement and compaction of reinforced wall fill on the subgrade to the level of the
first layer of reinforcement and its compaction. The fill should be compacted to the
specified density, usually 95 to 100 percent of AASHTO T-99 maximum density and
within the specified range of optimum moisture content. Compaction moisture contents
dry of optimum are recommended.
A key to good performance is consistent placement and compaction. Wall fill lift
thickness must be controlled based on specification requirements and vertical distribution
of reinforcement elements. The uniform loose lift thickness of the reinforced backfill
should not exceed 12 in. (300 mm). Reinforced wall fill should be dumped into or
parallel to the rear and middle of the reinforcement and bladed toward the front face.

Retained backfill placement and compaction behind the reinforced volume should
proceed simultaneously.
C Placement of the first layer of reinforcing elements on the wall fill. The
reinforcements are placed and connected to the facing panels, when the compacted fill
has been brought up to the level of the connection. The reinforcements are generally
placed perpendicular to back of the facing panels. More detailed construction control
procedures associated with each construction step are outlined in Chapter 11.
C Placement of the wall fill over the reinforcing elements to the level of the next
reinforcement layer and compaction of the wall fill. The previously outlined steps are
repeated for each successive layer.
C Construction of traffic barriers and copings. This final construction sequence is

undertaken after the final panels have been placed, and the wall fill has been completed to
its final grade.
A complete sequence is illustrated in Figures 2-8 through 2-10.

Figure 2-8. Erection of precast panels.

Figure 2-9. Fill spreading and reinforcement connection.

Figure 2-10. Compaction of the reinforced wall fill.

2.5.2 Construction of MSE systems with Flexible Facings
Construction of flexible-faced MSE walls, where the reinforcing material also serves as
facing material, is similar to that for walls with precast facing elements. For flexible facing
types such as welded wire mesh, geotextiles, geogrids or gabions, the erection of the first
level of facing element requires only a level grade. A concrete footing or leveling pad is not
usually required unless precast elements are to be attached to the system after construction.
Construction proceeds as outlined for segmental facings with the following exceptions:
C Placement of first reinforcing layer. Reinforcement with anisotropic strength

properties (i.e., many geosynthetics) should be placed with the principal strength
direction perpendicular to face of structure.
The reinforcement should be secured with retaining pins to prevent movement during
reinforced fill placement.
Adjacent sheets should be overlapped a minimum of 6 in. (150 mm) along the edges
perpendicular to the face. Alternatively, with geogrid or wire mesh reinforcement, the
edges may be butted and clipped or tied together.
C Face Construction. Place the geosynthetic layers using face forms as shown in Figure
2-11. For temporary support of forms at the face, form holders should be placed at the
base of each layer at approximately 4 ft (1.20 m) horizontal intervals. Details of
temporary formwork are shown in Figure 2-12. These supports are essential for
achieving good compaction. When using geogrids or wire mesh, it may be necessary to
use a geotextile or hardware cloth to retain the wall fill material at the face.
When compacting wall fill within 3 ft (~1 m) of the wall face, a hand-operated vibratory
compactor is recommended.
The return-type method or successive layer tie method as shown in Figure 2-12 can be
used for facing support. In the return method, the reinforcement is folded at the face over
the wall fill material, with a minimum return length of 4 ft (1.25 m) to ensure adequate
pullout resistance. Consistency in face construction and compaction is essential to
produce a wrapped facing with satisfactory appearance.
Apply facing treatment (shotcrete, precast facing panels, etc.). Some alternative facing
systems for flexible faced walls and slopes are shown in Figure 2-13.

Figure 2-11. Lift construction sequence for geosynthetic faced MSE walls.

Figure 2-12. Typical geosynthetic face construction detail.
(25 mm = 1 in.)

Figure 2-13. Types of geosynthetic reinforced soil wall facing (after Wu, 1994).

2.5.3 RSS Construction
The construction of RSS embankments is considerably simpler and consists of many of the
elements outlined for MSEW construction. They are summarized as follows:
C Site preparation.
C Construct subsurface drainage features.
C Place reinforcement layer.
C Place and compact backfill on reinforcement.
C Construct face. Details of the available methods are outlined in Chapter 8, construction.
C Place additional reinforcement and reinforced fill.
C Construct surface drainage features.
Key stages of construction are illustrated in Figure 2-14, and the complete sequence is fully
outlined in Chapter 8.
2.6 SITE EVALUATION
2.6.1 Site Exploration
The feasibility of using an MSEW, RSS or any other type of earth retention system depends
on the existing topography, subsurface conditions, and soil/rock properties. It is necessary to
perform a comprehensive subsurface exploration program to evaluate site stability,
settlement potential, need for drainage, etc., before repairing a slope or designing a new
retaining wall or bridge abutment. Where the select backfill is to be obtained from on-site
sources, the extent and quality must be fully explored to minimize contractor claims for
changed conditions.
Subsurface investigations are required not only in the area of the construction but also behind
and in front of the structure to assess overall performance behavior. The subsurface
exploration program should be oriented not only towards obtaining all the information that
could influence the design and stability of the final structure, but also to the conditions which
prevail throughout the construction of the structure, such as the stability of temporary
construction slopes that may be required.
The engineer's concerns include the bearing resistance of the foundation materials, the
allowable deformations, and the stability of the structure. Necessary parameters for these
analyses must be obtained.

erosion control mat placement; and (c) finished, vegetated 1:1 slope.

The cost of a reinforced soil structure is greatly dependent on the availability of the required
type of reinforced fill and retained backfill materials. Therefore, investigations must be
conducted to locate and test locally available materials that may be used for reinforced fill
and retained backfill with the selected system.
2.6.2 Field Reconnaissance
Preliminary subsurface investigation or reconnaissance should consist of collecting any

existing data relating to subsurface conditions and making a field visit to obtain data on:
C Limits and intervals for topographic cross sections.
C Access conditions for work forces and equipment.
C Surface drainage patterns, seepage, and vegetation characteristics.
C Surface geologic features, including rock outcrops and landforms, and existing cuts or
excavations that may provide information on subsurface conditions.
C The extent, nature, and locations of existing or proposed below-grade utilities and
substructures that may have an impact on the exploration or subsequent construction.
C Available right-of-way.
C Areas of potential instability such as deep deposits of weak cohesive and organic soils,
slide debris, high groundwater table, bedrock outcrops, etc.
Reconnaissance should be performed by a geotechnical engineer or by an engineering

geologist. Before the start of field exploration, any data available from previous subsurface
investigations and those that can be inferred from geologic maps of the area should be
studied. Topographic maps and aerial photographs, if available, should be studied. Much
useful information of this type is available from the U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and local planning
boards or county offices.
2.6.3 Subsurface Exploration
The subsurface exploration program generally consists of soil soundings, borings, and test
pits. The type and extent of the exploration should be decided after review of the preliminary
data obtained from the field reconnaissance, and in consultation with a geotechnical engineer
or an engineering geologist. The exploration must be sufficient to evaluate the geologic and
subsurface profile in the area of construction. For guidance on the extent and type of
required investigation, the FHWA NHI-01-031 Subsurface Investigations – Geotechnical Site
Characterization reference manual (Mayne et al., 2002), should be reviewed.

The following guidelines are recommended (Christopher et al., 1990) for the subsurface
exploration for potential MSE applications:
C Borings: The type (soil boring and/or cone penetration), number, location, and depth of
investigation points generally are dictated by the project stage (i.e., feasibility study,
preliminary, or final design), availability of existing geotechnical data, variability of
subsurface conditions, length of the structure, what the structure supports, and other
project details. Soil borings should be performed along the front and the back of the
proposed reinforced soil structure. The width of the MSE wall or slope structure may be
assumed as 0.8 times the anticipated height. Borings at the following intervals should be
considered:
- 100 ft (30 m) along the alignment of the reinforced soil structure; and
- 150 ft (45 m) along the back of the reinforced soil structure
C The boring depth should be controlled by the general subsurface conditions. Where
bedrock is encountered within a reasonable depth, rock cores should be obtained for a
length of about 10 ft (3 m). This coring will be useful to distinguish between solid rock
and boulders. Deeper coring may be necessary to better characterize rock slopes behind
new retaining structures. In areas of soil profile, the borings should extend at least to a
depth equal to twice the height of the wall/slope. If subsoil conditions within this depth
are found to be weak and unsuitable for the anticipated pressures from the structure
height, then the borings must be extended until reasonably strong soils are encountered.
C In each boring, soil samples should be obtained at 5-foot (1.5 m) depth intervals and at
changes in strata for visual identification, classification, and laboratory testing. Methods
of sampling may follow AASHTO T 206 or AASHTO T 207 (Standard Penetration Test
and Thin-Walled Shelby Tube Sampling, respectively), depending on the type of soil. In
granular soils, the Standard Penetration Test can be used to obtain disturbed samples. In
cohesive soils, undisturbed samples should be obtained by thin-walled sampling
procedures. In each boring, careful observation should be made for the prevailing water
table, which should be observed not only at the time of sampling but also at later times to
obtain a good record of prevailing water table conditions. If necessary, piezometers
should be installed in a few borings to observe long-term water levels.
C Both the Standard Penetration Test and the Cone Penetration Test, ASTM D3441,
provide data on the strengths and density of soils. In some situations, it may be desirable
to perform in-situ tests using a dilatometer, pressuremeter, or similar means to determine
soil modulus values.

C Adequate bulk samples of available soils should be obtained and evaluated as indicted in
the following testing section to determine the suitability of the soil for use as backfill in
the MSE structures. Such materials should be obtained from all areas from which
preliminary reconnaissance indicates that borrow materials will be used.
C Test-pit explorations should be performed in areas showing instability or to explore

further availability of the borrow materials for backfill. The locations and number of test
pits should be decided for each specific site, based on the preliminary reconnaissance.
2.6.4 Laboratory Testing
Soil samples should be visually examined and appropriate tests performed for classification
according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488). These tests permit the
engineer to decide what further field or laboratory tests will best describe the engineering
behavior of the soil at a given project site. Index testing includes determination of moisture
content, Atterberg limits, and gradation. The dry unit weight of representative undisturbed
samples should also be determined.
Shear strength determination by unconfined compression tests, direct shear tests, or triaxial
tests will be needed for external stability analyses of MSE walls and slopes. At sites where
compressible cohesive soils are encountered below the foundations of the MSE structure, it is
necessary to perform consolidation tests to obtain parameters for performing service state
settlement analyses. Both undrained and drained (effective stress) parameters should be
obtained for cohesive soils, to permit evaluation of both long-term and short-term conditions.
Of particular significance in the evaluation of any material for possible use as backfill are the
grain size distribution and plasticity. The effective particle size (D10) can be used to estimate
the permeability of cohesionless materials. Laboratory permeability tests may also be
performed on representative samples compacted to the specified density. Additional testing
should include direct shear tests on a few similarly prepared samples to determine shear
strength parameters under long and short-term conditions. The compaction behavior of
potential backfill materials should be investigated by performing laboratory moisture-density
relationship tests according to AASHTO T 99, or T 180.
Properties to indicate the potential aggressiveness of the backfill material and the in-situ soils
behind the reinforced soil zone must be measured. Tests include:
C pH (AASHTO T 289; ASTM D4972)

C Electrical resistivity.

C Salt content including water soluble sulfate (AASHTO T 290), sulfides (ASTM
D4327), and chlorides (ASTM D4327).
The test results will provide necessary information for planning degradation protection
measures and will help in the selection of reinforcement elements with adequate durability.
designers.
2.6.5 Foundation Soils
The development and implementation of an adequate subsurface investigation program for

the existing foundation conditions is a key element for ensuring successful project
implementation. Causes for distress experienced in projects are often traced to inadequate
subsurface exploration programs that did not disclose local or significant areas of soft soils,
causing significant local differential settlement and distress to the facing panels. In a few
documented extreme cases, such foundation weakness caused complete foundation failures
leading to catastrophic collapses.
Determination of engineering properties for foundation soils should be focused on

establishment of bearing resistance, global stability, settlement potential, and position of
groundwater levels. For bearing capacity determinations, frictional and cohesive parameters
(, c) as well as unit weights (γT) and groundwater position are normally required in order to
calculate bearing resistance in accordance with Article 10.6.3.1 for soil and 10.6.3.2 for rock
in AASHTO (2007). The effects of load inclination and footing shape may be omitted for
Strength Limit State.
For foundation settlement determinations, the results of conventional settlement analyses

with Service Limit State load factors, and using laboratory time-settlement data, coefficients
of consolidation Cc, in conjunction with approximate value for compression index Cv,
obtained from correlations to soil index tests (moisture content, Atterberg limits) should be
used. The results of settlement analyses, especially with respect to differential settlement
should be used to determine the ability of the facing and connection system to tolerate such
movements or the necessity for special details or procedures to accommodate the differential
movement anticipated.
Major foundation weakness and compressibility may require the consideration of ground
improvement techniques to achieve adequate bearing capacity, or limiting total or differential
settlement. Techniques successfully used, include surcharging with or without prefabricated
vertical drains, stone columns, dynamic compaction, compaction grouting and the use of
lightweight fill to reduce settlement. Additional information on ground improvement

techniques can be found in the FHWA Ground Improvement Manuals, FHWA NHI-06-019
and FHWA NHI-06-020 (Elias et al., 2006). As an alternate for MSE walls, faces
constructed of geosynthetic wraps, welded wire mesh or gabion baskets, which will tolerate
significant differential settlement, could be constructed and permanent facings such as
concrete panels attached after the settlement has occurred, see Section 3.6.6. Of particular
concern, are situations where the MSEW structure may terminate adjacent to a rigidly
supported structure such as a pile supported abutment at the end of a retained approach fill.
Evaluation of these foundation related issues are typically beyond the scope of services
provided by wall/slope system suppliers. Evaluations of this type are the responsibility of
agency engineers or consultant geotechnical and are required before selection of the
appropriate MSE wall or RSS system.
2.7 PROJECT EVALUATION
2.7.1 Structure Selection Factors
The major factors that influence the selection of an MSE/RSS alternative for any project
include:
C Geologic and topographic conditions
C Environmental conditions
C Size and nature of the structure
C Aesthetics
C Durability considerations
C Performance criteria
C Availability of materials
C Experience with a particular system or application
C Cost
Many MSEW systems have proprietary features. Some companies provide services
including design assistance, preparation of plans and specifications for the structure, supply
of the manufactured wall components, and construction assistance.
The various wall systems have different performance histories, and this sometimes creates
difficulty in adequate technical evaluation. Some systems are more suitable for permanent
walls, others are more suitable for low walls, and some are applicable for remote areas while
others are more suited for urban areas. The selection of the most appropriate system will
thus depend on the specific project requirements.

RSS embankments have been constructed with a variety of geosynthetic reinforcements and
treatments of the slope face. These factors again may create an initial difficulty in adequate
technical evaluation, but with the use of this manual easily addressed by department
personnel to prepare generic designs. A number of geosynthetic reinforcement suppliers
provide design services as well as technical assistance during construction.
Specific technical issues focused on selection factors are summarized in the following
sections.
2.7.2 Geologic and Topographic Conditions
MSE structures are particularly well suited where a "fill-type" wall must be constructed or
where side-hill fills are indicated. Under these latter conditions, the volume of excavation
may be small, and the general economy of this type of construction is not jeopardized.
Economic advantages diminish with large cut volumes to accommodate the reinforced soil
structure, but in many instances remain viable.
The adequacy of the foundation to support the fill weight must be determined as a first-order
feasibility evaluation.
Where soft compressible soils are encountered, preliminary stability analyses must be made
to determine if sufficient shear strength is available to support the weight of the reinforced
fill. As a rough first approximation for vertically faced MSE structures, the available shear
strength must be equal to at least 2.0 to 2.5 times the weight of the fill structure. For RSS
embankments the required foundation strength is somewhat less and dependent on the actual
slope considered.
Where these conditions are not satisfied, ground improvement techniques (see FHWA NHI-
06-019 and NHI-06-020, Elias et al., 2006) must be considered to increase the bearing
capacity at the foundation level. These techniques include but are not limited to:
C Excavation and removal of soft soils and replacement with a compacted structural fill.
C Use of lightweight fill materials.
C In-situ densification by dynamic compaction or improvement by use of surcharging with
or without prefabricated vertical drains.
C Construction of aggregate columns.
Where marginal to adequate foundation strength is available, preliminary settlement analyses
should be made to determine the potential for differential settlement, both longitudinally
along a proposed structure as well as transverse to the face. This second-order feasibility

evaluation is useful in determining the appropriate type of facing systems for MSE walls and
in planning appropriate construction phasing to accommodate the settlement.
In general, concrete-faced MSE structures using discrete articulating panels can

accommodate maximum longitudinal differential settlements of about 1/100, without the
introduction of special sliding joints between panels. Full-height concrete panels are
considerably less tolerant and generally should not be considered where differential
settlements are anticipated. MBW unit faced walls can accommodate maximum longitudinal
differential settlements of about 1/200, with the introduction of special slip joints.
The performance of reinforced soil slopes generally is not affected by differential

longitudinal settlements.
2.7.3 Environmental Conditions
The primary environmental condition affecting reinforcement type selection and potential
performance of MSE structures is the aggressiveness of the in-situ ground regime that can
cause deterioration to the reinforcement. Post construction changes must be considered
where deicing salts or fertilizers are subsequently used.
For steel reinforcements, in-situ regimes containing chloride and sulfate salts generally in
excess of 200 PPM accelerate the corrosive process as do acidic regimes characterized by a
pH of less than 5 (Elias, 1989). Alkaline regimes characterized by pH > 10 will cause
accelerated loss of galvanization.
Certain in-situ regimes have been identified as being potentially aggressive for geosynthetic
reinforcements. Polyester (PET) degrades in highly alkaline or acidic regimes. Polyolefins
appear to degrade only under certain highly acidic conditions.
For additional specific discussions on the potential degradability of reinforcements, refer to

the companion Corrosion/Degradation reference manual and are summarized in Section 3.5.
A secondary environmental issue is site accessibility, which may dictate the nature and size
of the facing for MSE wall construction. Sites with poor accessibility or remote locations
may lend themselves to lightweight facings such as geotextile or geogrid wrapped facings
and vegetative covers; metal skins; welded wire mesh, gabions, modular blocks (MBW)
which could be erected without heavy lifting equipment.

RSS construction with an organic vegetative cover must be carefully chosen to be consistent
with native perennial cover that would establish itself quickly and would thrive with
available site rainfall.
2.7.4 Size and Nature of Structure
Theoretically there is no upper limit to the height of MSE wall that can be constructed.
Structures up to 135 ft (41 m) have been successfully constructed in the U.S. with steel
reinforcements, although such heights for transportation-related structures are rare. RSS
embankments have been constructed to up to a height of 242 ft (74 m) in the U.S. with
geogrid reinforcements, but again such heights for transportation-related structures are rare.
Practical limits are often dictated by economy, available ROW, and the tensile strength of
commercially available soil reinforcing materials. For bridge abutments there is no
theoretical limit to the span length that can be supported, although the longer the span, the
greater is the area of footing necessary to support the beams. Since the nominal bearing
resistance of the reinforced fill for the service limit state is usually limited to 4000 psf (200
kPa), a large abutment footing further increases the span length, adding cost to the
superstructure. This additional cost must be balanced by the potential savings of the MSE
alternate to a conventional abutment wall, which would have a shorter span length. As an
option in such cases, it might be economical to consider support of the bridge beams on deep
foundations, placed within (or in front of) the reinforced fill zone.
The lower limit to height is usually dictated by economy. When used with traffic barriers,
low walls on good foundations of less than 10 to 14 ft (3 to 4 m) are often uneconomical, as
the cost of the overturning moment leg of the traffic barrier approaches one-third of the total
cost of the MSE structure in place. For cantilever walls, the barrier is simply an extension of
the stem with a smaller impact on overall cost.
The total size of structure (square feet of face) has little impact on economy compared with
other retaining wall types. However, the unit cost for small projects of less than 3,000 ft2
(300 m2) is likely to be 10 to 15 percent higher.
RSS may be cost effective in rural environments, where ROW restrictions exist or on
widening projects where long sliver fills are necessary. In urban environments, they should
be considered where ROW is available, as they are generally more economical than vertically
faced MSE wall structures.

2.7.5 Aesthetics
Precast concrete facing panels may be cast with an unlimited variety of texture and color for
an additional premium that seldom exceeds 15 percent of the facing cost, which on average
would mean a 4 to 6 percent increase on total in-place cost.
Modular block wall facings are often comparable in cost to precast concrete panels except on
small projects (less than 4,000 ft2 {400 m2}) where the small size introduces savings in
erection equipment cost and the need to cast special, made-to-order concrete panels to fit
what is often irregular geometry. MBW facings may be manufactured in color and with a
wide variety of surface finishes.
The outward face treatment of RSS, generally is by vegetation, which is initially more
economical than the concrete facing used for MSE structures. However, maintenance costs
may be considerably higher, and the long-term performance of many outward face treatments
has not been established.
2.7.6 Questionable Applications
The current AASHTO LRFD Specifications (2007) states that MSE walls should not be used
under the following conditions:
C When utilities other than highway drainage must be constructed within the reinforced
zone where future access for repair would require the reinforcement layers to be cut. A
similar limitation should be considered for RSS structures.
C With galvanized metallic reinforcements exposed to surface or ground water

contaminated by acid mine drainage or other industrial pollutants as indicted by low pH
and high chlorides and sulfates.
C When floodplain erosion may undermine the reinforced fill zone, or where the depth to
scour cannot be reliably determined.
2.8 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROJECT CRITERIA
The engineer should consider each topic area presented in this section at a preliminary design
stage and determine appropriate elements and performance criteria.

The process consists of the following successive steps:
C Consider all possible alternatives.
C Choose a system (MSEW or RSS).
C Consider facing options.
C Develop performance criteria (loads, design heights, embedment, settlement tolerances,
foundation capacity, effect on adjoining structures, etc.).
C Consider effect of site on corrosion/degradation of reinforcements.
2.8.1 Alternates
Cantilever, gravity, semi gravity, or counterforted concrete walls or soil embankments are the
usual alternatives to MSE walls and abutments and RSS.
In cut situations, in-situ walls such as tieback anchored walls, soil nailed walls or nongravity
cantilevered walls are often more economical, although where limited ROW is available, a
combination of a temporary in-situ wall at the back end of the reinforcement and a permanent
MSE wall is often competitive.
For waterfront or marine wall applications, sheetpile walls with or without anchorages or
prefabricated concrete bin walls that can be constructed in the wet are often, if not always,
both more economical and more practical to construct.
2.8.2 Facing Considerations
The development of project-specific aesthetic criteria is principally focused on the type, size,
and texture of the facing, which is the only visible feature of any MSE structure.
For permanent applications, considerations should be given to MSE walls with precast
concrete panels. They are constructed with a (near) vertical face. Currently, the size of
panels commercially produced varies from 20 to 50 ft2 (1.8 to 4.5 m2 ). Generally, full height
panels may be considered for walls up to about 14 to 16 ft (4 to 5 m) in height on foundations
that are not expected to settle. Experienced contractors have successfully constructed taller
full height panels (e.g., 25 ft {7.5 m}) on competent foundations. The precast concrete
panels can be manufactured with a variety of surface textures and geometries, as shown in
Figure 2-6.
For permanent applications, considerations should be given to MBW facings, which are
available in a variety of shapes and textures as shown in Figure 2-7. They range in facial
area from 0.5 to 1 ft2 (0.05 to 0.1 m2). An integral feature of this type of facing is a front

batter ranging from nominal up to 15 degrees. Project geometric constraints, i.e., the bottom
of wall and top of wall horizontal limits, may limit the amount of permissible batter and,
thus, the types of MBW units that may be used. Note that the toe of these walls step back as
the foundation elevation steps up, due to the stacking arrangement and automatic batter.
Other facing options are gabion, timber faced, or vegetated.
For temporary walls, significant economy can be achieved with geosynthetic wrapped
facings. They may be made permanent by applying gunite or cast-in-place concrete in a
post-construction application.
For RSS structures, the choice of slope facing may be controlled by climatic and regional
factors. For structures of less than 33 ft (10 m) height with slopes of approximately 1
Horizontal:1 Vertical (1H:1V) or flatter, a vegetative "green slope" can be usually
constructed using an erosion control mat or mesh and local grasses. Where vegetation cannot
be successfully established and/or significant run-off may occur, armored slopes using
natural or manufactured materials may be the only choice to reduce future maintenance. For
additional guidance see Section 8.5.
2.8.3 Performance Criteria
Performance criteria for MSE structures with respect to design requirements are governed by
design practice or codes such as contained in Article 11.10 of 2007 AASHTO LRFD
Specifications for Highway Bridges. These requirements consider load and resistance factors
with respect to various failure modes and materials, and for various limit states. No specific
AASHTO guidance is presently available for RSS structures.
With respect to lateral wall displacements, no method is presently available to definitively

predict lateral displacements, most of which occur during construction. The horizontal
movements depend on compaction effects, reinforcement extensibility, reinforcement length,
reinforcement-to-panel connection details, and details of the facing system. A rough estimate
of probable lateral displacements of simple structures that may occur during construction can
be made based on the reinforcement length to wall-height ratio and reinforcement
extensibility as shown in Figure 2-15, for the serviceability limit check.
This figure indicates that increasing the length-to-height ratio of reinforcements from its
theoretical lower limit of 0.5H to 0.7H, decreases the deformation by 50 percent.

For L = 0.7 H
Metallic (inextensible) reinforcement . ¾-in. per 10 ft of wall height
Geogrid (moderately extensible) reinforcement .1 in. per 10 ft of wall height
Geotextile (extensible) reinforcement .1.5 in. per 10 ft of wall height
Based on 20 ft high walls, relative displacement increases approximately 25%

for every 400 psf surcharge. Experience indicates that for higher walls, the
surcharge effect may be greater.
NOTE: This figure is only a guide. Actual displacement will depend, in addition to the
parameters addressed in the figure, on soil characteristics, compaction effort, and contractor
Figure 2-15. Empirical curve for estimating lateral displacement during construction for
MSE walls (after FHWA RD 89-043 {Christopher et al., 1990}).

Performance criteria are both site and structure-dependent. Structure-dependent criteria
consist of safety factors or a consistent set of load and resistance factors as well as tolerable
movement criteria of the specific MSE structure selected.
Recommended MSE Wall load and resistance factors with respect to the various potential
failure modes and limit states are presented in Chapter 4.
A number of site-specific project criteria need to be established at the inception of design:
C Design limits and wall height. The length and height required to meet project geometric
requirements must be established to determine the type of structure and external loading
configurations.
C Alignment limits. The horizontal (perpendicular to wall face) limits of bottom and top
of wall alignment must be established as alignments vary with batter of wall system. The
alignment constraints may limit the type and maximum batter of the wall facing,
particularly with MBW units.
C Length of reinforcement. A minimum reinforcement length of 0.7H is recommended

for MSE walls. Longer lengths are required for structures subject to surcharge loads, or
where foundation conditions affect lateral sliding and/or global/compound slope stability,
as listed in Table 2-1. Shorter lengths can be used in special situations (see Chapter 6).
C External loads. The external loads may be soil surcharges required by the geometry,
adjoining footing loads, loads as from traffic, and/or traffic impact loads. The magnitude
of the minimum traffic loads outlined in Article 3.11.6.4 (AASHTO, 2007) is a uniform
load equivalent to 2 ft (0.6 m) of soil over the traffic lanes. The traffic load is greater for
some cases (see Tables 4-5 and 4-6).
C Wall embedment. The minimum embedment depth for walls from adjoining finished
grade to the top of the leveling pad should be based on bearing, settlement, and slope
stability considerations. Current practice based on local bearing considerations,
recommends the minimum embedment depths listed in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Typical Minimum Length of Reinforcement.
Case Typical Minimum L/H Ratio
Static loading with or with traffic surcharge 0.7
Sloping backfill surcharge 0.8
Seismic loading 0.8 to 1.1
Table 2-2. Minimum MSEW Embedment Depths.

Minimum Embedment Depth
Slope in Front of Wall
to Top of Leveling Pad*
All Geometries 2 ft minimum
horizontal (walls) H/20
horizontal (abutments) H/10
3H:1V H/10
2H:1V H/7
1.5H:1V H/5
* Minimum depth is the greater of applicable values listed, frost
depth, or scour depth.
Larger values may be required, depending on shrinkage and swelling of foundation soils,
seismic activity, and/or scour. A greater embedment depth may also be required based
upon bearing, settlement, and/or global stability calculations. As noted, the minimum in
any case is 2 ft (0.6 m), except for structures founded on rock at the surface, where no
embedment may be used. Alternately, frost-susceptible soils could be overexcavated and
replaced with non-frost susceptible fill, hence reducing the embedment depth (and overall
wall height).
A minimum horizontal bench 4-ft (1.2 m) wide as measured from the face shall be
provided in front of walls founded on slopes. The bench may be formed or the slope
continued above that level (11.10.2.2, AASHTO {2007}), as illustrated in Figure 2-16.
The horizontal bench is intended to provide resistance against general bearing failure and
to provide access for maintenance inspections (C11.10.2.2, AASHTO {2007}).
For walls constructed along rivers and streams where the depth of scour has been reliably
determined, a minimum embedment of 2 ft (0.6 m) below scour depth is recommended.
Embedment is not required for RSS unless dictated by stability requirements.

(a)
(b)
benched slope toe condition (dh = minimum depth for horizontal slope and ds
= minimum depth for sloping toe, from Table 2-2).
C Seismic Activity. Due to their flexibility, MSE wall and slope structures are quite
resistant to dynamic forces developed during a seismic event, as confirmed by the
excellent performance in several recent earthquakes.
Seismic loading analysis of MSE walls is an Extreme Event limit state. Psuedo-static
analysis procedures for seismic stability are presented in Chapter 7. Note that for sites

where the anticipated ground acceleration is greater than 0.29 g, significant total lateral
structure movements may occur, and a deformation analysis for the structure is
recommended (C11.10.7.1, AASHTO {2007}).
MSE walls should be designed/checked for seismic stability on all sites where the As
coefficient is greater than 0.05. For RSS structures, seismic analyses should be included
regardless of acceleration magnitude.
C Tolerance of precast facing panels to settlement. MSE structures have significant

deformation tolerance both longitudinally along a wall and perpendicular to the front
face. Therefore, poor foundation conditions seldom preclude their use. However, where
significant differential settlements are anticipated (greater than 1/100) sufficient joint
width and/or slip joints must be provided to preclude panel cracking. This factor may
influence the type and design of the facing panel selected.
Square panels generally adapt to larger longitudinal differential settlements better than
long rectangular panels of the same surface area. A joint width of ¾-inch (20 mm) is
generally recommended. Guidance on differential settlements that can be tolerated is
2
presented in Table 2-3, for panels with a surface of 30 ft2 (2.8 m ) or less and for panels
with surface area greater than 30 ft2 (2.8 m2) and less than or equal to 75 ft2 (7 m2).
Bearing pads used between segmental precast concrete panels should be designed to
accommodate downdrag forces on it due to elastic settlement of the wall fill. Bearing pad
design and specification are addressed in Section 3.6.1.a and Section 10.5, respectively.
MSE walls constructed with full height panels should be limited to differential
settlements of 1/500. Walls with drycast facing (MBW) should be limited to settlements
of 1/200. For walls with welded wire facings, the limiting differential settlement should
be 1/50.
Where significant differential settlement perpendicular to the wall face is anticipated, the
reinforcement connection may be overstressed. Where the back of the reinforced soil
zone will settle more than the face, the reinforcement could be placed on a sloping fill
surface which is higher at the back end of the reinforcement to compensate for the greater
vertical settlement. This may be the case where a steep surcharge slope is constructed.
This latter construction technique, however, requires that surface drainage be carefully
controlled after each day's construction. Alternatively, where significant differential
settlements are anticipated, ground improvement techniques may be warranted to limit
the settlements.

Settlements for MSE Precast Panels (after C11.10.4.1 AASHTO {2007}).
Limiting Differential Settlement
Joint Width
Area < 30 ft2 30 ft2 <Area < 75 ft2
¾-in. (20 mm) 1/100 1/200
2.8.4 Design Life
MSE walls should be designed for a service life based on consideration of the potential long-
term effects of material deterioration, seepage, stray currents and other potentially deleterious
environmental factors on each of the material components comprising the wall. For most
applications, permanent retaining walls should be designed for a minimum service life of 75
years. Retaining walls for temporary applications are typically designed for a service life of
36 months or less.
A greater level of safety and/or longer service life (i.e., 100 years) may be appropriate for
walls that support true bridge abutments, buildings, critical utilities, or other facilities for
which the consequences of poor performance or failure would be severe.
The quality of in-service performance is an important consideration in the design of

permanent retaining walls. Permanent walls shall be designed to retain an aesthetically
pleasing appearance, and not require significant maintenance throughout their design service
life.
For RSS structures, similar minimum design life ranges should be adopted.
2.9 PROPRIETARY ASPECTS
The distinguishing characteristics of MSE trademarked systems from generic systems are
patented features or materials of construction.
At present the following significant components are known to be covered by unexpired

patents:

C Connection details between grid reinforcement and precast panel covered by a number of
patents issued to various suppliers. In general, these patents cover a specific design for
the concrete-embedded portion of connecting member only.
C Most MBW facing units are covered by recent design patents.
A number of patents may be in force for specific MSE construction methods under water,
specific types of traffic barriers constructed over MSE walls, and facing attachments to
temporary facings.
2.10 CASE HISTORIES – MSE WALLS
2.10.1 Mn/DOT Crosstown Project MSE Walls
MSE walls were used extensively on the Crosstown Project, located in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. The walls are used to widen existing roadways, construct new ramps, and
construct new bridge approaches. The project enlarges and streamlines the I35W and Mn
Hwy 62 interchange. This is a heavily traveled roadway in a congested urban area. Several
bridges were widened and several new bridges were constructed as part of this project. The
detailed wall designs and the wall components were supplied by a Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) pre-approved MSE wall vendor. Design followed the ASD
method (AASHTO 17th Edition, 2002). Most of the walls were constructed during the 2008
and 2009 construction seasons.
Approximately 300,000 ft2 (28,000 m2) of MSE walls were constructed in 24 separate walls.
Typical wall heights are approximately 25 to 30 ft (7.5 to 9 m), and the maximum wall height
is 45 ft (14 m). The MSE walls are faced with architectural segmental precast panels and
reinforced with steel bar mats. Facing panels are painted after wall construction. The
architectural relief included false columns, on the long and tall walls, as shown in Figure 2-
17. The reinforced wall fill is an angular, well-graded sand. The walls are designed for a
100-year life. Many walls have traffic barriers on top of the reinforced zoned. The barriers
were designed by the Mn/DOT project design consultant. A geomembrane was specified and
installed across the top of the reinforced zones to prevent, or minimize, infiltration of de-
icing salt runoff into the reinforced fill.
Temporary welded wire mesh (WWM) faced walls were also used on this project for
temporary bridge abutments (see Figure 2-2), bridge approach embankments, and

construction staging. These walls were also designed and supplied by the same Mn/DOT
pre-approved vendor.
The use of MSE walls on this project provided a relatively rapid means of wall construction,
and produced structures designed for a 100-year life. Cast-in-place, concrete cantilever walls
were also extensively used on this project. Approximately 500,000 ft2 (49,000 m2) of C.I.P.
walls were constructed.
The cost of these MSE walls was $30.50 per ft2 ($330 per m2) of face area, plus $17.00 per
yd3 ($20 per m3) for the reinforced wall fill and $375.00 per yd3 (($450 per m3) of concrete
for the traffic barrier moment slab. MSE wall cost with the select granular wall fill and
moment slab was approximately $54.50 per ft2 ($585 per m2) of face area. The MSE wall
costs do not include the traffic barrier and noise wall. The cost of the cast-in-place walls on
the project was $67.20 per ft2 ($723 per m2) of face area plus cost of backfill, for an
approximate total cost of $76 per ft2 ($820 per m2) of face area.
Figure 2-17. MSE wall construction on Mn/DOT Crosstown Project, 2008.

2.10.2 Veterans Memorial Overpass True Abutment MSE Walls
The Pima County Department of Transportation’s Veterans Memorial Overpass (VMO)

project is located in Tucson, Arizona. The project included a 5-span, 348-ft long bridge
(shown in Figure 2-18) that takes Palo Verde Road over Aviation Parkway, Union Pacific
railroad assembly area tracks, and 36th Street. The North and South abutments consist of
spread footings on top of 25-ft and 35-ft high MSE walls, respectively. MSE walls were
proposed as part of value engineering proposal to replace cast-in-place walls. The walls were
designed using the ASD method (AASHTO 17th Edition, 2002). The walls were constructed
in 2004 and 2005.
An abutment is shown in Figure 2-19, and abutment cross section is illustrated in Figure 2-
20. Both abutments are 150 ft long. The bridge consists of simply supported AASHTO
Type III girders on elastomeric bearing pads resting on an abutment footing. The bridge
footing at each abutment is 10.75 ft wide and 10.2 ft high. Clearance between the back of the
coping and the toe of the footing is 6 in. The length of reinforcements was equal to the
height of the abutment. Reinforced fill was a select granular fill, in accordance with
AASHTO/FHWA requirements. Ribbed steel reinforcing strips were used for soil
reinforcements, with 5-ft tall x 10-ft wide precast concrete segmental panels.
The upper 9 ft of foundation soils were over-excavated and replaced with engineered fill
because they were loose and potentially collapsible. Underlying soils were dense to very
dense clayey sands with refusal N-values. Groundwater depth is greater than 150 ft.
This project was monitored with over 500 survey points. Settlements of less than 1 in.,
primarily occurring during construction, were measured. No noticeable post-construction
settlement has been observed.
Figure 2-18. Veterans Memorial Overpass. Figure 2-19. MSE true bridge abutment.

Figure 2-20. Typical cross section, VMO project.
2.10.3 SeaTac Airport Runway Extension MSE Wall
The tallest MSE wall in the U.S. to date has an exposed height of 138 ft (42 m) at its tallest
section and was constructed to limit encroachment on adjacent creeks and wetlands and
increase the land use area for the Third Runway project at SeaTac Airport (Figure 2-21). The
West MSE wall was one of several walls constructed for the runway extension and is
approximately 1430 ft (436 m) long, has four tiers formed by 8 ft (2.4 m) setbacks, and had a
constructed height of 150 ft (148 m). The wall supports 20 ft (6.1 m) high, unreinforced
2H:1V slope. The MSE wall used steel reinforcing strips with concrete facing panels. In the
lower tier, up to 25, 2 in. (50 mm) wide by 0.24 in. (6 mm) thick strips with a length of 116 ft
(35.4 m) were connected to the 5 by 5-ft (1.5 by 1.5-m) panels. A full discussion of project
background, design aspects, and instrumentation of these MSE walls are provided by Sankey
et al. (2007) and Stuedlein et al. (2007).

Figure 2-21. SeaTac Airport runway extension MSE wall.
2.10.4 Guanella Pass Roadway Reconstruction
The Guanella Pass project is located in the Front Range of the Colorado Rocky Mountains
within the Pike and Arapaho National Forests approximately 50 miles west of Denver. The
overall goal of the Guanella Pass Road improvement project is to balance transportation
requirements and roadway maintenance within a sensitive human and natural environment.
The 24-mile long route connects two principal east-west corridors, US 285 and Interstate
Highway 70. The original roadway supported two-way traffic with various widths and many
sharp switchbacks in very steep mountainous terrain.
Twenty-one wired-faced MSE walls, extending a total length of almost 12,000 feet, were
constructed along the project to gain adequate roadway width (typical wall is shown in
Figure 2-22). Alternately, very long and steep down-slope embankments could have been
constructed, but would have significantly impacted the forest. The MSE walls were able to

limit the width of disturbance to a little more than the roadway width. Some of the walls,
which were visible from the road, were faced with an architectural concrete cast-in-place
facing (as shown in Figure 2-23). The facing form liner was specifically designed by the
Forest Service to simulate a more natural rockery type of wall, which was used extensively
on the cut side of the road.
Due to the site geometry, these walls were constructed on very steep slopes ranging from
1.3H:1V to 1.5H:1V. MSE retaining walls for this project were evaluated for global stability
using limit equilibrium methods using a minimum factor of safety for global stability of 1.3.
In order to achieve this factor of safety under these geometric and loading conditions, the
designers needed to work with each site individually. The reinforcement lengths were longer
than typically used on MSE walls; they ranged from 70% to 120% of the wall height. In
addition, the designers were able to vary the wall embedment below finished grade. These
two parameters were used to provide a stable structure to support the new roadway.
In addition, the project was able to utilize the on-site soils for the reinforced backfill. The
reinforced backfill met most of the AASHTO and FHWA requirements with the exception of
the No. 200 sieve. In order to be able to use most of the soils excavated during construction,
the project specifications allowed the use of up to 20% passing the No. 200 sieve instead of
15%. This was a significant savings to the project since it would have been difficult to waste
the excavated material within the construction limits and it would have been very costly to
import material for the walls, since the project was so remote.
MSE walls were selected for this project primarily due to their ease of construction and
flexibility in difficult terrain and remote sites.
Figure 2-22. Guanella Pass wire-faced wall. Figure 2-23. Guanella Pass architectural
concrete faced wall.

CHAPTER 3
SOIL REINFORCEMENT PRINCIPLES
AND SYSTEM DESIGN PROPERTIES
This chapter outlines the fundamental soil reinforcement principles that governs structure
behavior, and develops system design parameters which are used for specific MSE wall and
RSS design, detailed in Chapters 4, 6, 7, and 9.
The objectives of this chapter are to develop:

C An understanding of soil-reinforcement interaction.
C Introduce normalized pullout capacity concepts.
C Develop design soil parameters for select reinforced fill, retained backfill and foundation
bearing capacity.
C Establish structural design properties.
3.1 OVERVIEW
As discussed in Chapter 2, mechanically stabilized earth systems (MSEW and RSS) have
three major components: reinforcing elements, facing system, and reinforced fill.
Reinforcing elements may be classified by stress/strain behavior and geometry. In terms of
stress/strain behavior, reinforcing elements may be considered inextensible (metallic) or
extensible (polymeric). This division is not strictly correct because some newer glass-fiber
reinforced composites and ultra-high-modulus polymers have moduli that approach that of
mild steel. Likewise, certain metallic woven wire mesh reinforcements, such as hexagon
gabion material, have a structure that will deform more than the soil at failure and are thus
considered extensible. Based on their geometric shapes, reinforcements can be categorized
as strips, grids or sheets. Facing elements, when employed, can be precast concrete panels or
modular blocks, gabions, welded wire mesh, cast-in-place concrete, timber, shotcrete,
vegetation, or geosynthetic material. Reinforced fill refers to the soil material placed within
the zone of reinforcement. The retained soil refers to the material, placed or in-situ, directly
adjacent to the reinforced fill zone. The retained soil is the source of earth pressures that the
reinforced zone must resist. A drainage system below and behind the reinforced fill is also
an important component, especially when using poorly draining backfill.
FHWA NHI-10-024 3 – Soil Reinforcement Principles

3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF REINFORCED AND RETAINED FILL
ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
3.2.1 Reinforced Fill Soil
The selection criteria of reinforced fill should consider long-term performance of the
completed structure, construction phase stability and the degradation environment created for
the reinforcements. Much of engineering communities’ knowledge and experience with
MSE wall structures to date has been with select, cohesionless backfill. Hence, knowledge
about internal stress distribution, pullout resistance, and failure surface shape is constrained
and influenced by the unique engineering properties of these soil types. Granular soils are
ideally suited to MSE wall and RSS structures. Many agencies have adopted conservative
reinforced fill requirements for both walls and slopes. These conservative properties are
suitable for inclusion in standard specifications or special provisions when project specific
testing is not feasible and when the quality of construction control and inspection may be in
question. It should be recognized, however, that using conservative reinforced fill
property criteria cannot completely replace a reasonable degree of construction control
and inspection.
In general, these select reinforced fill materials will be more expensive than lower quality
materials. The specification criteria for each application (walls and slopes) differ somewhat
primarily based on performance requirements of the completed structure (allowable
deformations) and the design approach. Material suppliers of proprietary MSE systems each
have their own criteria for reinforced fills. Detailed project reinforced fill specifications,
which uniformly apply to all MSE wall and RSS systems, should be provided by the
contracting agency. The following requirements are consistent with current practice:
Select Granular Fill Material for the Reinforced Zone of Walls. All fill material used in
the structure volume for MSE wall structures should be reasonably free from organic or other
deleterious materials and should conform to the gradation limits, PI and soundness criteria
listed in Table 3-1. Note that Table 3-1 presents a broad gradation range that is applicable
across the United States. Individual DOTs may adjust this range based upon locally
available and economical select granular fill. The reinforced fill should be well-graded in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in ASTM D2487. Unstable
broadly graded soils (i.e., Cu > 20 with concave upward grain size distributions) and gap-
graded soils should be avoided (see Kenney and Lau, 1985, 1986 for a method to identify
unstable soils). These soils tend to pipe and erode internally, creating problems with both
loss of materials and clogging of drainage systems.

Table 3-1. MSE Wall Select Granular Reinforced Fill Requirements.
Gradation: U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing(a)

(AASHTO T-27)
4 in. (102 mm)(a,b) 100
No. 40 (0.425 mm) 0-60
No. 200 (0.075 mm) 0-15
Plasticity Index, PI
PI < 6
(AASHTO T-90)
Soundness: The materials shall be substantially free of shale or other soft,

(AASHTO T-104) poor durability particles. The material shall have a magnesium
sulfate soundness loss of less than 30 percent after four cycles
(or a sodium sulfate value less than 15 percent after five cycles).
Notes:
(a) To apply default F* values, Cu, should be greater than or equal to 4.
(b) As a result of recent research on construction survivability of geosynthetics and epoxy coated
reinforcements, it is recommended that the maximum particle size for these materials be
reduced to ¾-in. (19 mm) for geosynthetics, and epoxy and PVC coated steel reinforcements
unless construction damage assessment tests are or have been performed on the reinforcement
combination with the specific or similarly graded large size granular fill. Prequalification tests
on reinforcements using standard agency fill materials should be considered.
The fill material must be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, as these
materials generally result in poor performance of the structure and enhance degradation for
reinforcements. Other materials such as soils containing mica, gypsum, smectite,
montomorrilonite or other soft durability particles should be carefully evaluated as large
strains are typically required to reach peak strength and pullout capacity, resulting in larger
lateral and vertical deformation than with higher quality granular fills. Use of salvaged
materials such as asphaltic concrete millings or Portland Cement Concrete rubble is not
recommended. Recycled asphalt is prone to creep resulting in both wall deformation and
reinforcement pullout. Recycled concrete has a potential to produce tufa precipitate from
unhydrated cement, which can clog drains and exude a white pasty substance onto the wall
face creating aesthetic problems. The recycled concrete typically does not meet
electrochemical properties and its corrosion potential has also not been fully evaluated,
especially if residual wire and rebar are present that could create problems with dissimilar
metals.
The compaction specifications should include a specified lift thickness and allowable range
of moisture content with reference to optimum. Compaction moisture control should be ±2%
of optimum moisture, wopt.

The compaction requirements of reinforced fill are different in close proximity to the wall
facing (within 3 ft {1 m}). Lighter compaction equipment (e.g., walk-behind vibratory plate
or roller) and thinner lifts are used near the wall face to prevent buildup of high lateral
pressures from the compaction and to prevent facing panel movement. Because of the use of
this lighter equipment, a reinforced fill material of good quality in terms of both
friction and drainage, such as crushed stone may be used close to the face of the wall to
provide adequate strength and minimize settlement in this zone. If an open graded fill is
used adjacent to the face, filtration requirements with the reinforced wall fill must be
addressed, see Section 5.3.3. It should be noted that granular fill containing even a few
percent fines (which can even develop or increase due to breakdown during compaction) may
not be free draining and drainage requirements should always be carefully evaluated.
Marginal Reinforced Fill for MSE walls. MSE wall reinforced fill materials outside of
these gradation and plasticity index requirements (Table 3-1) have been used successfully;
however, problems including significant distortion and structural failure have been observed
with finer grained and/or more plastic soils. A recent NCHRP research study (NCHRP 24-
22) on Selecting Reinforced Fill Materials for MSE Retaining Walls has confirmed that that
reinforced fill with up to 35% passing a No. 200 (0.75 mm) sieve could be safely allowed in
the reinforced fill, provided the properties of the materials are well defined and controls are
established to address the design issues. Design issues include drainage, corrosion,
deformations, reinforcement pullout, constructability, and performance expectations. While
there may be a significant savings in using lower quality reinforced fill, the affect on
performance must be carefully evaluated.
For MSE walls constructed with reinforced fill containing more than 15% passing a No. 200
(0.075 mm) sieve and/or a PI exceeding 6, both total and effective shear strength parameters
should be evaluated in order to obtain an accurate assessment of horizontal stresses, sliding,
compound failure (behind and through the reinforced zone) and the influence of drainage on
the analysis. Both long-term and short-term reinforcement pullout tests as well as
soil/reinforcement interface friction tests should be performed. Settlement characteristics
must be carefully evaluated, especially in relation to downdrag stresses imposed on
connections at the face and settlement of supported structures. Drainage requirements at the
back, face, and beneath the reinforced zone must be carefully evaluated (e.g., use flow nets to
evaluate influence of seepage forces and hydrostatic pressure). If marginal fill is used the
surface of the wall should be positively sloped such that water drains away from the wall
(which is a good practice for all MSE walls as discussed in Chapter 5, but most important if
marginal fills are used). In addition, a geomembrane is recommended above the wall to
preclude infiltration of seepage water into the fill (see Chapter 5, Section 5.3 for drainage
design details). Again, these drainage features are good practice for all MSE walls. The

length of the upper 2 layers of reinforcement should be extended at least 3 to 5 ft beyond the
lower reinforcement layers to reduce the potential for tension cracks to develop directly
behind the reinforced zone. If the soil reinforcement is steel, the extended layers must be
contained within select granular fill to avoid differential corrosion conditions.
Electrochemical tests should be performed on the reinforced fill to obtain data for evaluating
degradation of reinforcements and facing connections (see Section 3.2.3). Moisture and
density control during construction must be carefully controlled in order to obtain strength
and interaction values. Deformation during construction also must be carefully monitored
and maintained within defined design limits. Performance monitoring is also recommended
for reinforced fill soils that fall outside of the requirements listed above, as detailed in
Chapter 11.
Reinforced Rock Fill for Wall or RSS Structures. Material that is composed primarily of
rock fragments (material having less than 25 percent passing a ¾ in (20 mm) sieve) should be
considered to be a rock backfill. The maximum particle size should not exceed the limits
listed in Table 3-1. Such material should meet all the other non-gradation requirements such
as soundness and electrochemical properties in Tables 3-1 to 3-4. When such material is
used, a very high survivability geotextile filter (e.g., Type 1 geotextile in accordance with
AASHTO M 288), designed for filtration performance following the guidelines in FHWA
NHI-07-092 (Holtz et al., 2008), should encapsulate the rock backfill to within 3 ft (1 m)
below the wall coping. Adjoining sections of separation fabric should be overlapped by a
minimum of 12 in. (0.30 m). Additionally, the upper 3 ft (1 m) of fill should contain no
stones greater than 3 in. (75 mm) in their greatest dimension, and should be composed of
material not considered to be rock backfill, as defined herein. Where density testing is not
possible, trial fill sections should be constructed with agency supervisory personnel and
geotechnical specialist present to determine appropriate watering, in situ modification
requirements (e.g., grading), lift thickness, and number of passes to achieve adequate
compaction. Compaction can be determined by measuring the settlement of the trial section
at a number of points after each pass (e.g., a minimum of 5 points measured at the center of a
1 ft square plate is typically required). Several lifts should be constructed to determine the
appropriate number of passes, which will maximize compaction without excessively crushing
the rock at the surface. The number of passes to achieve at least 80 percent of the maximum
settlement should be required.
Select Reinforced Fill for RSS Structures. Less select reinforced fill can be used for RSS
since facings are typically flexible and can tolerate some distortion during construction.
Even so, a high quality embankment fill meeting the following gradation requirements to
facilitate compaction and minimize reinforcement requirements is recommended. The

guidelines listed in Table 3-2 are provided as recommended reinforced fill requirements for
RSS construction.
RSS reinforced fill compaction should be based on 95% of AASHTO T-99, and ±2% of
optimum moisture, wopt.
RSS fill materials outside of these gradation and plasticity index requirements have been
used successfully as well as unsuccessfully. For fill materials outside of these limits, default
values for strength and pullout are no longer applicable and laboratory tests must be
performed. Issues with drainage problems, excessive distortion and settlement (as discussed
above for marginal fill in MSE walls) must be carefully evaluated with finer grained and/or
more plastic soils. Performance monitoring is also recommended for reinforced fill soils that
fall outside of the requirements listed above, as detailed in Chapter 11.
Table 3-2. RSS Granular Reinforced Fill Requirements.
Gradation: U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing

(AASHTO T-27)
4 in. (102 mm)(a,b) ¾-inch (20 100
mm)(a)
No. 4 (4.76 mm) 100 – 20
No. 40 (0.425 mm) 0-60
No. 200 (0.075 mm) 0 – 50
Plasticity Index, PI
PI < 20
(AASHTO T-90)
Soundness: Magnesium sulfate soundness loss less than 30% after 4

(AASHTO T-104) cycles, based on AASHTO T-104 or equivalent sodium
sulfate soundness of less than 15 percent after 5 cycles.
Note:
(a) To apply default F* values, Cu, should be greater than or equal to 4.
(b) As a result of recent research on construction survivability of geosynthetics and epoxy
coated reinforcements, it is recommended that the maximum particle size for these
materials be reduced to ¾-in. (19 mm) for geosynthetics, and epoxy and PVC coated steel
reinforcements unless construction damage assessment tests are or have been performed
on the reinforcement combination with the specific or similarly graded large size granular
fill. Prequalification tests on reinforcements using standard agency fill materials should
be considered.

Design Strength of Select Granular Reinforced Fill. The MSE wall and RSS reinforced
fill criteria outlined previously represent materials that have been successfully used
throughout the United States and resulted in excellent performance of MSEW and RSS
structures. Peak shear strength parameters are used in the wall and slope analyses. For MSE
walls using well fill meeting the gradation requirements in Table 3-1, a maximum effective
friction angle  of 34 degrees is usually assumed (in accordance with Article 11.10.6.2,
AASHTO, 2007), unless project-specific fill is tested by triaxial (per AASHTO T-296) or
direct shear (per AASHTO T-236), per Article 11.10.6.2 (AASHTO, 2007). However, some
nearly uniform fine sands meeting the specifications limits may exhibit friction angles of 30
to 32 degrees. When contractor furnished sources are used, the specification may also require
testing of the source material to verify that its friction angle meets specification requirements
(e.g., 34 degrees). Higher values may be used if substantiated by laboratory direct shear or
triaxial test results for the site specific material used or proposed. If the measured friction
angle is greater than 40 degrees, the angle of friction used for design should not exceed 40
degrees (Article 11.10.6.2, AASHTO {2007}). In all cases, the cohesion of the reinforced
fill is assumed to be zero.
For RSS structures, where a considerably greater percentage of fines (minus No. 200 sieve) is
permitted, lower bound values of frictional strength equal to 28 to 30 degrees would be
typical for the reinforced fill requirements listed. A significant economy could again be
achieved if laboratory direct shear or triaxial test results on the proposed fill are performed,
justifying a higher value. Likewise, soils outside the gradation range listed should be
carefully evaluated and monitored.
Limits of Reinforced Fill. For MSE walls, except back-to-back walls, and RSS, many
agencies extend the reinforced fill beyond the free end of the reinforcement. Some agencies
extend the reinforced fill 1 ft (0.3 m) beyond the reinforcement length, and some others
extend the fill in a wedge behind the reinforced zone, as illustrated in Figure 3-1. For back-
to-back walls wherein the free ends of the reinforcement of the two walls are spaced apart
less than or equal to one-half the design height of the taller wall, reinforced backfill should
be used for the space between the free ends of the reinforcements as well.

Figure 3-1. Examples of reinforced fill zone extension beyond the reinforced zone.
3.2.2 Retained Backfill and Natural Retained Soil
The key engineering properties required for the retained backfill are the strength and unit
weight based on evaluation and testing of subsurface or borrow pit data. Friction angles ()
may be determined from either by consolidated drained triaxial tests with pore pressure
measurements or drained direct shear tests. As with reinforced fill, a cohesion value of zero
is conservatively recommended for the long-term, effective strength of the retained fill. For
backcut construction, if undisturbed samples cannot be obtained, friction angles may be
obtained from in-situ tests or by correlations with index properties. The strength properties
are required for the determination of the coefficients of earth pressure used in design as well
as for overall stability analysis. In addition, the position of groundwater levels above the
proposed base of construction must be determined in order to evaluate hydrostatic stresses in
the retained fill and plan an appropriate drainage scheme to control ground water conditions.
For most retained backfills lower bound frictional strength values of 28 to 30 degrees are
reasonable for granular and low plasticity cohesive soils. For highly plastic retained fills and
natural soils (PI > 20), even lower values would be indicated and should be evaluated for
both drained and undrained conditions.

Backfill and natural soil behind the limits of the reinforced fill should be considered to be in
the retained zone for a distance equal to 50 percent of the design height of the MSE wall. For
the reasons discussed previously for reinforced fill, use of soils containing shale, mica,
gypsum, smectite, montmorillonite or other soft particles of poor durability is discourage and
soundness limits should meet the criteria in Table 3-1.
The following are good practice to preclude potential problems with retained backfill soils.
The percent fines, i.e., the fraction passing No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm), should be less than 50
and the Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index (PI) should be less than 40 and 20 percent,
respectively, as determined in accordance with AASHTO T-90. The potential differential
settlement/performance between the reinforced fill and retained backfill should be assessed.
The agency should consider transition detailing between the reinforced zone and retained
backfill by lengthening the upper two layers of soil reinforcement or extending the reinforced
zone beyond the reinforcement length, as previously discussed. The maximum particle size
in the retained backfill should limited to the maximum particle size in the reinforced wall fill,
at least within this transition zone. Material that is composed primarily of rock fragments
(material having less than 25 percent passing a ¾-inch sieve), should be considered to be a
rock backfill (see Section 3.2.1).
3.2.3 Electrochemical Properties
The design of buried steel elements of MSE structures is predicated on reinforced fills
exhibiting minimum or maximum electrochemical index properties and then designing the
structure for maximum corrosion rates associated with these properties. These recommended
index properties and their corresponding limits are shown in Table 3-3. Reinforced fill soils
must meet the indicated criteria to be qualified for use in MSE construction using steel
reinforcements.
Table 3-3. Recommended Limits of Electrochemical Properties for Reinforced Fills

with Steel Reinforcement.
Property Criteria Test Method
Resistivity > 3000 ohm-cm AASHTO T-288

pH > 5 and < 10 AASHTO T-289
Chlorides < 100 PPM ASMT D4327
Sulfates < 200 PPM ASTM D4327
Organic Content 1% max. AASHTO T-267

Table 3-4. Recommended Limits of Electrochemical Properties for Reinforced Fills
with Geosynthetic Reinforcements (FHWA NHI-09-087, Elias et al., 2009).
Base Polymer Property Criteria Test Method
Polyester (PET) pH 3 < pH < 9 AASHTO T-289

Polyolefin (PP & HDPE) pH pH > 3 AASHTO T-289
Where geosynthetic reinforcements are planned, the limits for electrochemical criteria will
vary depending on the polymer. Limits, based on current research, are shown in Table 3-4.
3.3 REINFORCED SOIL CONCEPTS
A reinforced soil mass is somewhat analogous to reinforced concrete in that the mechanical
properties of the mass are improved by reinforcement placed parallel to the principal strain
direction to compensate for soil's lack of tensile resistance. The improved tensile properties
are a result of the interaction between the reinforcement and the soil. The composite material
has the following characteristics:
C Stress transfer between the soil and reinforcement takes place continuously along the
reinforcement.
C Reinforcements are distributed throughout the soil zone with a degree of regularity.
localized.
3.3.1 Stress Transfer Mechanisms
Stresses are transferred between soil and reinforcement by friction (Figure 3-2a) and/or
passive resistance (Figure 3-2b) depending on the reinforcement geometry.
Friction develops at locations where there is a relative shear displacement and corresponding
shear stress between soil and the reinforcement surface. Reinforcing elements dependent on
friction should be aligned with the direction of soil reinforcement relative movement.
Examples of such reinforcing elements are steel strips, longitudinal bars in grids, geotextile,
geosynthetic straps, and some geogrid layers.

Passive resistance occurs through the development of bearing type stresses on "transverse"
reinforcement surfaces normal to the direction of soil reinforcement relative movement.
Passive resistance is generally considered to be the primary interaction for bar mat, wire
mesh reinforcements, and geogrids with relatively stiff cross machine direction ribs, The
transverse ridges on "ribbed" strip reinforcement also provide some passive resistance.
The contribution of each transfer mechanism for a particular reinforcement will depend on
the roughness of the surface (skin friction), normal effective stress, grid opening dimensions,
thickness of the transverse members, and elongation characteristics of the reinforcement.
Equally important for interaction development are the soil characteristics, including grain
size, grain size distribution, particle shape, density, water content, cohesion, and stiffness.
Figure 3-2. Stress transfer mechanisms for soil reinforcement.

3.3.2 Mode of Reinforcement Action
The primary function of reinforcements is to restrain soil deformations. In so doing, stresses

are transferred from the soil to the reinforcement. These stresses are resisted by the
reinforcement tension and/or shear and bending.
 Tension is the most common mode of action of tensile reinforcements. All

"longitudinal" reinforcing elements (i.e., reinforcing elements aligned in the direction of
soil extension) are generally subjected to high tensile stresses. Tensile stresses are also
developed in flexible reinforcements that cross shear planes.
 Shear and Bending. "Transverse" reinforcing elements that have some rigidity, can
withstand shear stress and bending moments.
3.3.3 Geometric Characteristics
Two types can be considered:
C Strips, bars, and steel grids. A layer of steel strips, bars, or grids is characterized by the
cross-sectional area, the thickness and perimeter of the reinforcement element, and the
center-to-center horizontal distance between elements (for steel grids, an element is
considered to be a longitudinal member of the grid that extends into the wall).
C Geotextiles and geogrids. A layer of geosynthetic strips is characterized by the width of

the strips and the center-to-center horizontal distance between them. The cross-sectional
area is not needed, since the strength of a geosynthetic strip is expressed by a tensile
force per unit width, rather than by stress. Difficulties in measuring the thickness of
these thin and relatively compressible materials preclude reliable estimates of stress.
The coverage ratio Rc is used to relate the force per unit width of discrete reinforcement to
the force per unit width required across the entire structure. See Figure 3-3 (and later Figure
3-5) for an illustration of these terms.
R  b (3-1)
c Sh
where:
b = the gross width of the strip, sheet, or grid. For grids, b is measured from the center
to center of the outside longitudinal bars as shown in Figure 3-3.
Sh = center-to-center horizontal spacing between strips, sheets, or grids

Note, Rc = 1 in the case of continuous reinforcement, i.e., each reinforcement layer covers
the entire horizontal surface of the reinforced soil zone. Alternatively, for discrete
reinforcements and segmental precast concrete facing, force per width may be more
conveniently calculated per panel width, as defined later in Equation 4-25c, for layout and
detailing.
Figure 3-3. Coverage ratio.

3.4 SOIL REINFORCEMENT INTERACTION USING NORMALIZED CONCEPTS
Soil-interaction (pullout capacity) coefficients have been developed by laboratory and field
studies, using a number of different approaches, methods, and evaluation criteria. A unified
normalized approach developed in a FHWA research project is detailed below.
3.4.1 Evaluation of Pullout Performance
The design of the soil reinforcement system requires an evaluation of the long-term pullout
performance with respect:
C Pullout capacity, i.e., the pullout resistance of each reinforcement should be adequate to
resist the factored tensile force in the reinforcement with a specified resistance factor (or
factor of safety in the case of RSS).
C Allowable displacement, i.e., the relative soil-to-reinforcement displacement required to

mobilize the design tensile force should be smaller than the allowable displacement.
C Long-term displacement, i.e., the pullout load should be smaller than the critical creep
load.
The pullout resistance of the reinforcement is mobilized through one or a combination of the
two basic soil-reinforcement interaction mechanisms, interface friction and passive soil
resistance against transverse elements of reinforcements such as bar mats, wire meshes, or
geogrids. The load transfer mechanisms mobilized by a specific reinforcement depends
primarily upon its structural geometry (i.e., composite reinforcement such as grids, versus
linear or planar elements, thickness of transverse elements, and aperture dimension). The
soil-to-reinforcement relative movement required to mobilize the design tensile force
depends mainly upon the load transfer mechanism, the extensibility of the reinforcement
material, the soil type, and the confining pressure.
The long-term pullout performance (i.e., displacement under constant design load) is
predominantly controlled by the creep characteristics of the soil and the reinforcement
material. Soil reinforcement systems will generally not be used with cohesive soils
susceptible to creep. Therefore, creep is primarily controlled by the type of reinforcement.
Pullout performance in terms of the main load transfer mechanism, relative soil-to-
reinforcement displacement required to fully mobilize the pullout resistance, and creep
potential of the reinforcement in granular (and low plasticity cohesive) soils for generic
reinforcement types is provided in Table 3-5.

Table 3-5. Reinforcement Pullout Performance in Granular and Cohesive
Soils of Low Plasticity.
Generic Major Load Range of

Long Term
Reinforcement Transfer Displacement
Deformation
Type Mechanism at Specimen Front
Inextensible strips
Smooth Frictional 0.05 in. Noncreeping
(1.2 mm)
Ribbed Frictional + passive 0.5 in. Noncreeping

(12 mm)
Extensible composite Frictional Dependent on Dependent on

plastic strips reinforcement reinforcement structure
extensibility and polymer creep
Extensible sheets
Geotextiles Frictional Dependent on Dependent on
reinforcement reinforcement structure
extensibility and polymer creep
(1 to 4 in.) characteristics
{25 to 100 mm}
Inextensible grids
bar mats Passive + frictional 0.5 to 2 in. Noncreeping
(12 to 50 mm)
welded wire Frictional + passive 0.5 to 2 in. Noncreeping
meshes (12 to 50 mm)
Extensible grids
Geogrids Frictional + passive Dependent on Dependent on
extensibility reinforcement structure
(1 to 2 in.) and polymer creep
{25 to 50 mm} characteristics
woven wire meshes Frictional + passive 1 to 2 in. Noncreeping

(25 to 50 mm)

3.4.2 Estimate of the Reinforcement Pullout Capacity in MSE Structures
The pullout resistance of the reinforcement is defined by the ultimate tensile load required to
generate outward sliding of the reinforcement through the reinforced soil zone. Several
approaches and design equations have been developed and are currently used to estimate the
pullout resistance by considering frictional resistance, passive resistance, or a combination of
both. The design equations use different interaction parameters, so it is difficult to compare
the pullout performance of different reinforcements for a specific application.
For design and comparison purposes, a normalized definition of pullout resistance will be
used throughout the manual. The pullout resistance, Pr, at each of the reinforcement levels
per unit width of reinforcement is given by:
Pr  F * α σ 'v L e C (3-2)
where:
Le C = the total surface area per unit width of the reinforcement in the resistive zone
behind the failure surface
Le = the embedment or adherence length in the resisting zone behind the failure
surface
C = the reinforcement effective unit perimeter; e.g., C = 2 for and sheets, and
because the edges are neglected C = 2 for strips and grids
F* = the pullout resistance (or friction-bearing-interaction) factor
α = a scale effect correction factor to account for a non linear stress reduction over
the embedded length of highly extensible reinforcements, based on laboratory
data (generally 1.0 for metallic reinforcements and 0.6 to 1.0 for geosynthetic
reinforcements, see Table 3-6).
σv = the effective vertical stress at the soil-reinforcement interfaces.
The correction factor α depends, therefore, primarily upon the strain softening of the
compacted granular backfill material, and the extensibility and the length of the
reinforcement. For inextensible reinforcement, α is approximately 1, but it can be
substantially smaller than 1 for extensible reinforcements. The α factor (a scale correction
factor) can be obtained from pullout tests on reinforcements with different lengths as
presented in Appendix B, or derived using analytical or numerical load transfer models
which have been "calibrated" through numerical test simulations. In the absence of test data,
α = 0.8 for geogrids and α = 0.6 for geotextiles (extensible sheets) is recommended (see
Table 3-6).

Table 3-6. Summary of Pullout Capacity Design Parameters.
α
Grid
Reinforcement Type Sopt Spacing
Tan ρ Fq αβ Default
Value
Inextensible strips NA Obtain Tan ρ NA NA 1.0
from tests, or
use default
values
Inextensible grids (bar t Fq S t  S opt Obtain Tan ρ NA NA 1.0*
mats and welded wire) from tests
2 tan
t Fq S t  S opt NA Obtain Fq t 1.0*
from tests, or
2 tan 2St
use default
values
Extensible grids with t Fq S t  S opt Obtain Tan ρ NA NA 0.8
min. grid opening from tests
1 2 tan
d 50
t Fq S t  S opt NA Obtain Fq fb t 0.8
from tests, or
2 tan 2St
use default
values
Extensible grids with NA Obtain Tan ρ NA NA 0.8
min. grid opening from tests
1
d 50
Extensible sheets NA Obtain Tan ρ NA NA 0.6
from tests
NOTES:
(i) It is acceptable to use the empirical values provided in or referenced by this table to determine F*
in the absence of product and backfill specific test data, provided granular reinforced fill as specified in
Table 3-1 for MSE walls is used and Cu ≥ 4. For fill outside these limits, tests must be run.
(ii) Pullout testing to determine α is recommended if α shown in table is less than 1.0. These values
of α represent highly extensible geosynthetics.
(iii) For grids where Tan ρ is applicable, apply Tan ρ to the entire surface area of the reinforcement
sheet (i.e., soil and grid), not just the surface area of the grid elements.
(iv) NA means "not applicable."  is the soil friction angle. ρ is the interface friction angle mobilized
along the reinforcement. Sopt is the optimum transverse grid element spacing to mobilize maximum
pullout resistance as obtained from pullout tests (typically 6 in. (150 mm) or greater). St is the spacing
of the transverse grid elements. t is the thickness of the transverse elements. Fq is the embedment (or
surcharge) bearing capacity factor. α is a structural geometric factor for passive resistance. fb is the
fraction of the transverse member on which bearing can be fully developed (typically ranging from 0.6
to 1.0) as obtained from an evaluation of the bearing surface shape. D50 is the backfill grain size at
50% passing by weight. α is the scale effect correction factor.
(v) Definitions of the geometric variables are illustrated in Figure 3-4.
* For longitudinal bars/wires spacing greater than 6 inches,  may be less than 1.0 and pullout tests
are required.

t = Thickness of transverse bar
D = Nominal diameter of longitudinal
Notes:
1. Transverse bar thickness does not need to be reduced for corrosion.
2. This is applicable up to a maximum transverse bar spacing of 24 in. (610 mm).
Figure 3-4. Definition of grid dimensions for calculating pullout capacity.

The Pullout Resistance Factor F* can be obtained most accurately from laboratory or field
pullout tests performed in the specific backfill to be used on the project. Test procedures for
determining pullout parameters are presented in Appendix B. Alternatively, F* can be
derived from empirical or theoretical relationships developed for each soil-reinforcement
interaction mechanism and provided by the reinforcement supplier. For any reinforcement,
F* can be estimated using the general equation:
F* = Passive Resistance + Frictional Resistance
or, F* = Fq · αβ + tan ρ (3-3)
where:
Fq = the embedment (or surcharge) bearing capacity factor
αβ = a bearing factor for passive resistance which is based on the thickness per unit
width of the bearing member.
ρ = the soil-reinforcement interaction friction angle.
The pullout capacity parameters for Equation 3-3 are summarized in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-
4 for the soil reinforcement systems considered in this manual.
A significant number of laboratory pullout tests have been performed for many commonly
used reinforcement backfill combinations and correlated to representative field pullout tests.
Therefore, the need for additional laboratory and/or field pullout tests, is generally limited to
reinforcement/reinforced fill combinations where this data is sparse or nonexistent (e.g.,
uniform and marginal reinforced fill discussed in Section 3.1). Where applicable, laboratory
pullout tests should be made in accordance with the device and procedures in ASTM D6706
and Appendix B of this manual. Note that this test procedure provides a short-term pullout
capacity and does not account for soil or reinforcement creep deformations, which may be
significant in MSE wall and RSS structures utilizing fine grained soil fills.
When using laboratory pullout tests to determine design parameters, vertical stress variations
and reinforcement element configurations for the actual project should be used. Tests should
be performed on samples with a minimum embedded length of 24 in. (600 mm). The pullout
resistance is the greater of the peak pullout resistance value prior to, or the value achieved at,
a maximum deformation of ¾-in. (20 mm) as measured at the front of the embedded section
for inextensible reinforcements and 5/8-in. (15 mm) as measured at the end of the embedded
sample for extensible reinforcements. This allowable deflection criterion is based on a need
to limit the structure deformations, which are necessary to develop sufficient pullout
capacity.

Long-term pullout tests to assess soil/reinforcement creep behavior should be conducted
when silt or clay reinforced fill is being used. Soil properties and reinforcement type will
determine if the allowable pullout resistance is governed by creep deformations. The
placement and compaction procedures for both short-term and long-term pullout tests should
simulate field conditions. The allowable deformation criteria in the previous paragraph
should be applied.
A summary of the procedures for evaluating laboratory tests to obtain pullout design
parameters is outlined in Appendix B of this manual.
Most specialty system suppliers have developed recommended pullout parameters for their
products when used in conjunction with the select backfill detailed in this chapter for MSEW
and RSS structures. The semi-empirical relationships summarized below are consistent with
results obtained from laboratory and field pullout testing at a 95 percent confidence limit, and
generally consistent with suppliers developed data. Some additional economy can be
obtained from site/product specific testing, where the source of the backfill in the reinforced
volume has been identified during design.
In the absence of site-specific pullout testing data, it is reasonable to use the semi-empirical
relationships described in the following paragraphs in conjunction with the standard
specifications for reinforced fill to provide a conservative evaluation of pullout resistance.
For steel ribbed reinforcement, the Pullout Resistance Factor F* is commonly taken as:
F* = tan ρ = 1.2 + log Cu at the top of the structure = 2.0 maximum (3-4)
F* = tan  at a depth of 20 ft (6 m) and below (3-5)
where Cu is the uniformity coefficient of the backfill (D60/D10). If the specific Cu for the
wall backfill is unknown at design time, a Cu = 4 should be assumed (i.e., F* = 1.8 at the
top of the wall) for reinforced fills meeting the requirements of Section 3.1 of this
chapter.
For steel grid reinforcements with transverse spacing of St > 6 inches (150 mm) (see Figure
3-4), F* is a function of a bearing or embedment factor, Fq, applied over the contributing
bearing αβ, as follows:

F*= Fq αβ = 40 αβ = 40 (t/2St) = 20 (t/St) at the top of the structure (3-6)
F*= Fq αβ = 20 αβ = 20 (t/2St) = 10 (t/St) at a depth of 20 ft (6 m) and below (3-7)
Where, t is the thickness of the transverse bar. St must be uniform throughout the length of
the reinforcement rather than having transverse grid members concentrated only in the
resistant zone. The maximum St distance is 24 in. (610 mm). For sloping backfills see
Figure 4-15.
For geosynthetic (i.e., geogrid and geotextile) sheet reinforcement, the pullout resistance is
based on a reduction in the available soil friction with the reduction factor often referred to as
an Interaction Factor, Ci. In the absence of test data, the F* value for geosynthetic
reinforcement should conservatively be taken as:
F *  2 tan  (3-8)
3
Where used in the above relationships,  is the peak friction angle of the soil which for MSE
walls using select granular backfill, is taken as a maximum of 34 degrees unless project
specific test data substantiates higher values. For RSS structures, the  angle of the
reinforced backfill is normally established by test, as a reasonably wide range of backfills can
be used. A lower bound value of 28 degrees is often used.
3.4.3 Interface Shear
The interface shear between sheet type geosynthetics (geotextiles, geogrids and
geocomposite drains) and the soil is often lower than the friction angle of the soil itself and
can form a slip plane. Therefore the interface friction coefficient tan ρ must be determined in
order to evaluate sliding along the geosynthetic interface with the reinforced fill and, if
appropriate, the foundation or retained backfill soil. The interface friction angle ρ is
determined from soil-geosynthetic direct shear tests in accordance with ASTM D 5321. In
the absence of test results, the interface friction coefficient can be conservatively taken as:
ρ  2 tan  (3-9)
3
for geotextiles, geogrids and geonet type drainage composites. Other geosynthetics such as
geomembranes and some geocomposite drain cores may have much lower interface values
and tests should accordingly be performed.

3.5 ESTABLISHMENT OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN PROPERTIES
The structural design properties of reinforcement materials are a function of geometric

characteristics, strength and stiffness, durability, and material type. The two most commonly
used reinforcement materials, steel and geosynthetics, must be considered separately as
follows:
3.5.1 Strength Properties of Steel Reinforcements
For steel reinforcements, the design life is achieved by reducing the cross-sectional area of
the reinforcement used in design calculations by the anticipated corrosion losses over the
design life period as follows:
Ec  En  E R (3-10)
where Ec is the thickness of the reinforcement at the end of the design life, En the nominal
thickness at construction, and ER the sacrificial thickness of metal expected to be lost by
uniform corrosion during the service life of the structure.
The nominal long-term tensile strength of the reinforcement, Tal, is obtained for steel strips
and grids as shown in the following equations. Tal in units force per unit width is used to
provide a unified strength approach, which can be applied to any reinforcement. Tensile
strength of a known steel or grid reinforcement can also be expressed in terms of the tensile
load carried by the reinforcement, Ptal. The desired designation of reinforcement tensile
strength (Tal or Ptal) varies depending on whether one is designing with a known system,
designing with an undefined reinforcement, checking a design layout, performing connection
design, or performing reinforcement pullout calculations. Thus, nominal tensile strength may
be calculated and expressed in the following terms:
Fy A c
Tal  (in strength per unit reinforcement width {kips/ft}) (3-11a)
b
Ptal  Fy A c (in strength per reinforcement element {kips}) (3-11b)
where:
b = the gross width of the strip, sheet or grid (see Figure 3-5)
Fy = yield stress of steel

Ac = design cross section area of the steel, defined as the original cross section area
minus corrosion losses anticipated to occur during the design life of the wall.
The LRFD resistance factors for steel reinforcements in MSE walls are listed in Table 4-8.
The resistance factor for strip reinforcements under static conditions is 0.75. The resistance
factors for steel grid MSE wall reinforcements, for static loading, is 0.65 when reinforcement
is connected to a rigid facing element and is 0.75 when connected to a flexible facing. The
lower resistance factor for grid reinforcing members connected to a rigid facing element
(e.g., a concrete panel or block) is used to account for the greater potential for local
overstress due to load nonuniformities for steel grids than for steel strips or bars. Transverse
and longitudinal grid members are sized in accordance with ASTM A185.
The quantities needed to determine Ac for steel strips and grids are shown in Figure 3-5.
Typical dimensions for common steel reinforcements are provided in Appendix C. The use
of hardened and otherwise low strain (very high strength) steels may increase the potential
for catastrophic failure; therefore, a lower resistance factor may be warranted with such
materials.
For metallic reinforcement, the life of the structure will depend on the corrosion resistance of
the reinforcement. Practically all the metallic reinforcements used in construction of
embankments and walls, whether they are strips, bar mats, or wire mesh, are made of
galvanized mild steel. Woven meshes with PVC coatings provide some corrosion protection,
provided the coating is not significantly damaged during construction. Epoxy coatings can
be used for corrosion protection, but are susceptible to construction damage, which can
significantly reduce the coatings effectiveness. When PVC or epoxy coatings are used, the
maximum particle size of the backfill should be restricted to ¾-inch (19 mm) or less to
reduce the potential for construction damage. For a more detailed discussion of
requirements, refer to the Corrosion/Degradation manual, FHWA NHI-09-087 (Elias et al.,
2009).

(a)
(b)
 D *2 
A c  No. of longitudinal bars    

 4 
D* = Diameter of bar or wire corrected for corrosion loss
b = Unit width of reinforcement (if reinforcement is continuous count the number of
bars for reinforcement width of 1 unit)
 R c Fy A c
Tmax   R c Tal 
b
where Tmax = Maximum factored load applied to reinforcement (load/unit wall width)
Tal = Nominal long-term tensile strength of the reinforcement
(strength/unit reinforcement width)
 = 0.75 for steel strip
 = 0.65 for steel grid and rigid face
Fy = Yield strength of steel
b
Rc = Reinforcement coverage ratio 
Sh
Use Rc = 1 for continuous reinforcement (i.e., Sh = b = 1 unit width)
Figure 3-5. Parameters for metal reinforcement nominal strength calculations showing (a)
steel strips and (b) metallic grids and bar mats.

Several DOTs have used resin-bonded epoxy coated steel reinforcing elements. The
effectiveness of these coatings in MSE wall structures has not been well documented. If
used, the minimum coating thickness should be on the order of 18 mils (45 m), and applied
in accordance with ASTM A884 for grid reinforcement and AASHTO M284 for strip
reinforcement. The in-ground design life of the coating should be considered as equal to that
of a galvanized reinforcement with a coating thickness of 3.4 mils (85 m), unless durability
exposure testing has been performed on the specific coating that identifies a longer effective
life as discussed in FHWA NHI-09-087 (Elias et al., 2009). Where other metals, such as
aluminum alloys or stainless steel have been used, corrosion, unexpectedly, has been a severe
problem, and their use has been discontinued.
The in-ground degradation resistance of PVC coated mesh has not been sufficiently
demonstrated. Anecdotal evidence of satisfactory performance in excess of 25 years does not
exist.
Extensive studies have been made to determine the rate of corrosion of galvanized mild steel
bars or strips buried in different types of soils commonly used in reinforced soil. Based on
these studies, deterioration of steel strips, mesh, bars and mats can be estimated and
accounted for by using increased metal thickness.
The majority of MSE walls constructed to date have used galvanized steel and backfill
materials with low corrosive potential. A minimum galvanization coating of 2.0 oz/ft2 (605
g/m2) or 3.4 mils (85 μm) thickness is required per Article 11.10.6.4.2a (AASHTO, 2007).
Galvanization shall be applied in accordance with AASHTO M 111 (ASTM A 123) for strip
type, bar mat, or grid type reinforcements and ASTM A 153 for accessory parts such as bolts
and tie strips. Galvanization shall be applied after fabrication in accordance with ASTM
A123. The zinc coating provides a sacrificial anode that corrodes while protecting the base
metal. Galvanization also assists in preventing the formation of pits in the base metal during
the first years of aggressive corrosion (which can occur in non-galvanized or “black” steel).
After the zinc is oxidized (consumed), corrosion of the base metal starts.
The ASTM and AASHTO standards for galvanization provide different required minimum
galvanization coating thickness as a function of the bar or wire thickness. However, as noted
previously AASHTO (2007) requires a minimum thickness of 3.4 mils (85 μm) for MSE
walls. Galvanization requirements using this minimum and AASHTO M 111 are
summarized in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7. Minimum Galvanization Thickness by Steel Thickness
(after AASHTO M 111 and ASTM A123).
Steel Minimum Galvanization

Category
Thickness Thickness
Strip < ¼ in. (6.4 mm) 3.4 mils (85 m)
> ¼ in. (6.4 mm) 3.9 mils (100 m)
Wire* All diameters 3.4 mils (85 m)
* For bar mats fabricated from uncoated steel wire.
The corrosion rates presented in Table 3-8 are suitable for conservative design. These rates
assume a moderately corrosive backfill material having the controlled electrochemical
property limits that are discussed under electrochemical properties in this chapter.
Table 3-8 Steel Corrosion Rates for Moderately Corrosive Reinforced Fill.
For zinc/side: 0.58 mils/yr (15 μm/year) (first 2 years)

0.16 mils/yr (4 μm/year) (thereafter)
For residual carbon steel/side: 0.47 mils/yr (12 μm/year) (thereafter)
Based on these rates, complete corrosion of galvanization with the minimum required
thickness of 3.4 mils (85 μm) (AASHTO, 2007) is estimated to occur during the first 16
years and a carbon steel thickness or diameter loss of 0.055 in. to 0.08 in. (1.42 mm to 2.02
mm) would be anticipated over the remaining years of a 75 to 100 year design life,
respectively. Galvanization can also be damaged during handling and construction by
abrasion, scratching, notching, and cracking. Care must be taken during handling and
construction to avoid damage. Construction equipment should not travel directly on
reinforcing elements and elements should not be dragged, excessively bent, or field cut.
Galvanized reinforcement should be well supported during lifting and handling to prevent
excessive bending. Any damaged section should be field repaired by coating the damaged
area with a field grade zinc-rich paint.
The look of galvanized WWM face may not be desired on some projects due to aesthetic
requirements. As previously noted, black (ungalvanized) steel is not allowed on permanent
structures. Staining of galvanized WWM has been used to achieve desired aesthetics on
some projects.

The designer of an MSE structure should also consider the potential for changes in the
reinforced fill environment during the structure's service life. In certain parts of the United
States, it can be expected that deicing salts, coastal storm surges, or contaminated runoff or
groundwater might cause such an environment change. For this problem, the depth of
chloride infiltration and concentration are of concern such that additional protective measures
may be required.
For permanent structures directly supporting roadways exposed to deicing salts, limited
data indicate that the upper 8 ft (2.5 m) of the reinforced backfill (as measured from the
roadway surface) or greater depths, depending on the gradation and compaction of the fill,
are affected by higher corrosion rates not presently defined. Under these conditions, it is
recommended that a 30 mil (minimum) geomembrane be placed below the road base and tied
into a drainage system to mitigate the penetration of the deicing salts in lieu of higher
corrosion rates as shown in the Design Details section in Chapter 5. Alternatively free
draining reinforced fill (e.g., AASHTO No. 57 stone) has also been found to allow salts to
“flush out” and limit corrosion as discussed in FHWA NHI-09-087 (Elias et al., 2009). Note
that value of “higher” corrosion rate for deicing salt exposure is not defined.
The following project situations lie outside the scope of the previously presented values:
C Structures exposed to a marine or other chloride-rich environment. (Excluding locations

where de-icing salts are used.) For marine saltwater structures, carbon steel losses on the
order of 3.2 mils (80 μm) per side or radius should be anticipated in the first few years,
reducing to 0.67 to 0.7 mils (17 to 20 μm) thereafter. Zinc losses are likely to be quite
rapid as compared to losses in reinforced fills meeting the MSE electrochemical criteria.
Total loss of zinc (3.4 mils {85 m}) should be anticipated in the first year.
C Structures exposed to stray currents, such as from nearby underground power lines, and
structures supporting or located adjacent to electrical railways.
C Structures exposed to acidic water emanating from mine waste, abandoned coal mines, or
pyrite-rich soil and rock strata.
Each of these situations creates a special set of conditions that should be specifically
analyzed by a corrosion specialist.

3.5.2 Strength Properties of Geosynthetic Reinforcement
Selection of long-term nominal tensile strength, Tal, for geosynthetic reinforcement is

determined by thorough consideration of all possible strength time dependent strength losses
over the design life period. The tensile properties of geosynthetics are affected by factors
such as creep, installation damage, aging, temperature, and confining stress. Furthermore,
characteristics of geosynthetic products manufactured with the same base polymer can vary
widely requiring a Tal determination for each individual product with consideration of all
these factors.
Polymeric reinforcement, although not susceptible to corrosion, may degrade due to

physicochemical activity in the soil such as hydrolysis, oxidation, and environmental stress
cracking depending on polymer type. In addition, these materials are susceptible to
installation damage and the effects of high temperature at the facing and connections.
Temperature acts to accelerate creep and aging processes and temperature effects are
accounted for through their determination. While the normal range of in-ground temperature
vary from 55o F (12o C) in cold and temperate climates to 85o F (30o C) in arid desert
climates, temperatures at the facing and reinforcement connections can be as high as 120o F
(50o C). Confining stress is not directly taken into account other than indirectly when
installation damage is evaluated. For creep and durability, confining stress generally will
tend to improve the long-term strength of the reinforcement.
The available long-term strength, Tal, is calculated as follows:
Tult Tult
Tal   (in strength per unit reinforcement width) (3-12)
RF RFID  RFCR  RFD
where,
Tult = Ultimate Tensile Strength (strength per unit width). The tensile strength of
the reinforcement is determined from wide strip tests per ASTM D4595
(geotextiles) or D6637 (geogrids) based on the minimum average roll value
(MARV) for the product.
RF = Reduction Factor. The product of all applicable reduction factors.
RFID = Installation Damage Reduction Factor. A reduction factor that accounts for the
damaging effects of placement and compaction of soil or aggregate over the

geosynthetic during installation. A minimum reduction factor of 1.1 should
be used to account for testing uncertainties.
RFCR = Creep Reduction Factor. A reduction factor that accounts for the effect of
creep resulting from long-term sustained tensile load applied to the
geosynthetic.
RFD = Durability Reduction Factor. A reduction factor that accounts for the strength
loss caused by chemical degradation (aging) of the polymer used in the
geosynthetic reinforcement (e.g., oxidation of polyolefins, hydrolysis of
polyesters, etc.).
RFID, RFCR, and RFD reflect actual long-term strength losses, analogous to loss of steel
strength due to corrosion. This long-term geosynthetic reinforcement strength loss concept is
illustrated in Figure 3-6. As shown in the figure, some strength losses occur immediately
upon installation, and others occur throughout the design life of the reinforcement. Much of
the long-term strength loss does not begin to occur until near the end of the reinforcement
design life.
Tult
Tult/RFID
} Immediate loss due to
installation stresses and abrasion
Long-term loss due to

Creep and chemical
}
Strength Retained
Degradation (assumes
constant load near Tult/(RFIDRFCRRFD)
creep limit applied)
0 Time Design Life
Figure 3-6. Long-term geosynthetic reinforcement strength concepts.

Because of varying polymer types, quality, additives and product geometry, each
geosynthetic is different in its resistance to aging and attack by different chemical agents.
Therefore, each product must be investigated individually, or in the context of product line
where the same polymer source and additives are used, and the manufacturing process is the
same for all products in the product line. This product line approach makes it possible to
interpolate reduction factors for products in the product line not specifically tested using the
reduction factors determined for the products in the product line that are specifically tested
for each degradation mechanism.
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications provide minimum requirements for the
assessment of Tal for use in the design of geosynthetic reinforced soil structures. Protocols
for evaluating Tal are included in Appendix D with supporting information on testing
procedures provided in the companion Corrosion/Degradation document (Elias et al., 2009).
It is recommended that Tal values for specific products be determined from in-house, agency
evaluation or third-party evaluation of independent test results such as the Highway
Innovative Technology Evaluation Center (HITEC) or AASHTO National Transportation
Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP). Agencies can approve reduction factors and
allowable strength values based these reports or require that vendor designs use reduction
factors substantiated by these or equivalent third party reports. Alternatively, Tal could be
obtained directly from the manufacturer based on independent test results, though third party
testing is the preferred approach. If manufacturer data is used, it should meet the same
standard of quality and completeness that can be obtained from the third party testing
programs such as NTPEP, and the designer should check to make sure that the manufacturer
data are representative of the products likely to be received at the project site (i.e., the
product test data should be current, and the product manufacturing process, polymer source,
etc., should not have changed since the testing was conducted). In all cases, the geosynthetic
product line must be reevaluated on a periodic to assess any changes that may affect the
product and corresponding reduction values (e.g., NTPEP requires that the geosynthetic
reinforcement product/product line be retested every 3 years).
In lieu of third party testing or manufacturer generated data, in-house agency testing to
establish Tal with regard to the full suite of tests is generally not practical. However, agencies
are encouraged to at least perform some of the index testing themselves, both for product
qualification purposes (i.e., development of a qualified product or approved products list) as
well as project specific product acceptance purposes. Agencies should also consider site
specific installation damage testing, especially if relatively coarse, uniformly graded crushed
or otherwise angular aggregate is used as backfill, or if other relatively severe installation
conditions are anticipated.

The determination of reduction factors for each geosynthetic product and product line
requires extensive field and/or laboratory testing which can take a year or more to complete.
Background regarding the determination of each long-term strength reduction factor is
briefly summarized as follows:
3.5.2.a Ultimate Tensile Strength, Tult

The value selected for Tult, for design purposes, is the minimum average roll value (MARV)
for the product. This minimum average roll value, accounts for statistical variance in the
material strength. Other sources of uncertainty and variability in the long-term strength
result from installation damage, creep extrapolation, and the chemical degradation process.
It is assumed that the observed variability in the creep rupture envelope is 100% correlated
with the short-term tensile strength, as the creep strength is typically directly proportional to
the short-term tensile strength within a product line. Therefore, the MARV of Tult adequately
takes into account variability in the creep strength. Note that the MARV of Tult is the
minimum certifiable wide width tensile strength provided by the product manufacturer.
3.5.2.b Installation Damage Reduction Factor, RFID

Damage during handling and construction, such as from abrasion and wear, punching and
tear or scratching, notching, and cracking may occur in geosynthetics. These types of
damage can only be avoided by using care during handling and construction. Construction
equipment should not travel directly on geosynthetic materials.
Damage during reinforced fill placement and compaction operations is a function of the
severity of loading imposed on the geosynthetic during construction operations and the size
and angularity of the reinforced fill. For MSE walls and RSS construction, lightweight, low
strength geotextiles and geogrids should be avoided to minimize damage with ensuing loss of
strength.
Protocols for field testing for this reduction factor are detailed in the companion
Corrosion/Degradation document (Elias et al., 2009) and in ASTM D-5818 (see also
WSDOT T925). These protocols require that the geosynthetic material be subjected to a
reinforced fill placement and compaction cycle, consistent with field practice. The ratio of
the initial strength, to the strength of retrieved samples defines this reduction factor. For
reinforcement applications, a minimum weight of 8.0 oz/yd2 (270 g/m2) for geotextiles is
recommended to minimize installation damage. This roughly corresponds to a Class 1
geotextile as specified in AASHTO M 288. In general, the combination of geosynthetic
reinforcement, and backfill placement and gradation characteristics, should not result in a
value of RFID greater than 1.7. If testing indicates that RFID will be greater than 1.7
(approximately a 40 percent strength loss), that combination of geosynthetic and backfill

conditions should not be used, as this or greater levels of damage will cause the remaining
strength to be highly variable and therefore not adequately reliable for design.
Table 3-9 provides a summary of typical RFID values for a range of soil gradations and
geosynthetic types.
In general, RFID is strongly dependent on the backfill soil gradation characteristics and its
angularity, especially for lighter weight geosynthetics. Provided a minimum of 6 inches of
backfill material is placed between the reinforcement surface and the compaction and
spreading equipment wheels/tracks, the backfill placement and compaction technique will
have a lesser effect on RFID. Regarding geosynthetic characteristics, the geosynthetic
weight/thickness or tensile strength may have a significant effect on RFID. However, for
coated polyester geogrids, the coating thickness may overwhelm the effect of the product unit
weight or thickness on RFID.
Table 3-9. Installation Damage Reduction Factors.
Reduction Factor, RFID

Type 1 Backfill Type 2 Backfill
Geosynthetic Max. Size 4 in. (100mm) Max. Size ¾ -in. (20mm)
D50 about 1¼-in. (30 mm) D50 about #30 (0.7 mm)
HDPE uniaxial geogrid 1.20 - 1.45 1.10 - 1.20

PP biaxial geogrid 1.20 - 1.45 1.10 - 1.20
PVC coated PET geogrid 1.30 - 1.85 1.10 - 1.30
Acrylic coated PET geogrid 1.30 - 2.05 1.20 - 1.40
Woven geotextiles (PP&PET)a 1.40 - 2.20 1.10 - 1.40
Non woven geotextiles (PP&PET) a 1.40 - 2.50 1.10 - 1.40
Slit film woven PP geotextile a 1.60 - 3.00 1.10 - 2.00
a. Minimum weight 8.0 oz/yd2 (270 g/m2).
3.5.2.c Creep Reduction Factor, RFCR

The creep reduction factor is required to limit the load in the reinforcement to a level known
as the creep limit, that will preclude excessive elongation and creep rupture over the life of
the structure. The creep limit strength is thus analogous to yield strength in steel. Creep is
essentially a long-term deformation process. As load is applied, molecular chains move
relative to each other through straightening out of folded or curved/kinked chains or through
breaking of inter-molecular bonds, resulting in no strength loss, but increased elongation.

Eventually, if the load levels are sufficiently high i.e., constant load near the creep limit), the
molecular chains can straighten/elongate no more without breaking the molecular chains.
Significant strength loss occurs only when the straightening/slipping process is exhausted. If
the load is high enough, molecular chains break, and both elongation and strength loss occur
at an accelerating rate, eventually resulting in rupture. Generally this strength loss occurs
only near the end of the design life of the geosynthetic under a given load level.
The creep reduction factor is obtained from long term laboratory creep testing as detailed in
Appendix D. Creep testing is essentially a constant load test on multiple product samples,
loaded to various percentages of the ultimate product load, for periods of up to 10,000 hours.
For creep testing one of two approaches may be used: 1) “conventional” creep testing per
ASTM D5262, or 2) a combination of Stepped Isothermal Method (SIM) per ASTM D6992,
which is an accelerated method using stepped increases in temperature to allow tests to be
performed in a matter of days, and “conventional” creep testing. The creep reduction factor
is the ratio of the ultimate load to the extrapolated maximum sustainable load (i.e., creep
rupture limit) within the design life of the structure (e.g., several years for temporary
structures, 75 to 100 years for permanent structures).
Typical ranges of RFCR as a function of polymer type are:

Polymer Type Creep Reduction Factors
Polyester (PET) 2.5 to 1.6
Polypropylene (PP) 5 to 4.0
High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 5 to 2.6
3.5.2.d Durability Reduction Factor, RFD

This reduction factor is dependent on the susceptibility of the geosynthetic to attack by
chemicals, thermal oxidation, hydrolysis, environmental stress cracking, and
microorganisms, and can vary typically from 1.1 to 2.0.
Typically, polyester products (PET) are susceptible to aging strength reductions due to
hydrolysis (water must be available). Hydrolysis and the resulting fiber dissolution are
accelerated in alkaline regimes, percent of water saturation in the surrounding soil, and
temperature. Polyolefin products (PP and HDPE) are susceptible to aging strength losses due
to oxidation (contact with oxygen). The level of oxygen in reinforced fills is a function of
soil porosity, groundwater location and other factors, and has been found to be slightly less
than oxygen levels in the atmosphere (21 percent). Therefore, oxidation of geosynthetics in-
ground may proceed at a rate equal those used above ground. Oxidation is accelerated by the
presence of transition metals (Fe, Cu, Mn, Co, Cr) in the reinforced fill as found in acid
sulphate soils (e.g., pyrite), slag and cinder fills, other industrial wastes or mine tailings

containing transition metals, and elevated temperature. It should be noted that the resistance
of polyolefin geosynthetics to oxidation is primarily a function of the proprietary antioxidant
package added to the base resin, which differs for each product brand, even when formulated
with the same base resin.
The relative resistance of polymers to these identified regimes is shown in Table 3-10 and a
choice can be made, therefore, consistent with the in-ground regimes indicated.
Table 3-10. Anticipated Resistance of Polymers to Specific Environments.
Polymer
Soil Environment
PET PE PP
Acid Sulphate Soils NE ETR ETR

Organic Soils NE NE NE
Saline Soils pH < 9 NE NE NE
Ferruiginous NE ETR ETR
Calcareous Soils ETR NE NE
Modified Soils/Lime, Cement ETR NE NE
Sodic Soils, pH > 9 ETR NE NE
Soils with Transition Metals NE ETR ETR
NE = No Effect
ETR = Exposure Tests Required
Most geosynthetic reinforcement is buried, and therefore ultraviolet (UV) stability is only of
concern during construction and when the geosynthetic is used to wrap the wall or slope face.
If used in exposed locations, the geosynthetic should be protected with coatings or facing
units to prevent deterioration. UV tests (ASTM D4355) extended beyond the normal 500
hour test duration should be performed on materials that will be directly exposed for long
periods of time (more than several months) in order to evaluate the materials anticipated
design life. Vegetative covers can also be considered in the case of open weave geotextiles
or geogrids. Thick geosynthetics with ultraviolet stabilizers can be left exposed for several
years or more without protection; however, long-term maintenance should be anticipated
because of both UV deterioration and possible vandalism.
Protocols for testing to obtain this reduction factor have been proposed and are detailed in
FHWA RD-97-144 (Elias et al. 1999). In general, for polyolefins, they consist of oven aging
polyolefins (PP and HDPE) samples to accelerate oxidation and measure their strength
reduction, as a function of time, temperature and oxygen concentration. This high

temperature data must then be extrapolated to a temperature consistent with field conditions.
For polyesters (PET) the aging is conducted in an aqueous media at varying pHs and
relatively high temperature to accelerate hydrolysis, with data extrapolated to a temperature
consistent with field conditions. For more detailed explanations, see the companion
Corrosion/Degradation manual, FHWA NHI-09-087 (Elias et al., 2009).
Due to the long-term nature of these durability evaluation protocols (2 to 3 years could be
required to complete such tests), it is generally not practical to conduct such tests for typical
geosynthetic reinforcement design, but are generally more suited for research activities.
However, short-term index type tests can be conducted as indicators of good long-term
durability performance, based on correlation to the long-term research results obtained and
reported by Elias et al. (1999). Such index test results, combined with a criteria applied to
the test results that can be considered to indicate good long-term performance, can be used to
justify the use of a default value for RFD that can be used for the determination of Tal.
The following recommendations are stated in this companion document in regards to

defining a RFD factor. With respect to aging degradation, current research results suggest the
following.
Polyester Geosynthetics
PET geosynthetics are recommended for use only in environments characterized by 3 < pH <
9. The reduction factors for PET aging (RFD) listed in Table 3-11 are developed for a 100-
year design life in the absence of long-term product specific testing. Based on these research
results, for polyester reinforcement, the AASHTO LRFD specifications recommend a
minimum number average molecular weight of 25,000 and a maximum carboxyl end group
content (CEG) of 30 to allow the use of a default reduction factor for durability.
Polyolefin Geosynthetics
To mitigate thermal and oxidative degradative processes, polyolefin (i.e., PP and HDPE)
products are stabilized by the addition of antioxidants for both processing stability and long-
term functional stability. These antioxidant packages are proprietary to each manufacturer
and their type, quantity, and effectiveness varies. Without residual antioxidant protection
(after processing), PP products are vulnerable to oxidation and significant strength loss
within a projected 75 to 100 year design life at 20oC. Current data suggests that unstabilized
PP has a half-life of less than 50 years.

Table 3-11. Durability (Aging) Reduction Factors for PET.
Durability Reduction Factor, RFD

a
Product
5 ≤ pH ≤ 8 3b < pH ≤ 5
8 ≤ pH < 9
Geotextiles 1.6 2.0
Mn < 20,000, 40 < CEG < 50
Coated geogrids, Geotextiles 1.15 1.3
Mn > 25,000, CEG < 30
Mn = number average molecular weight
CEG = carboxyl end group
Notes:
a. Use of materials outside the indicated molecular property range requires specific
product testing. Use of products outside of 3 < pH < 9 range is not recommended.
b. Lower limit of pH for permanent applications is 4.5 and lower limit for temporary
applications is 3, per Article 11.10.6.4.2b (AASHTO, 2007).
Therefore the anticipated functional life of a PP geosynthetic is to a great extent a function of

the type and post-production antioxidant levels, and the rate of subsequent antioxidant
consumption. Antioxidant consumption is related to the in-ground oxygen content, which in
fills is only slightly less than atmospheric.
A detailed discussion of the effectiveness of oven aging and other protocols to allow
estimation of long-term strength loss due to the combination of heat aging and oxidative
degradation of various polyolefins is provided in Elias et al. (1999) and Elias et al. (2009).
At present, index tests and associated test result criteria that can be considered indicative of
sufficient long-term durability consist of shorter-term relatively high temperature oven aging
tests (ENV ISO 13438:1999 and UV degradation tests (i.e., ASTM D4355). The current
AASHTO LRFD specifications currently only specify a requirement for the UV test as an
indirect indicator of the presence of long-term residual antioxidant protection, requiring
polyolefins to have a minimum of 70 percent strength retained after 500 hours in a
weatherometer per ASTM D4355. In addition, in Europe and in the NTPEP testing program,
oven aging test are also required to justify the use of a default value for RFD for polyolefins.
For both polyester and polyolefins, if these index test criteria are met, a default value for RFD
of 1.3 could be used to determine Tal for design purposes. These index criteria are
summarized in Table 3-12. If the effective in-soil site temperature is anticipated to be
approximately 85o F (30o C) plus or minus a few degrees, a higher default reduction factor
for RFD should be considered.

Environmental stress cracking is an aging phenomenon that is really as much related to creep
as it is to durability. In certain environments, such as when surfactants are present, the creep
rupture process, through making it easier for the tie molecules to pull out of the crystalline
structure, can be accelerated, allowing cracks in the polymer to form, and premature rupture.
Additional information on this phenomenon is provided in Elias et al. (2009). For most in
ground conditions, the chemicals necessary to cause this to happen are generally not present,
and the results from laboratory creep testing are sufficient to address strength loss under
constant load.
Table 3-12. Minimum Requirements for Use of Default Durability

Reduction Factors (RFD) for Primary Geosynthetic Reinforcement.
Criteria to Allow Use
Type Property Test Method
of Default RF
Polypropylene UV ASTM D4355 Min. 70% strength
and Oxidation retained after 500 hrs.
Polyethylene Resistance in weatherometer
Polyester UV ASTM D4355 Min. 50% strength
Oxidation retained after 500 hrs.
Resistance in weatherometer if
geosynthetic will be
buried within one
week, 70% if left
exposed for more than
one week
Polypropylene Thermo- ENV ISO 13438:1999, Method A Min. 50% strength
and Oxidation (Polypropylene) or B retained after 28 days
Polyethylene Resistance (Polyethylene) (PP) or 56 days
(HDPE)
Polyester Hydrolysis Inherent Viscosity Method Min. Number (Mn)
Resistance (ASTM D4603 and GRI Test Molecular Weight of
Method GG8), or Determine 25,000
Directly Using Gel Permeation
Chromatography
Polyester Hydrolysis GRI GG7 Max. Carboxyl End
Resistance Group Number of 30
1
All Polymers Survivability Weight per Unit Area, Min. 8 oz/yd2
ASTM D5261 (270 g/m2)
All Polymers % Post Consumer Certification of Material used Maximum 0%
Recycled Material
by Weight
1
Alternatively, a default RFD = 1.3 may be used if product specific installation damage testing is
performed and it is determined that RFID is 1.7 or less, and if the other requirements in Table 3-12
are met.

Note that biological degradation due to micro-organisms is rarely a concern, as most
geosynthetic reinforcement products only contain high molecular weight polymers, and the
biological agents have great difficulty in finding the molecular chain endings that would
allow them to begin consuming the polymer. Therefore, biological degradation is usually not
considered in the determination of RFD.
3.5.2.e Durability Reduction Factor, RFD, at Wall Face Unit

As noted in Section 4.4.7.i Connection Strength, the long-term environmental aging factor
(RFD) may be significantly different than that used in computing the in-soil nominal long-
term reinforcement strength Tal. For these applications, it is recommended that the use of
polyesters be limited to a pH range of > 3 and < 9, as noted in Table 3-11.
Of particular concern is the use of polyester geogrid and geotextile reinforcements with
concrete facings because of the potential high pH environment. PET geogrids and
geotextiles should not be cast into concrete for connections, due to the potential for chemical
degradation.
Use of PET reinforcements connected to dry-cast MBW units by laying the reinforcement
between units may be subject to additional strength reductions. An FHWA sponsored field
monitoring study to examine pH conditions within and adjacent to MBW units was
performed (Koerner et al., 2000), which provided a large database of pH measurements of 25
MSE wall structures in the United States. The results indicated that the pH regime within the
blocks in the connection zone is only occasionally above 9 and then for only the first few
years. The pH subsequently decreases to the pH of the ambient backfill (Koerner et al.,
2000). It therefore appears that for coated PET geogrids no further reduction is warranted.
For geotextiles a small further reduction should be considered to account for a few years at a
pH in excess of 9.
Caution is advised in situations where the MBW units will be saturated for extended periods
of time such as structures in lakes or streams. For such cases, long-term pH tests should be
performed on saturated block. If the pH exceeds 9, polyester reinforcements should not be
used in the section of the structure.
3.5.2.f LRFD Geosynthetic Reinforcement Resistance Factor, 

The resistance factor for geosynthetic reinforcement accounts for potential of local overstress
due to load nonuniformity and uncertainties in long-term reinforcement strength. For
Strength I limit state conditions, a resistance factor () equal to 0.90 is used for geosynthetic
reinforcements (see Table 4-7). This is higher than the resistance factors for steel
reinforcements due to the ductile nature of geosynthetic systems at failure.

The recommended resistance factor of  of 0.90 can be further justified by considering the
following:
C For geosynthetic reinforcements, the reinforced fill soil controls the amount of strain in
the reinforcement which for granular fills is limited to considerably less than the rupture
strain of the reinforcement. Therefore even at a limit state, overstress of the geosynthetic
reinforcement would cause visible, time-dependent strain in the wall system rather than
sudden collapse.
C The long-term properties of geosynthetics, based on limited data, are significantly

improved when confined in soil. Confinement is presently not considered in developing
nominal long-term strength.
C Measurements of stress in MSE walls reinforced with geosynthetics have consistently

indicated lower stress levels than used for design as developed in Chapter 4.
Note that Tal is used for RSS structures design with limit equilibrium analysis and
computation of a factor of safety against instability.
3.5.2.g Preliminary Design Reduction Factor, RF For preliminary design of permanent

structures or for applications defined by the user as not having severe consequences should
poor performance or failure occur, the nominal long-term tensile strength Tal, may be
evaluated without product specific data, as:
Tult T
Tal   ult (3-13)
RF 7
Further, RF = 7 should be limited (i.e., do not use Eq. 3-13 where following requirements are
not met) to projects where the project environment meets the following requirements:
C Granular soils (sands, gravels) used in the reinforced volume.
C 4.5 < pH < 9
C Site temperature < 85o F (30o C)
C Maximum backfill particle size of ¾-inch (19 mm)
C Maximum MSEW height is 35 ft (10 m) and
C Maximum RSS height is 50 ft (15 m)
Site temperature is defined as the temperature which is halfway between the average yearly
air temperature and normal daily air temperature for the highest month at the site.

RF = 7 has been established by multiplying lower bound partial reduction factors obtained
from currently available test data, for products which meet the minimum requirements in
Table 3-13. It should be noted that the total Reduction Factor may be reduced
significantly with appropriate test data. It is not uncommon for products with creep,
installation damage and aging data, to develop total Reduction Factors in the range of 3 to
6 or even less with the development of new materials.
For temporary applications not having severe consequences should poor performance or
failure occur, a default value for RF of 3.5 rather than 7 may be considered.
Table 3-13. Minimum Requirements for use of Preliminary Design

Reduction Factor for Primary Geosynthetic Reinforcement.
Type Property Test Method Criteria to Allow Use

of Default RF
Polypropylene UV ASTM D4355 Min. 70% strength
Resistance in weatherometer
Polyethylene UV ASTM D4355 Min. 70% strength
Resistance in weatherometer
Polyester Hydrolysis Inherent Viscosity Method Min. Number (Mn)
Resistance (ASTM D4603) with Correlation Molecular Weight of
or Determine Directly Using Gel 25,000
Permeation Chromatography
Polyester Hydrolysis GRI GG7 Max. Carboxyl End
Resistance Group Number of 30
All Polymers Survivability Weight per Unit Area, Min. 8 oz/yd2
ASTM D5261 (270 g/m2)
All Polymers % Post Consumer Certification of Material used Maximum 0%
Recycled Material
by Weight
3.5.2.h Serviceability Limit State

Serviceability limit state deflection requirements for geosynthetic reinforcements are met
through the use of low stress levels resulting from reduction factors combined with the
inherent constraining effects of granular soils. With regard to strain limits on the
reinforcement, methods for estimating of strain vary widely with no present consensus on an
appropriate analytical method capable of modeling strains in the structure. Measurements

from instrumented field structures have consistently measured much lower strain levels in the
reinforcement (typically less than 1 percent) than predicted by most current analytical
methods. Therefore, until an appropriate method of determination is agreed upon, it is
recommended that strain limit requirements not be imposed on the reinforcement.
3.6 FACING MATERIALS
The material aspects of the various facings used with MSE walls structures are discussed
below, by facing type. Typical dimensions, manufacturing process and controls, details,
durability, and associated materials are discussed. Aesthetics were discussed in Chapter 2.
Tolerances of precast panels to settlement were presented in Section 2.8.3. Design aspects of
the more commonly used facings are addressed in Section 4.4.8. Specifications are
addressed in Chapter 10.
3.6.1 Precast Concrete Panels
3.6.1.a Segmental Panels

Segmental, precast concrete panels are commonly square or rectangular in shape with typical
dimensions of 5 to 8-in. (125 to 200 mm) thick and 5-foot (1.5-m) high and a front face width
of 5 or 10-ft (1.5 or 3-m). Panels with cruciform, diamond, and hexagonal face geometry are
also used. The panels are typically cast with the exposed face down, so they may have a
smooth or a form-liner finish. Panels may also be prepared with an exposed aggregate finish.
The edges of adjacent panels are cast with a butt, shiplap, or tongue-and-groove joint.
Agencies should check the raw materials, mix design, and precasting operation as they do for
other precast, structural items. Generally, agencies have reviewed and approved these items
for a particular precaster. Panels are usually produced by a local precaster for, and with
forms provided by, the wall vendor. Form dimensions, concrete steel reinforcement
placement, and connection hardware placement should be examined for conformance to the
vendor’s quality control and tolerances. The units must be fully supported until the concrete
reaches a minimum compressive strength of 1,000 psi (6.9 MPa). The units may be shipped
after reaching a minimum compressive strength of 3,400 psi (23.4 MPa). At the option of the
contractor, the units may be installed after the concrete reaches a minimum compressive
strength of 3,400 psi (23.4 MPa). The concrete must have a minimum 4,000 psi (27.6 MPa)
compressive strength at 28 days. Temperature and tensile steel reinforcement should be
designed in accordance with Section 5 of AASHTO LRFD Specifications for Highway
Bridges (2007).

Metal connection hardware that is cast into the panel and extends out the back face of the
panel for attachment to the soil reinforcement should not be placed in direct contact with the
concrete steel reinforcement. This type of placement could accelerate corrosion of metal soil
reinforcement. Direct contact is permissible if both have the same protection (e.g.,
galvanized).
Bearing pads are placed on all horizontal (and diagonal, if applicable) joints of adjacent
segmental precast panels as they are erected. Two pads are usually used on 5-foot (1.5-m)
wide panels and at least three bearing pads with 10-foot (3-m) wide panels. A minimum of
two bearing pads are used per horizontal panel joint. The bearing pads are used to prevent or
minimize point loadings or stress concentrations between adjacent panels, and to
accommodate small vertical deformation of the panels as the wall height increases and the
reinforced wall fill compresses.
Bearing pads shall meet or exceed the following material requirements:
C Preformed EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) rubber pads conforming to

ASTM D2000 Grade 2, Type A, Class A with a Durometer Hardness of 60 + 5.
C Preformed HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) pads with a minimum density of 0.946
grams per cubic centimeter in accordance with ASTM D 1505.
The stiffness (axial and lateral), size, and number of bearing pads must be determined such
that the final joint opening is not less than the required joint width after compression (e.g., ½
in.) unless otherwise shown on the plans. The MSE wall designer must submit substantiating
calculations verifying the stiffness (axial and lateral), size, and number of bearing pads
assuming, as a minimum, a vertical loading at a given joint equal to 2 times the weight of
facing panels directly above that level. As part of the substantiating calculations, the MSE
wall designer must submit results of certified laboratory tests in the form of vertical load-
vertical strain and vertical load-lateral strain curves for the specific bearing pads proposed by
the MSE wall designer. The vertical load-vertical strain curve should extend beyond the first
yield point of the proposed bearing pad.
3.6.1.b Full-Height Panels

Typical dimensions of full-height panels are 6 to 8-in. (150 to 200-mm) thick and 8 or 10-ft
(2.4 to 3-m) wide. Single, full-height panel walls have been constructed to a height of
approximately 32 ft (10 m). Full-height panels are externally braced until the reinforced soil
reaches 2/3 to full height of the wall.

Full-height panels do not provide the same ability to adjust face panel alignment and rotation
during construction, as do segmental panels. Nor are bearing pads used to accommodate
elastic settlement of the reinforced fill so the connection detailing and strength must
accommodate this deformation. Therefore, if the full-height panels will be used, Agencies
should specify experience requirements for the wall vendor, wall designer (if different than
the wall vendor), and the wall contractor. Additionally, the maximum height should be
limited to about 32 feet (10 m), or less.
Agency controls are the same as for segmental, with the exception that taller, full-height
panels have multiple heights of pick-up point hardware cast into the panel. Handling of the
panels for shipping and erection should be monitored to ensure panels are not cracked by
these operations.
No bearing pads are used with full-height panels. Therefore, high quality reinforced fill
should always be used with full-height panel walls. Individual wall systems should address
how the reinforcement connection is designed to tolerate elastic fill settlement.
3.6.2 Modular Block Wall Units
Modular block wall (MBW) MSE face units have typical dimensions of 4 to 15-in. (100 to
375-mm) high and 8 to 18-in. (200 to 450-mm) in exposed face length, and 8 to 24-in. (200
to 600-mm) in depth (perpendicular to wall face). MBW units are produced in a masonry
manufacturing process. Therefore, the concrete is dry-cast, and unlike wet-cast panels
cannot be air entrained or reinforced with steel. These units are also known as “segmental
retaining wall” units.
There are a wide variety of commercially available MBW units, as noted in Section 2.4.3.
These units are normally produced near the project site by a licensed manufacturer. Quality
control requirements and quality assurance vary by licensor and licensee. Therefore,
Agencies should control the raw materials, mix design, and casting operation as they do for
wet-cast concrete, structural items. Form or cast units should be examined for dimensional
tolerances. Many of these units have the face sheared off after casting to create a roughened,
rock-like texture for aesthetic reasons.
Dry-cast concrete MBW units are susceptible to freeze-thaw degradation with exposure to
deicing salts and cold temperatures. This is a concern in northern tier states that use deicing
salts. Some vendors have developed mix designs, with additive(s), and manufacturing
processes that result in units that are very durable and resistant to freeze-thaw degradation.

The current specifications in Chapter 10 have been developed to address this issue and clarify
requirements depending on the susceptibility to freeze-thaw conditions and salt exposure.
Based on good performance experience by several agencies, ASTM C1372, Standard

Specification for Segmental Retaining Wall Units should be used as a model, except that the
compressive strength for units should be increased to 4,000 psi (28 MPa) to increase
durability, maximum water absorption be limited to 5 percent, requirements for freeze-thaw
testing modified, and tolerance limits expanded.
Note that more stringent durability requirements are being used by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) based upon their experience, research, climatic
conditions and de-icing salt usage. The Mn/DOT criteria (2008) state that wall and cap units
shall conform to ASTM C1372, except for the items in Table 3-14.
Several research projects investigating the freeze-thaw durability and degradation of MBW
units have been performed. Reports are available from FHWA (Chan et al., 2007) and the
University of Minnesota (Embacher et al., 2001a,b).
Freeze-thaw resistance of MBW units is tested following ASTM C1262. These tests
generally take more than 3 months to perform. Therefore, the testing is not suited for
approval of materials on an individual project basis. The testing is better suited to an agency
evaluating and placing MBW units on an approved products list.
MBW units are erected using a running bond configuration. Full-height cores are filled with
aggregate during erection units are normally dry-stacked (i.e. without mortar), and erected
using a running bond configuration. Vertically adjacent units may be connected with shear
pins, lips, or keys.
Geogrid soil reinforcement is typically used with MBW units, though some systems use
geotextile and some use steel mat soil reinforcement. The soil reinforcement is connected to
the MBW units via a frictional, mechanical, or combination mechanical and frictional-type
connection. Bearing pads between vertically adjacent units are not used with MBW units.
Therefore, the connection detailing and strength, and the soil placement and compaction must
accommodate deformation caused by elastic compression of the reinforced fill. On certain
systems, geosynthetic soil reinforcement sandwiched between vertically adjacent units
provides some cushioning to distribute bearing loads between blocks.

Table 3-14. Additional MBW Cold Weather Requirements
Recommended by Mn/DOT (2008).
Item Test Standard Requirement
Compressive ASTM C140, except that Section 6.2.4 5,500 psi (38 MPa) min.
strength shall be deleted and replaced with: “The 5,800 psi (40 MPa) min. Average for 3
specimens shall be coupons cut from a units
finished side or back shell of each unit and
sawn to remove any face shell projections.
The coupon size shall have a height to
thickness ratio of 2 to 1 before capping and
a length to thickness ratio of 4 to 1. The
coupon shall be cut from the unit such that
the coupon height dimension is in the same
direction as the unit height dimension.
Compressive testing of full size units will
not be permitted. The compressive strength
of the coupon shall be assumed to represent
the net area compressive strength of the
whole unit.”
Freeze-thaw (1) the mean weight loss of five test
durability of The freeze/thaw durability of wall units specimens at the conclusion of 90 cycles
wall units tested in accordance with ASTM C1262 in shall not exceed 1% of its initial weight;
a 3% saline solution shall be the minimum (2) the mean weight loss of the 4 lowest
of the following: out of 5 test specimens at the conclusion
of 100 cycles shall not exceed 1.5% of
its initial weight. Test results shall be
recorded and reported in 10 cycle
intervals showing the weight of all
specimens and not just the mean value.
Freeze-thaw The freeze/thaw durability of cap units (1) the mean weight loss of five test
durability of tested in accordance with ASTM C1262 in specimens at the conclusion of 40 cycles
cap units a 3% saline solution shall be the minimum shall not exceed 1% of its initial weight;
of the following: (2) the mean weight loss of the 4 lowest
out of 5 test specimens at the conclusion
of 50 cycles shall not exceed 1.5% of its
initial weight. Test results shall be
recorded and reported in 10 cycle
intervals showing the weight of all
specimens and not just the mean value.
Cap unit — Top surface sloped at 1 inch fall per 10
inch run (1 mm fall per 10 mm run)
front to back or crowned at the center.
Surface sealer Contact Mn/DOT Concrete Engineering All segmental masonry retaining walls
Unit, or shall have their surfaces sealed. Apply
www.mrr.dot.state.mn.us/pavement/ surface sealer to the top, exposed front
concrete products.asp, for requirements. face, and backside of the upper three
courses of all walls.

Therefore, it is recommended that agencies specify wall height experience requirements for
the wall vendor, wall designer (if different than the wall vendor), and the wall contractor
when MBW unit faced walls are to be used. Additionally, it is recommended that the
maximum height typically be limited to about 32 feet (10 m), or less, unless setbacks are
used to separate wall facing loads. Taller walls without setbacks require that bearing
between units and possible stress concentrations due to geometric variations along the length
of the wall be specifically addressed in the design and detailing. Typically, this can be
accomplished with horizontal bearing pads or other compression members in the lower
portion of the wall and/or vertical joints to separate geometric variations.
The use of polyester geogrid or geotextile soil reinforcements connected to the dry-cast
MBW concrete units are discussed in Section 3.5.2.e. Recommendations for design as
addressed in Section 3.5.3.e3, Durability Reduction Factor, RFD, at the Wall Face Unit.
3.6.3 Welded Wire Mesh Facing
Welded wire mesh (WWM) is a popular facing for temporary walls and slopes, and is used in
permanent walls and slopes. In permanent walls and slopes, the WWM may be the primary
face soil retention element. For these cases, galvanized steel is used. The reinforcements in
temporary structures should be galvanized if contact between reinforcements of the
temporary structure and of a permanent (galvanized) structure is possible. In some
permanent, geosynthetic-reinforced slopes and walls, the WWM is used as a forming device
that is left in–place. The geosynthetic is the primary face soil retention element, and for
these cases, plain (a.k.a, black) steel is typically used. A temporary WWM wall with a
geotextile for retention at the face is shown in Figure 2-3.
Steel facings should be galvanized consistent with the use of galvanized reinforcements. Hot
dip galvanizing of at least 2 oz/ft2 should protect the steel in atmospheric conditions for a
period between 20 and 50 years (AGA, 2004). Forty to 50 years are expected in rural and
suburban environments, 25 to 30 years in coastal areas, and approximately 20 years if located
in proximity to industrial areas where the atmosphere may be acidic. A typical corrosion rate
for temporary, non-galvanized steel facing is 1.0 mil/yr (25 m/yr). Substantially higher
rates should be used if the wall face will be vegetated, where road salts are used, if
atmospheric conditions are corrosive such as marine environments or when air quality may
be compromised buy nearby industrial activity. Corrosion potential can be reduced by using
open graded stone in the facing. Note that a corrosion rate of 28 m/yr should be applied to
plain steel soil reinforcements, if the reinforced fill is not corrosive or only mildly aggressive,
for temporary walls.

Hardware cloth that is sometimes used with welded wire facings to contain fill material may
be vulnerable to corrosion (if steel) or degradation from UV radiation (if geosynthetic).
Designers should assume that the hardware cloth will degrade over time, in permanent walls,
and that the WWM will have to retain the wall fill adjacent to the face or maintenance (i.e.,
repair, replace) of the hardware cloth
For permanent walls, vertical and horizontal spacing of metallic reinforcements for flexible
face (welded wire or similar) wall systems should not exceed 18 inches. The stiffness of the
facing and spacing of reinforcements must be such that the maximum local horizontal
deformation between soil reinforcement layers is limited to less than 1 to 2 in. as specified by
the agency. The maximum local horizontal deformation between soil reinforcement layers
should also be limited to less than 1 to 2 in. for temporary walls, i.e., walls with up to 36
months service life. This recommendation is particularly important if the temporary wall will
be incorporated into a permanent feature, e.g., buried within an embankment fill.
The look of galvanized WWM face may not be desired on some projects due to aesthetic
requirements. On some projects, staining of galvanized WWM has been used to achieve
desired aesthetics.
3.6.4 Geosynthetic Wrap-Around Facing
Geosynthetic facing elements should not be left exposed to sunlight (specifically ultraviolet
radiation) for permanent walls. If geosynthetic facing elements must be left exposed to
sunlight, for permanent or temporary structures, the geosynthetic must be stabilized to be
resistant to ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, product specific test data should be provided
which can be extrapolated to the intended design life and which proves that the product will
be capable of performing as intended in an exposed environment. Vegetative covers provide
some protection from UV and in many cases, a healthy vegetative cover can prevent
exposure altogether. Alternately, a protective facing must be constructed in addition (e.g.,
concrete, shotcrete, etc.). A temporary wrap-around wall is shown in Figure 2-3.
3.6.5 Other Facings
Other facings being used on permanent walls, and sometimes on slopes, include: large, up to
3-ft (0.9-m) high and 3 to 10-ft (0.9 to 3-m) in width, wet cast concrete units, gabions, and
geocells.
The large wet cast units are typically stacked, similar to MBW units. Generally, geosynthetic
soil reinforcements are used with these units. The reinforcement is usually connected to the

facing by friction, i.e., sandwiched between vertically adjacent units, as shown in Figure 3-7.
Attachments may also be cast into the units and mechanical connection used, as shown in
Figure 3-8.
Rock filled gabions are another large face unit used with MSE walls. One system uses
woven-wire soil reinforcement that is integral with the gabion face, so no connection is
required. Other systems connect reinforcement to the facing by friction by sandwiching the
reinforcement between vertically adjacent units. Connecting the reinforcement by
mechanically clipping it to the back of a gabion should be avoided. Most gabions are 3 ft by
3 ft (0.9 by 0.9 m), thus vertical reinforcement exceeds the 32 in. (0.8 m) recommended
maximum spacing. This greater spacing may be offset by the size/mass of the facing.
Although 36-in. reinforcement spacing has been used successfully on many projects, it is not
in agreement with the 32-in. limit to ensure a coherent MSE mass. The Owner should
exercise caution in the evaluation of the maximum reinforcement spacing when specific
loading conditions, unusual geometries, or soft foundation exist. The Owner and/or wall
designer should consider use of secondary reinforcement layers placed in at the center of the
unit heights to reduce reinforcement vertical spacing.
Geocells are used to face reinforced soil walls and slopes. Eight-inch (200-mm) high
geocells and nominally about 3 ft (0.9 m) wide are typically used. Connection to the soil
reinforcement is by friction, i.e., sandwiched between vertically adjacent mats of geocells.
The lifts of geocells may be offset and the outer cells filled with topsoil and vegetated, as
shown in Figure 3-9.
Figure 3-7. Large, wet-cast concrete

face unit with reinforcement placed
between units.

Figure 3-8. Large, wet-cast concrete face unit with embedded reinforcement connectors.
Figure 3-9. Geocell face unit with vegetation.

3.6.6 Two-Stage Facings
Two-stage MSE wall construction is used to construct walls on foundations that will undergo
significant settlement. The first stage is construction of an MSE wall with a flexible facing
(i.e., WWM or geosynthetic wrap). Connectors or form anchors are embedded in the first
stage construction. The foundation soils are allowed to settle under the load of the first stage,
with or without an additional surcharge load. The second stage consists of facing the first
stage with cast-in-place or precast concrete panels. Either full height or segmental precast
panels are used and are mechanically connected to the first-stage reinforced soil mass.
Connection mechanisms and details may be proprietary to the wall vendor. For cast in place
facings, the design of the connection mechanism must consider fluid pressure that develops
during pouring of the concrete, which may require staging to avoid connection overstressing.
Precast material control is discussed in Section 3.6.1. Design issues include; 1) estimation of
settlement and establishing tolerance limits for the first-stage wall construction, 2) estimating
additional long term settlement after construction of the second stage including additional
loading from the facing system, and 3) evaluating the long-term durability of the connection
hardware between the concrete and MSE mass with consideration for long term differential
settlement. Corrosion needs to be addressed for steel connectors and durability for any
geosynthetic connectors.

CHAPTER 4
DESIGN OF MSE WALLS
This chapter details design guidelines common to all MSE wall structures. It is limited to
MSE walls having a near-vertical face, and uniform length of soil reinforcements. MSE wall
design details are addressed in Chapter 5. Design guidelines for complex structures, or
structures with unusual features are covered in Chapter 6. Detailed example calculations for
both routine and complex structures are presented in Appendix E of this reference manual.
This chapter is organized sequentially as follows:

 Overview of design methods.
o LRFD
o Other methods
 Loads and load combinations.
o LRFD design of MSE walls
 MSE wall design guidelines (step-by-step)
o Sizing for external stability
o Sizing for internal stability
 Temporary walls
 Design checklist
 Computer aided design
 Standard MSE wall designs
4.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND ANALSIS METHODS
4.1.1 Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Platform
Traditionally, the MSE wall design has been performed using the Allowable Stress Design
(ASD) methodology. The LRFD methodology is the latest advancement in transportation
structures design practice. The LRFD method in various forms is now being applied
throughout the world. For example, EuroCode uses the limit state design (LSD)
methodology, which is very similar to the LRFD methodology. Regardless of the design
methodology, the core analytical methods for MSE walls such as external and internal
stability evaluation remain unchanged. The assumption of a coherent gravity mass for
external stability, the shape of the internal failure planes, and treatment of reinforcements as
discrete elements remains unchanged. The primary change is in the way the loads and
resistances are compared and how uncertainty is incorporated into the design process.
FHWA NHI-10-024 4 – Design of MSE Walls

Specific to the topic of MSE walls the following points regarding LRFD methodology should
be noted to prevent any confusion in application of the various theories and equations
presented in this chapter:
C The symbol  (phi) is used for both the soil friction angle and the LRFD resistance factor.
C The symbol γ (gamma) is used for both soil unit weight and the LRFD load factor.
C Load and resistance factors for MSE walls are currently calibrated by fitting to ASD
results. Therefore, designs using LRFD procedure should not significantly vary from
past, expected ASD designs.
C For most MSE wall system designs, strength limit states generally control the member
sizes. Service limit states may control aspects such as joint width openings and
construction sequence based on the anticipated deformations. Extreme event limit states
may affect both the member sizes as well as deformations.
4.1.2 Analysis Methods
As noted earlier, the core analysis methods for MSE walls are unchanged relative to ASD
practice. AASHTO (2002), which is based on the ASD method, recommended the use of the
Simplified Method (a.k.a., Simplified Coherent Gravity Method) provided in the previous
version of this manual. {Note: The AASHTO (2002) and FHWA (Elias et al., 2001) ASD
references will not be updated by AASHTO or FHWA, respectively.}
It is acknowledged that other analytical methods are also available in the literature as
follows:
C Allowable Stress Design (ASD) Procedure and the Simplified Method (AASHTO, 2002
and FHWA NHI-00-043 {Elias et al., 2001})
C Coherent Gravity Method Analysis Model
C National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) Procedure (NCMA, 2009)
C Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Method (Wu et al., 2006)
C K-Stiffness Method (Allen and Bathurst, 2003; Allen et al., 2003; Allen et al., 2004;
WSDOT, 2006; and Bathurst et al., 2008a)
The LRFD methodology permits consideration of any of the above methods as long as
appropriate calibrations are performed for resistance factors using acceptable quality
statistical data. This chapter concentrates on application of the Simplified Method which is
recommended due to its applicability to a variety of soil reinforcement types (in contrast to
the limited applicability of the alternative methods to specific type of reinforcements, e.g.,
GRS method is strictly applicable to geosynthetic reinforcements), and it is a methodology
that has been successfully used in practice for many years. Brief descriptions of these other
analytical methods are included in Appendix F.

4.2 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS
A complete list of various loads, load factors and load combinations that need to be
considered in design of bridge structures and associated transportation structures such as
retaining walls and culverts is presented in Section 3 of AASHTO (2007). Many load types
are commonplace to design of bridge structures and not applicable to retaining walls as noted
in Section 11 of AASHTO (2007). With respect to MSE wall structures, only a few of the
loads and load combinations are applicable on a routine basis. The applicable loads for most
MSE wall applications are summarized below followed by a summary of applicable load
combinations in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Complete load combination and load factor tables (per
AASHTO, 2007) are contained in Appendix A.
Applicable Loads
Permanent Loads
EH = Horizontal earth loads
ES = Earth surcharge load
EV = Vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill
Transient Loads
CT = Vehicular collision force
EQ = Earthquake load
LL = Vehicular live load
LS = Live load surcharge
An example of an ES load on an MSE wall is the pressure from a spread footing above the
reinforced mass. An example EV load is a sloping fill above the top of an MSE wall.
Further distinction is made under the external and the internal design steps that follow.

Table 4-1. Typical MSE Wall Load Combinations and Load Factors
(after Table 3.4.1-1, AASHTO {2007}).
Load EH Use One of These at a Time
Combination ES LL
Limit State EV LS EQ CT
STRENGTH I γp 1.75 – –
EXTREME EVENT I γp γEQ 1.00 –
EXTREME EVENT II γp 0.50 – 1.00
SERVICE I 1.00 1.00 – –
Notes:
γp = load factor for permanent loading. May subscript as P-EV, P-EH, etc.
γEQ = load factor for live load applied simultaneously with seismic loads
Table 4-2. Typical MSE Wall Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp
Load Factor
Type of Load
Maximum Minimum
DC: Component and Attachments 1.25 0.90
EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure
 Active 1.50 0.90
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure
 Overall Stability 1.00 N/A
 Retaining Walls and Abutments 1.35 1.00
ES: Earth Surcharge 1.50 0.75
Note: May subscript as EV-MIN, EV-MAX, EH-MIN, EH-MAX, etc.
Maximum and Minimum Load Factors

Two load factors, a maximum and a minimum, are listed in Table 4-2. It is important to
understand the application of these load factors in context of MSE walls. Article 3.4.1
AASHTO (2007) states that: “The factors shall be selected to produce the total extreme
factored force effect. For each load combination, both positive and negative extremes shall
be investigated. In load combinations where one force effect decreases another effect, the
minimum value shall be applied to the load reducing the force effect. For permanent force
effects, the load factor that produces the more critical combination shall be selected. . . .
Where the permanent load increases the stability or load-carrying capacity of a component
or bridge, the minimum value of the load factor for that permanent load shall also be
investigated.”

In general, AASHTO’s guidance can be applied by using minimum load factors if permanent
loads increase stability and use maximum load factors if permanent loads reduce stability.
For simple walls, e.g., level backfill with or without surcharges due to traffic, or sloping
backfill, the load factor (minimum or maximum) to use for a particular stability check may
be readily identifiable. The load factors to use for such simple walls for external stability
calculations are illustrated in Figure 4-1. The maximum EV load factor should be used for
internal stability calculations.
a. Typical load factors for sliding stability and eccentricity check.
b. Typical load factors for bearing calculations.
Figure 4-1. External stability load factors for simple walls.

The basic concept of load combinations using maximum and minimum load factors is
applicable to more complex MSE wall configurations, such as those that may be experienced
at bridge abutments or walls with complex geometries (see Chapter 6). Therefore, different
combinations of load factors will need to be investigated to determine the total extreme
factored (critical) force effect for each applicable limit state.
While the positive and negative extremes are the two bounds, an intermediate combination of
maximum and minimum load factors can create the critical force effect for design purposes.
This is particularly applicable to retaining walls, wherein various components within a wall
system may separately experience maximum or minimum loads. For example, in MSE walls,
while the reinforced soil mass may be constructed such that it results in a maximum load, it is
conceivable that the construction of retained fill may be at a minimum load level. Therefore,
a critical combination of loads needs to be evaluated based on applicable maximum and
minimum load factors. The detailed design examples complex MSE wall configurations in
Appendix E use the concept of using minimum and maximum load factors.
4.3 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS USING LRFD METHODOLOGY
The procedure for design of MSE walls using LRFD methodology is very similar to that
using ASD methodology. In LRFD, the external and internal stability of the MSE wall is
evaluated at all appropriate strength limit states and overall stability and lateral/vertical wall
movement are evaluated at the service limit state. Extreme event load combinations are used
to design and analyze for conditions such as vehicle impact and seismic loading (see Chapter
7 for extreme event design). The specific checks for the strength and service limit states
required for MSE wall design are listed below.
Strength Limit States for MSE walls

 External Stability
o Limiting Eccentricity
o Sliding
o Bearing Resistance
 Internal Stability
o Tensile Resistance of Reinforcement
o Pullout Resistance of Reinforcement
o Structural Resistance of Face Elements
o Structural Resistance of Face Element Connections

Service Limit States for MSE walls
 External Stability
o Vertical Wall Movements
o Lateral Wall Movements
Global Stability of MSE walls

 Overall Stability
 Compound Stability
The external stability of an MSE wall is evaluated assuming that the reinforced soil zone acts
as a rigid body. This is because, when properly designed, the wall facing and the reinforced
soil act as a coherent block with lateral earth pressures acting on the back side of that block.
The internal stability of the reinforced soil zone is dependent on three fundamental
characteristics:
C the soil-reinforcement interaction (resistance to pullout and to sliding, for sheet-type
reinforcements);
C the tensile resistance of the reinforcement; and
C the durability of the reinforcing material.
Therefore, the internal stability analyses of an MSE wall in LRFD is evaluated by (a)
determining the maximum factored load in each reinforcement and (b) comparing this
maximum factored load to the factored pullout resistance and to the factored tensile
resistance of the reinforcement for all applicable strength, service, and extreme event limit
states.
Capacity to Demand Ratio (CDR)

With LRFD, the goal is to have the factored resistance greater than the factored load. The
term capacity to demand ratio, CDR, is used to quantify the ratio of the factored resistance to
the factored load. This term is useful in identifying critical and controlling limit states.
4.3.1 Design Steps
There are eleven basic design steps for an MSE wall, as listed in Table 4-3. Some of these
steps have several sub-steps in the design process. These steps are for walls with simple
geometries, as discussed in this chapter. Steps can vary somewhat depending on on type of
reinforcement and/or whether or not type of reinforcement is initially defined. Additional
steps are required for more complex cases such as true bridge abutments, as discussed in
Chapter 6.

Table 4-3. Basic LRFD Design Steps for MSE Walls.
Step 1. Establish Project Requirements
– including all geometry, loading conditions (permanent, transient, seismic,
etc.), performance criteria, and construction constraints.
Step 2. Establish Project Parameters
– evaluate existing topography, site subsurface conditions, reinforced wall fill
properties, and retained backfill properties.
Step 3. Estimate Wall Embedment Depth, Design Height(s), and Reinforcement Length
Step 4 Define nominal loads
Step 5 Summarize Load Combinations, Load Factors, and Resistance Factors
Step 6. Evaluate External Stability
a. Evaluate sliding
b. Evaluate eccentricity
c. Evaluate bearing on foundation soil
d. Settlement analysis (at service limit state)
Step 7. Evaluate Internal Stability
a. Select type of soil reinforcement
b. Define critical failure surface (for selected soil reinforcement type)
c. Define unfactored loads
d. Establish vertical layout of soil reinforcements
e. Calculate factored horizontal stress and maximum tension at each
reinforcement level.
f. Calculate nominal and factored long-term tensile resistance of soil
reinforcements
g. Select grade (strength) of soil reinforcement and/or number of soil
reinforcement elements at each level.
h. Calculate nominal and factored pullout resistance of soil reinforcements,
and check established layout
i. Check connection resistance requirements at facing
j. Estimate lateral wall movements (at service limit state)
k. Check vertical movement and compression pads
Step 8. Design of Facing Elements
Step 9. Assess Overall Global Stability
Step 10. Assess Compound Stability
Step 11. Design Wall Drainage Systems.
a. Subsurface drainage
b. Surface drainage

4.4 MSE WALL DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.4.1 Step 1 – Establish Project Requirements
Prior to proceeding with the design, the following parameters must be defined:
C Geometry
o Wall heights
o Wall batter
o Backslope
o Toe slope
C Loading Conditions
o Soil surcharges
o Live (transient) load surcharges
o Dead (permanent) load surcharges
o Loads from adjacent structures that may influence the internal or external stability
of MSE wall system, e.g., spread footings, deep foundations, etc.
o Seismic
o Traffic barrier impact
C Performance Criteria
o Design code (e.g., AASHTO LRFD)
o Maximum tolerable differential settlement
o Maximum tolerable horizontal displacement
o Design life
o Construction Constraints
The chosen performance criteria should reflect site conditions and agency or AASHTO code
requirements, which are discussed in detail in Chapters 2 and 3 of this manual.
4.4.2 Step 2 – Establish Project Parameters
The following must be defined by the agency (Owner) and/or its designer:
Existing and proposed topography
C Subsurface conditions across the site
o Engineering properties of foundation soils (γf, c'f, 'f, cu)
o Groundwater conditions
C Reinforced wall fill – engineering properties of the reinforced soil volume (γr, 'r)
C Retained backfill – engineering properties of the retained fill (γb, c'b, 'b), addressing all
possible fills (e.g., in-situ, imported, on-site, etc.). Cohesion in the retained backfill is
usually assumed to be equal to zero. See FHWA Earth Retaining Structures reference

manual (Tanyu et al., 2008) for guidance on value of cohesion and calculation of the
lateral pressure if a cohesion value is used in design.
Note that AASHTO uses the subscript f for both the foundation and retained backfill soils. In
the text of this reference manual, the subscript f is used for foundation soil and subscript b is
used for the retained backfill.
The reinforced wall fill should be a select granular material, as detailed in Chapter 3 of this
manual and in Article 7.3.6.3 AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications (2004).
Per Article 11.10.6.2 (AASHTO, 2007) the maximum friction angle of the select granular
reinforced fill should be assumed to be 34°, unless the project specific fill is tested for
frictional strength by triaxial or direct shear testing methods. A design friction angle greater
than 40° should not used, even if the measured friction angle is greater than 40°. Note, that
while 34° is a maximum value in absence of testing, some soils such as semi-rounded to
round, uniform sands, that meet the specified gradation have a friction angle lower than 34°.
In geologic areas where such soils are found (e.g., Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.), it is
recommended that project specific fill shear strength tests be performed. Similarly, where
soils are micaceous, project specific shear strength tests should be performed. Also note, it is
assumed that the select granular reinforced fill is noncohesive, i.e., cohesion is assumed
equal to zero.
For the foundation soil, Article 11.10.5.3 (AASHTO, 2007) notes that in absence of specific
data, a maximum friction angle, 'fof 30° may be used. The use of an assumed, non-specific
parameter is recommended only for preliminary sizing. As discussed in Chapter 2, a project
specific site evaluation, that defines subsurface conditions and properties, is required for
design of MSE wall structures.
An assumed friction angle, 'bof 30° is often used for the retained (i.e., behind the
reinforced zone) backfill. The use of an assumed, non-specific parameter is recommended
only for preliminary sizing. As discussed in Chapter 2, a project specific site evaluation, that
defines subsurface conditions and properties, is required for the design of MSE wall
structures; or the use of a backfill specification that assures that the minimum friction angle
is obtained. Most agencies have defined allowable property ranges for the retained fill (may
be classified as an embankment fill material) and have appropriate friction angle(s)
established for design.

4.4.3 Step 3 – Estimate Wall Embedment Depth and Reinforcement Length
The process of sizing the structure begins by determining the required embedment,
established under Project Criteria (Section 2.8.3, see Table 2-2), and the final exposed wall
height, the combination of which is the full design height, H, for each section or station to be
investigated. Use of the full height condition is required for design as this condition usually
prevails in bottom-up constructed structures, at least to the end of construction.
A preliminary length of reinforcement is chosen to initiate design. The length should be the
greater of 0.7H or 8 ft (2.5 m), where H is the design height of the structure. Structures with
sloping surcharge fills or other concentrated loads, such as abutments, generally require
longer reinforcements for stability, often on the order of 0.8H to 1.1H (see Table 2-1). This
preliminary reinforcement length is checked in the external and the internal stability
calculations.
Generally, the reinforcement length should be uniform throughout the entire height of the
wall. One exception is special structures with shorter reinforcement lengths at the base of the
wall; these are addressed in Chapter 6. Another exception is the use of longer layers of
reinforcement at the top of a wall. It is recommended that the upper two layers of soil
reinforcement be extended 3 ft (0.9 m) beyond the other layers where post-construction
movements at the reinforced zone and retained backfill have been observed on previous,
similar projects or if a seismic loading could lead to tension cracks in the backfill soil
immediately behind the reinforcement. The design can be completed assuming uniform
lengths, and the extra length added to the top two layers when detailing and specifying.
The 8 ft (2.5 m) minimum is used to accommodate the typical size of fill spreading and
compaction equipment used on transportation works. As noted in Commentary C.11.10.2.1
AASHTO (2007), a minimum soil reinforcement length, on the order of 6.0 ft (1.8 m) can be
considered for short walls if smaller compaction equipment is used and other wall design
requirements are met. But, the minimum of 0.7H should be maintained. This shorter
minimum length of 6 ft (1.8 m) is generally used only for landscape features (e.g., walls not
supporting traffic).
4.4.4 Step 4 – Define Nominal Loads
The primary sources of external loading on an MSE wall are the earth pressure from the
retained backfill behind the reinforced zone and any surcharge loadings above the reinforced
zone. Thus, the loads for MSE walls may include loads due to horizontal earth pressure
(EH), vertical earth pressure (EV), live load surcharge (LS), and earth surcharge (ES). Water

(WA) and seismic (EQ) should also be evaluated if applicable. Stability computations for
walls with a near vertical face are made by assuming that the MSE wall acts as a rigid body
with earth pressures developed on a vertical pressure plane at the back end of the
reinforcements, as shown in Figures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4. Estimation of earth pressures on MSE
walls for three different conditions (i.e., horizontal backslope with traffic surcharge, sloping
backslope, and broken backslope) follows.
surcharge (after AASHTO, 2007).

2007).

2007).

Vertical Wall and Horizontal Backslope: The active coefficient of earth pressure is
calculated for near vertical walls (defined as walls with a face batter of less than 10 degrees
from vertical) and a horizontal backslope from:
  'b 
K ab  tan 2  45   (4-1)
 2 
where: ’b = friction angle of retained backfill.
Vertical Wall and a Surcharge Slope: The active coefficient of earth pressure is calculated
for near vertical walls (defined as walls with a face batter of less than 10 degrees from
vertical) and a sloping backfill from:
sin ( +  b )
2 '
K ab = (4-2)
 sin 2  sin ( -  )
where:
2
 sin (b' +  ) sin (b' -  ) 
 = 1 +  (4-3)
 sin ( -  ) sin ( +  ) 
β = Nominal slope of backfill behind wall (deg)

δ = Angle of friction between retained backfill and reinforced soil, set equal to 
(deg)
b = effective friction angle of retained backfill (deg)
θ = 90o for vertical, or near (< 10◦) vertical, wall (deg)
Note that the earth pressure force, (FT) in Figure 4-3, is oriented at the same angle as the
backslope, , as it is assumed that  .
Vertical Wall with Broken Backslope: The active earth pressure coefficient (Ka) for this
condition is computed using Equations 4-2 and 4-3, with the design β angle and the interface
angle  both set equal to I, as defined in Figure 4-4.
Battered Wall with or without Backslope: For an inclined front face and reinforced zone
(i.e., batter) equal or greater than 10 degrees from vertical, the coefficient of earth pressure
can be calculated using Equations 4-2 and 4-3 where θ is the face inclination from horizontal,
and β the surcharge slope angle as shown in Figure 4-5. The wall friction angle δ is assumed
to be equal to β.

than 100 (after AASHTO, 2007).
Traffic Loads
Traffic loads should be treated as uniform surcharge live load of not less than 2.0 ft (0.6 m)
of earth (Article 11.10.10.2, AASHTO {2007}). For external stability, traffic load for walls
parallel to traffic will have an equivalent height of soil, heq equal to 2.0 ft. For internal
stability, traffic load for walls parallel to traffic will have a heq, equal to 2.0 ft unless traffic is
allowed within 1.0 ft of the back of the wall facing. Commonly the wheel path is more then
1-ft behind the wall backface due to the presence of a traffic barrier and, therefore, a heq
value of 2 ft is applicable.
Equivalent heights of soil, heq, for uniform surcharge loadings on retaining wall abutments
with traffic running perpendicular to the wall may be taken from Table 4-4. Linear

interpolation is used for intermediate wall heights. Typically, the abutment heq will be acting
on the stub abutment that sits on top of the reinforced soil zone (see Figure 4-13). If a
structural approach slab is used and is supported on the backwall of the abutment (and not by
the soil), the load is directly transmitted to the abutment; in this case heq = 0 is used unless
otherwise mandated by an owner.
If the surcharge is for other than highway vehicular loading, the owner should specify or
approve different surcharge load.
Table 4-4. Equivalent Height of Soil, heq, for Traffic Loading on Abutments
Perpendicular to Traffic (Table 3.11.6.4-1, AASHTO {2007}).
Abutment Height (ft) heq (ft)
5.0 4.0
10.0 3.0
> 20.0 2.0
Soil Compaction-Induced Earth Pressures

Compaction stresses are already included in the design model and specified compaction
procedures for MSE walls (Article C3.11.2, AASHTO {2007}). Therefore, no additional
design considerations are required.
4.4.5 Step 5 – Summarize Load Combinations, Load Factors, and Resistance Factors
Load combinations were discussed in Section 4.2, and typically may include Strength I,
Extreme I and/or II, and Service I limits. Note however, that in certain states, the Strength II
limit state is more critical than the Strength I limit state because owner prescribed legal loads
are greater than those provided in the AASHTO specifications (2007). Maximum permanent
loads, minimum permanent loads, and total extremes should be checked for a particular load
combination for walls with complex geometry and/or loadings to identify the critical loading.
Examination of only the critical loading combination, as described in Section 4.2, is
sufficient for simple walls. Load factors typically used for MSE walls are listed in Tables 4-
1 and 4-2. Refer to the information in Appendix E or Section 3 of AASHTO (2007) for load
factors to use with complex MSE wall configurations and loadings.
Live loads are not used on specific design steps since they contribute to stability. These are
identified in subsequent design steps.

Resistance factors for external stability and for internal stability are presented in respective
design step discussions that follow. Internal stability resistance factors are listed later in
Table 4-7.
4.4.6 Step 6 – Evaluate External Stability
As with classical gravity and semigravity retaining structures, four potential external failure
mechanisms are usually considered in sizing MSE walls, as shown in Figure 4-6. They
include:
C Sliding on the base
C Limiting eccentricity (formerly known as overturning)
C Bearing resistance
C Overall/global stability (see Step 8)
The resistance factor for external stability analyses of MSE walls are listed in Table 4-5.
Sliding Limiting Eccentricity

(Overturning)
Bearing
Figure 4-6. Potential external failure mechanisms for a MSE wall.

Table 4-5. External Stability Resistance Factors for MSE Walls
(Table 11.5.6-1, AASHTO {2007}).
Resistance
Stability Mode Condition
Factor
Bearing Resistance 0.65
Sliding 1.0
Overall (global) Where geotechnical parameters are well
Stability defined, and the slope does not support or 0.75
contain a structural element
Where geotechnical parameters are based on
limited information, or the slope contains or 0.65
supports a structural element
4.4.6.a Evaluate Sliding Stability

Check the preliminary sizing with respect to sliding of the reinforced zone where the
resisting force is the lesser of the shear resistance along the base of the wall or of a weak
layer near the base of the MSE wall, and the sliding force is the horizontal component of the
thrust on the vertical plane at the back of the wall (see Figures 4-2 through 4-4). The live
load surcharge is not considered as a stabilizing force when checking sliding, i.e., the sliding
stability check only applies the live load above the retained backfill, as shown in Figure 4-2.
The driving forces generally include factored horizontal loads due to earth, water, seismic,
and surcharges.
Sliding resistance along the base of the wall is evaluated using the same procedures as for
spread footings on soil as per Article 10.6.3.4 (AASHTO, 2007). The factored resistance
against failure by sliding (RR) can be estimated by:
RR =  R (4-4)
where:
τ = resistance factor for shear resistance between soil and foundation
   (equal to 1.0 for sliding of soil-on-soil, see Table 4-5)
Rτ = nominal sliding resistance between reinforced fill and foundation soil
Note that any soil passive resistance at the toe due to embedment is ignored due to the
potential for the soil to be removed through natural or manmade processes during its service
life (e.g. erosion, utility installation, etc.). Also, passive resistance is usually not available
during construction. The shear strength of the facing system is also conservatively neglected.

Calculation steps and equations to compute sliding for two typical cases follow. These
equations should be extended to include other loads and geometries, for other cases, such as
additional live and dead load surcharge loads.
1) Calculate nominal thrust, per unit width, acting on the back of the reinforced zone.
Wall with Horizontal Backslope: (see Figure 4-2)

The retained backfill resultant, F1, is:
F1  1 K ab γ b H 2 (4-5)
2
For a uniform surcharge, the resultant is:
F2  K ab q H (4-6)
where:
Kab = active earth pressure coefficient for the retained backfill
b = moist unit weight of the retained backfill soil
H = height of the retaining wall
q = uniform live load surcharge = (r) (heq)
Wall with Sloping Backfill: (see Figure 4-3)

Calculate nominal retained backfill force resultant per unit width, FT
FT  1 K ab γ b h 2 (4-7)
2
where:
Kab = active earth pressure coefficient for the sloping backfill, see Eq. 4-2
h = total height of wall, H, and slope at the back of the reinforced zone
= H + L tan β
For a broken backslope (see Figure 4-4), h - H should not exceed the height of the upper
crest. If the broken backslope height is defined as “S”, then (H + L tan) < (H + S); use
(H + S) if (L tan) > S.
2) Calculate the nominal and the factored horizontal driving forces. For a horizontal
backslope and uniform live load surcharge:

F  F1  F2 (4-8)
Pd  γ EH F1  γ LS F2 (4-9)
For a sloping backfill condition:
FH  FT cosβ (4-10)
Pd  γ EH FH  γ EH FT cosβ (4-11)
Use the maximum EH load factor (= 1.50) in these equations because it creates the
maximum driving force effect for the sliding limit state.
3) Determine the most critical frictional properties at the base. Choose the minimum soil
friction angle,  for three possibilities:
i) Sliding along the foundation soil, if its shear strength (based on c'f + tan 'f and/or
cu for cohesive soils) is smaller than that of the reinforced fill material shear
strength (tan 'r).
ii) Sliding along the reinforced fill ('r).
iii) For sheet type reinforcement, sliding along the weaker of the upper and lower
soil-reinforcement interfaces. The soil-reinforcement friction angle ρ, should
preferably be measured by means of interface direct shear tests. In absence of
testing, it may be taken as ⅔ tan 'r.
4) Calculate the nominal components of resisting force and the factored resisting force per
unit length of wall. For a horizontal backslope and uniform live load surcharge, the live
load is excluded since it increases sliding stability:
R r  γ EV V1  μ (4-12)
For a sloping backfill condition:
R r  [ γ EV ( V1  V2 )  γ EH (FT sinβ )]  μ (4-13)
where

μ = minimum soil friction angle  [tan 'f, tan 'r, or (for continuous
reinforcement) tan ρ]
External loads that increase sliding resistance should only be included if those loads are
permanent.
Use the minimum EV load factor (= 1.00) in these equations because it results in
minimum resistance for the sliding limit state.
5) Compare factored sliding resistance, Rr, to the factored driving force, Pd, to check that
resistance is greater.
6) Check the capacity demand ratio (CDR) for sliding, CDR = Rr/Pd. If the CDR < 1.0,
increase the reinforcement length, L, and repeat the calculations.
4.4.6.b Eccentricity Limit Check

The system of forces for checking the eccentricity at the base of the wall is shown on Figure
4-7. It should be noted that the weight and width of the wall facing is typically neglected in
the calculations. Limiting eccentricity is a strength limit state check. The eccentricity limit
check only applies the live load above the retained backfill, as shown in Figure 4-2.
The eccentricity, e, is the distance between the resultant foundation load and the center of the
reinforced zone (i.e., L/2), as illustrated in Figure 4-7. The quantity e is calculated by
summing the overturning and the resisting moments about the bottom, center of the base
length, and dividing by the vertical load.
e 
M D  M R
(4-14)
V
Equations to compute eccentricity for two typical cases follow. These equations should be
extended to include other loads and geometries, for other cases.
Wall with Horizontal Backslope: Calculation steps for the determination of the eccentricity
beneath a wall with a horizontal backslope and a uniform live load surcharge are as follows,
with respect to Figure 4-7.

Calculate nominal retained backfill and surcharge force resultants per unit width. See
Equations 4-5 and 4-6 for walls with a horizontal backslope and uniform live load surcharge.
See Equation 4-7 for walls with sloping backfill.
For a vertical wall, with horizontal backslope and uniform live load surcharge, calculate the
eccentricity e as follows:
e
 3  γ
γ EH -MAX F1 H LS  2
Fq  LS H
(4-15)
γ EV -MIN V1
Wall with Sloping Backfill: The eccentricity beneath a wall with a sloping backfill, and no
surcharges, is calculated as follows, with respect to Figure 4-8.
Calculate e with factored loads. For a wall with a sloping backfill the eccentricity is equal to:
e
γ EH -MAX FT cosβ h 3  γ EH -MAX FT sinβ L  2  γ EV -MIN  6
V2 L
(4-16)
γ EV -MIN V1  γ EV -MIN V2  γ EH -MAX FT sinβ
Eccentricity Check Criteria: The eccentricity, e, is considered acceptable if the calculated

location of the resultant vertical force (based on factored loads) is within the middle one-half
of the base width for soil foundations (i.e., emax = L / 4) and middle three-fourths of the base
width for rock foundations (i.e., emax = 3/8 L). Therefore, for each strength limit load group,
e must be less than emax. If e is greater, than a longer length of reinforcement is required.
Examination of only the critical loading combination, as describe in Section 4.2, (i.e., use the
minimum EV and maximum EH load factors) is sufficient for simple walls. Maximum
permanent loads, minimum permanent loads, and total extremes should be checked for
complex (geometry and/or loadings) walls to identify the critical loading.

backslope with traffic surcharge condition.

backslope condition.

4.4.6.c Evaluate Bearing on Foundation
Two modes of bearing capacity failure exist, general shear failure and local shear failure.
Local shear is characterized by a punching or squeezing of the foundation soil when soft or
loose soils exist below the wall.
Bearing calculations require both a strength limit state and a service limit state calculation.
Strength limit calculations check that the factored bearing pressure is less than the factored
bearing resistance. Service limit calculations are used to compute nominal bearing pressure
for use in settlement calculations. It should be noted that the weight and width of the wall
facing is typically neglected in the calculations. The bearing check applies live load above
both the reinforced zone and the retained backfill, as shown in Figure 4-2.
General Shear. To prevent bearing failure on a uniform foundation soil, it is required that the
factored vertical pressure at the base of the wall, as calculated with the uniform Meyerhof-
type distribution, does not exceed the factored bearing resistance of the foundation soil:
q R  q uniform (4-17)
The uniform vertical pressure is calculated as:
σV 
V (4-18)
L  2e B
where:
V = summation of vertical forces
L = width of foundation, equal to reinforcement length L
eB = eccentricity for bearing calculation (not equal to eccentricity check e)
This step, 6.c, requires a different computation of the eccentricity value computed in Step 6.a
because different, i.e., maximum in lieu of minimum, load factor(s) are used. Also note that
the bearing check applies the live load above both the reinforced zone and the retained
backfill, as shown in Figure 4-2. In addition to walls founded on soil, a uniform vertical
pressure is also used for walls founded on rock due to the flexibility of MSE walls and their
limited ability to transmit moment (Article C11.10.5.4 {AASHTO, 2007}).
Calculation steps for MSE walls with either a horizontal backslope and uniform live load
surcharge and for sloping backfills follow. Again, note that these equations should be
extended to include other loads and geometries, for other cases.

1) Calculate the eccentricity, eB, of the resulting force at the base of the wall. The e value
from the eccentricity check, Step 6.a, cannot be used, Calculate e with factored loads.
For a wall with horizontal backslope and uniform live load surcharge centered about the
reinforced zone, the eccentricity is equal to:
eB 
 3  γ
γ EH-MAX F1 H LS  2
Fq  LS H
(4-19)
γ EV -MAX V1  γ LS q L
where terms were previously defined. The maximum load factors for EH and EV are
used to be consistent with the computation for v (below) where maximum load factors
results in the maximum vertical stress.
For walls with sloping backfill see Equation 4-16. Again, note that these equations should
be extended to include other loads and geometries, for other cases.
Note that when checking the various load factors, and load combinations, the value of
eccentricity, eB, will vary. Also note that when the calculated value of eccentricity, eB, is
negative, a value of 0 should be carried forward in the design stress equation, i.e., set L’ =
L, per AASHTO C11.10.5.4 (2007).
2) Calculate the factored vertical stress V-F at the base assuming Meyerhof-type
distribution. For a horizontal backslope and uniform live load surcharge the factored
bearing pressure is:
γ EV -MAX V1  γ LS q L
 V -F  (4-20)
L  2e B
This approach, proposed originally by Meyerhof, assumes that a stress distribution due to
eccentric loading can be approximated by a uniform stress distribution over a reduced
area at the base of the wall. This area is defined by a width equal to the wall width minus
twice the eccentricity as shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8. The effect of eccentricity and
load inclination is addressed with use of the effective width, L – 2eB, in lieu of the full
width, L.
For wall with sloping backfill the factored bearing stress is:

γ EV -MAX V1  γ EV -MAX V2  γ EH -MAX FT sinβ
q V -F  (4-21)
L  2e B
Note that (L – 2eB) is set equal to L when the value of eccentricity is negative. A
negative value of eccentricity may be found for some extreme geometries, e.g. a wall
section with very long reinforcements and a steep, infinite backslope. Note that when
checking the various load factors and load combinations the value of eccentricity, eB,
will vary and a critical value must be determined by comparisons of applicable load
combinations.
Where applicable, in the computation of bearing stress, V-F, include the influence of
factored surcharge and factored concentrated loads. Maintain consistency with loads and
load factors used in the eccentricity calculation and corresponding bearing stress
calculation.
3) Determine the nominal bearing resistance, qn, Equation 10.6.3.1.2a-1 of AASHTO

(2007). For a level grade in front of a MSE wall and no groundwater influence:
q n  c f N c  0.5 L' γ f N γ (4-22)
where: cf = the cohesion of the foundation soil

γf = the unit weight of the foundation soil
Nc and Nγ = dimensionless bearing capacity coefficients
L’ = effective foundation width, equal to L – 2eB; set L’ equal to L if eB is a
negative value
The dimensionless bearing capacity factors can be obtained from Table 10.6.3.1.2a-1 of
AASHTO (2007) and, for convenience, are shown in Table 4-6. Modifications to qn
(Equation 4-22) for a ground surface slope and for high groundwater level are provided in
10.6.3.1.2 AASHTO (2007). The beneficial effect of wall embedment is neglected.
(Note: for excessive embedment (i.e., embedment greater that the minimum
requirements, see Table 2-2), partial embedment may be considered in the determination
of qn provided that the fill in front of the wall is placed and compacted as the reinforced
fill is placed and all possible failure modes are examined. Bearing capacity is addressed
in detail in the following two NHI courses: 132037 Shallow Foundations, and reference
manual FHWA NHI-01-023 (Munfakh et al., 2001); and 132012 Soils & Foundations,
and reference manual Volume I, FHWA NHI-06-089 (Samtani and Nowatzki, 2006).

Table 4-6. Bearing Resistance Factors
(Table 10.6.3.1.2a-1, AASHTO {2007}).
 Nc Nq Nγ  Nc Nq Nγ
0 5.14 1.0 0.0 23 18.1 8.7 8.2
1 5.4 1.1 0.1 24 19.3 9.6 9.4

2 5.6 1.2 0.2 25 20.7 10.7 10.9
3 5.9 1.3 0.2 26 22.3 11.9 12.5
4 6.2 1.4 0.3 27 23.9 13.2 14.5
5 6.5 1.6 0.5 28 25.8 14.7 16.7
6 6.8 1.7 0.6 29 27.9 16.4 19.3
7 7.2 1.9 0.7 30 30.1 18.4 22.4
8 7.5 2.1 0.9 31 32.7 20.6 25.9
9 7.9 2.3 1.0 32 35.5 23.2 30.2
10 8.4 2.5 1.2 33 38.6 26.1 35.2
11 8.8 2.7 1.4 34 42.2 29.4 41.1
12 9.3 3.0 1.7 35 46.1 33.3 48.0
13 9.8 3.3 2.0 36 50.6 37.8 56.3
14 10.4 3.6 2.3 37 55.6 42.9 66.2
15 11.0 3.9 2.7 38 61.4 48.9 78.0
16 11.6 4.3 3.1 39 37.9 56.0 92.3
17 12.3 4.8 3.5 40 75.3 64.2 109.4
18 13.1 5.3 4.1 41 83.9 73.9 130.2
19 13.9 5.8 4.7 42 93.7 85.4 155.6
20 14.8 6.4 5.4 43 105.1 99.0 186.5
21 15.8 7.1 6.2 44 118.4 115.3 224.6
22 16.9 7.8 7.1 45 133.9 134.9 271.8
Note:
Nc (Prandtl, 1921), Nq (Reisnner, 1924), and N (Vesic, 1975).
Nq is embedment term, which is typically not used in MSE wall design.

4) Check that factored bearing resistance is greater than the factored bearing stress, i.e., qR >
qV-F. The factored bearing resistance (qR) is given as:
qR   qn (4-23)
where:
  = resistance factor, for MSE walls this factor is 0.65 (Table 11.5.6-1, AASHTO
{2007})
5) As indicated in step 2) and step 3), qV-F can be decreased and qR increased by lengthening
the reinforcements, though only marginally. The nominal bearing resistance often may
be increased by additional subsurface investigation and better definition of the foundation
soil properties. If adequate support conditions cannot be achieved or lengthening
reinforcements significantly increases costs, improvement of the foundation soil may be
considered (dynamic compaction, soil replacement, stone columns, precompression, etc.)
– see FHWA Ground Improvement Methods reference manuals NHI-06-019 and NHI-
06-020 (Elias et al., 2006).
Local Shear, Punching Shear And Lateral Squeeze. Local shear is a transition between
general shear and punching shear, which can occur in loose or compressible soils, in weak
soils under slow (drained) loading. If local shear or punching shear failure is possible,
Section 10.6.3.1.2b of AASHTO (2007) requires the use of reduced shear strength
parameters for calculating the nominal bearing resistance. The reduced effective stress
cohesion, c* is set equal to 0.67c'. The reduced effective stress soil friction angle, * is set
equal to tan-1(0.67 tan 'f).
Lateral squeeze is a special case of local shear that can occur when bearing on a weak
cohesive soil layer overlying a firm soil layer. Lateral squeeze failure results in significant
horizontal movement of the soil under the structure.
To prevent local shear of structures bearing on weak cohesive soils it is required that:
γr H ≤ 3 cu (4-24)
where γr is the nominal unit weight of the reinforced fill, H is the height of the wall and cu is
the nominal total stress cohesion of the foundation soil.
If adequate support conditions cannot be achieved, either the soft soils should be removed or
ground improvement of the foundation soils is required. Local shear, as well as bearing on

two layered soil systems in undrained and drained loading, are addressed in Section
10.6.3.1.2 of AASHTO (2007). Local shear and lateral squeeze is addressed in detail in NHI
course 132012 Soils & Foundations, and reference manual Volume II, FHWA NHI-06-088
(Samtani and Nowatzki, 2006).
4.4.6.d Settlement Estimate

Conventional settlement analyses should be carried out to ensure that immediate,
consolidation, and secondary settlement of the wall are less than the performance
requirements of the project (see FHWA NHI-06-088 and NHI-06-089, Soils and Foundations
Reference manuals {Samtani and Nowatzki, 2006}). Settlement is evaluated under bearing
pressure computed at a Service I limit state.
Significant estimated post-construction foundation settlements indicate that the planned top
of wall elevations need to be adjusted. This can be accomplished by increasing the top of
wall elevations during wall design, or by providing height adjustment within the top of wall
coping, and/or by delaying the casting of the top row of panels to the end of erection. The
required height of the top row, would then be determined with possible further allowance for
continuing settlements. Significant differential settlements (greater than 1/100), indicate the
need of slip joints, which allow for independent vertical movement of adjacent precast
panels. Where the anticipated settlements and their duration, cannot be accommodated by
these measures, consideration must be given to ground improvement techniques such as wick
drains, stone columns, dynamic compaction, the use of lightweight fill or the implementation
of two-phased construction in which the first phase facing is typically a wire facing.
4.4.7 Step 7 –EVALUATE INTERNAL STABILITY
Internal failure of a MSE wall can occur in two different ways:

C The tensile forces (and, in the case of rigid reinforcements, the shear forces) in the
inclusions become so large that the inclusions elongate excessively or break, leading to
large movements and/or possible collapse of the structure. This mode of failure is called
failure by elongation or breakage of the reinforcements.
C The tensile forces in the reinforcements become larger than the pullout resistance, leading
to large movements and/or possible collapse of the structure. This mode of failure is
called failure by pullout.
The process of sizing and designing to preclude internal failure, therefore, consists of
determining the maximum developed tension forces, their location along a locus of critical
slip surfaces and the resistance provided by the reinforcements both in pullout capacity and
tensile strength. Internal stability also includes an evaluation of serviceability requirements

such as tolerable lateral movement of supported structures and control of downdrag stress on
reinforcement connections.
4.4.7.a Select Type of Soil Reinforcement

Soil reinforcements are either inextensible (i.e., mostly metallic) or extensible (i.e., mostly
polymeric materials), as discussed in Chapter 2. The internal wall design model varies by
material type due to their extensibility relative to soil at failure. Therefore, the choice of
material type should be made at this step of the design. The variations are: whether life
prediction is based on metal corrosion or polymer degradation; critical failure plane geometry
assumed for design; and lateral stress used for design. Distinction can be made between the
characteristics of inextensible and extensible reinforcements, as follows.
Design Methods, Inextensible (e.g., Metallic) Reinforcements

The current method of limit equilibrium analysis uses a coherent gravity structure approach
to determine external stability of the reinforced mass, similar to the analysis for any
conventional or traditional gravity structure. For internal stability evaluations, it considers a
bi-linear failure surface that divides the reinforced zone in active and resistant zones and
requires that an equilibrium state be achieved for successful design.
The lateral earth pressure distribution for external stability, is assumed to be based on
Coulomb’s method with a wall friction angle δ assumed to be zero. For internal stability
lateral pressure varying from a multiple of Ka to an active earth pressure state, Ka is used for
design. Previous research (FHWA RD 89-043) has focused on developing the state of stress
for internal stability, as a function of Ka, type of reinforcement used (geotextile, geogrid,
metal strip or metal grid), and depth. The results from these and more recent (Allen et al.,
2001) efforts have been synthesized in a simplified method, which will be used throughout
this manual.
Design Methods, Extensible (e.g., Geosynthetic) Reinforcements

For external stability calculations, the current method assumes an earth pressure
distribution, consistent with the method used for inextensible reinforcements.
For internal stability computations using the simplified method, the internal coefficient of
earth pressure is again a function of the type of reinforcement, where the minimum
coefficient (Ka) is used for walls constructed with continuous sheets of geotextiles and
geogrids. For internal stability, a Rankine failure surface is considered, because the
extensible reinforcements can elongate more than the soil, before failure, and do not
significantly modify the shape of the soil failure surface.

4.4.7.b Define Critical Slip Surface
The critical slip surface in a simple reinforced soil wall is assumed to coincide with the locus
of the maximum tensile force, TMAX, in each reinforcement layer. The shape and location of
the critical failure surface is based upon instrumented structures and theoretical studies.
This critical failure surface has been assumed to be approximately bilinear in the case of
inextensible reinforcements (Figure 4-9), approximately linear in the case of extensible
reinforcements (Figure 4-9), and passes through the toe of the wall in both cases.
When failure develops, the reinforcement may elongate and be deformed at its intersection
with the failure surface. As a result, the tensile force in the reinforcement would increase and
rotate. Consequently, the component in the direction of the failure surface would increase
and the normal component may increase or decrease. Elongation and rotation of the
reinforcements may be negligible for stiff inextensible reinforcements such as steel strips but
may be significant with geosynthetics. Any reinforcement rotation is ignored for internal
wall stability calculations with the simplified method. However, reinforcement rotation may
be considered in compound slope stability analysis (see Chapters 8 and 9).
For extensible reinforcements, the Coulomb earth pressure relationship shown on Figure 4-5
should be used to define the failure surface, per AASHTO Figure 11.10.6.3.1-1 (2007),
where the wall front batter from vertical is greater than 10 degrees.

(a) inextensible reinforcements and (b) extensible reinforcements.

4.4.7.c Define Unfactored Loads
The primary sources of internal loading of an MSE wall is the earth pressure from the
reinforced fill and any surcharge loadings on top of the reinforced zone. The unfactored
loads for MSE walls may include loads due to, vertical earth pressure (EV), live load
surcharge (LS), and earth surcharge (ES). Water, seismic, and vehicle impact loads should
also be evaluated, as appropriate.
Research studies (Collin, 1986; Christopher et al., 1990; Allen et al., 2001) have indicated
that the maximum tensile force is primarily related to the type of reinforcement in the MSE
wall, which, in turn, is a function of the modulus, extensibility and density of reinforcement.
Based on this research, a relationship between the type of the reinforcement and the
overburden stress has been developed, and shown in Figure 4-10. The Kr/Ka ratio for
metallic (inextensible) reinforcements decreases from the top of the reinforced wall fill to a
constant value 20 ft (6 m) below this elevation. In contrast to inextensible reinforcements,
the Kr/Ka for extensible (e.g., geosynthetic) reinforcement is a constant. Note that the
resulting Kr/Ka ratio is referenced to the top of the wall at the face, excluding any copings
and appurtenances (i.e., the top of the reinforced soil zone at the face) for both walls with
level and with sloping backfills. The Kr/Ka starting elevation for an MSE wall supporting a
spread footing bridge abutment is the top of the backfill, see Chapter 6 and appended design
example.
The simplified approach used herein was developed in order to avoid iterative design
procedures required by some of the complex refinements of the available methods i.e., the
coherent gravity method (AASHTO, 1994 Interims) and the structural stiffness method
(FHWA RD 89-043, Christopher et al., 1990). The simplified method (a.k.a. simplified
coherent gravity method) (Elias and Christopher, 1997; Allen et al., 2001) is based on the
same empirical data used to develop these two methods.
Figure 4-10 was prepared by back analysis of the lateral stress ratio Kr from available field
data where stresses in the reinforcements were measured and normalized as a function of the
Rankine active earth pressure coefficient, Ka. The Rankine active earth pressure theory
assumes lateral pressure is independent of backfill slope and interface friction. The ratios
shown on Figure 4-10 correspond to values representative of the specific reinforcement
systems that are known to give satisfactory results assuming that the vertical stress is equal to
the weight of the overburden (γH). This provides a simplified evaluation method for all
cohesionless reinforced fill walls. Future data may lead to modifications in Figure 4-10,
including relationships for newly developed reinforcement types, effect of full height panels,
etc. These relationships can be developed by instrumenting structures and using numerical
models to verify the Kr/Ka ratio for routine and complex walls.

The lateral earth pressure coefficient Kr is determined by applying a multiplier to the active
earth pressure coefficient. The active earth pressure coefficient is determined using a
Coulomb earth pressure relationship, assuming no wall friction and a β angle equal to zero
(i.e., equivalent to the Rankine earth pressure coefficient). For a vertical wall the earth
pressure therefore reduces to the Rankine equation:
 ' 
K a  tan 2  45  r  (4-25)
 2
For wall face batters equal to or greater than 10° from the vertical, the following simplified
form of the Coulomb equation can be used:
Ka 

sin 2   r'  (4-26)
 sinr' 
sin 3 1  
 sin 
where θ is the inclination of the back of the facing as measured from the horizontal starting in
front of the wall, as shown in Figure 4-5. Commentary C11.10.6.2.1 AASHTO (2007) states
that above equation can be used for battered walls. The 10◦ value recommendation is
consistent with the equation to determine the failure surface location for walls with 10◦ or
greater batter (C11.10.6.3.1, AASHTO {2007}).
The stress, 2, due to a sloping backfill on top of an MSE wall can be determined as shown
in Figure 4-11. An equivalent soil height, S, is computed based upon the slope geometry.
The value of Seq should not exceed the slope height for broken back sloping fills. A
reinforcement length of 0.7H is used to compute the sloping backfill stress, 2, on the soil
reinforcement, as a greater length would only have minimal effect on the reinforcement. The
vertical stress is equal to the product equivalent soil height and the reinforced fill unit weight,
and is uniformly applied across the top of the MSE zone.

Figure 4-10. Variation of the coefficient of lateral stress ratio (Kr/Ka) with depth in a MSE
wall (Elias and Christopher, 1997; AASHTO; 2002; & after AASHTO, 2007).

stability.
4.4.7.d Establish Vertical Layout of Soil Reinforcements

Use of a constant reinforcement section and spacing for the full height of the wall usually
gives more reinforcement in the upper portion of the wall than is required for stability.
Therefore, a more economical design may be possible by varying the reinforcement density
with depth. However, to provide a coherent reinforced soil zone, vertical spacing of
reinforcement should not exceed 32 in. (800 mm).
There are generally two practical ways to accomplish this for MSE walls:
C For reinforcements consisting of strips, grids, or mats used with segmental precast
concrete facings, the vertical spacing is maintained constant and the reinforcement

density is increased with depth by increasing the number and/or the size of the
reinforcements. For instance, the typical horizontal spacing of 2-in. (50 mm) x 5/32-in.
(4 mm) strips is 30 in. (0.75 m), but this can be decreased by adding horizontal
reinforcement locations.
C For continuous sheet reinforcements, made of geotextiles or geogrids, a common way of

varying the reinforcement density Tal/Sv is to change the vertical spacing Sv, especially if
wrapped facing is used, because it easily accommodates spacing variations. The range of
acceptable spacing is governed by consideration of placement and compaction of the
backfill (e.g., Sv taken as 1, 2 or 3 times the compacted lift thickness). The reinforcement
density Tal/Sv can also be varied by changing the strength (Tal) especially if wrapped
facing techniques requiring a constant wrap height are used.
Low-to medium-height walls (e.g., < 16 ft {5 m}) are usually constructed with one strength
geosynthetic. Taller walls use multiple strength geosynthetics. For example the 41 ft (12.6
m) high Seattle preload wall used four strengths of geotextiles (Allen et al., 1992). A
maximum spacing of 16 in. (400 mm) is typical for wrapped faced geosynthetic walls,
although a smaller spacing may be desirable to minimize bulging.
For walls constructed with modular blocks, the maximum vertical spacing of reinforcement
should be limited to two times the block depth (front face to back face) or 32 in. (810 mm),
which ever is less, to assure construction and long-term stability. The top row of
reinforcement should be limited to 1.5 the block depth (e.g. one unit plus a cap unit).
(AASHTO 11.10.2.3.1 {AASHTO, 2007}).
For large face units, such as 3 ft by 3 ft (0.9 m by 0.9 m) gabions, a vertical spacing equal to
the face height (i.e., 3 ft {0.9 m}) is typically used. This spacing slightly exceeds the limit
noted above, but this may be offset by the contributions of the large facing unit to internal
(i.e., bulging) stability.
4.4.7.e Calculate Factored Tensile Forces in the Reinforcement Layers

e.1 Calculate Horizontal Stress
For internal stability analysis, the distribution of horizontal stress, σH, is first established.
The horizontal stress at any given depth within the reinforced soil zone is expressed as
follows:
σH = Kr [σv]+ σH (4-27)

where Kr is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure in the reinforced soil zone and is obtained
from Figure 4-10, σv is the factored vertical pressure at the depth of interest, and σh is the
supplemental factored horizontal stress due to external surcharges.
For internal stability analysis, the following assumptions are made in the computation of
factored vertical pressure, σv:
1. Vertical pressure due to the weight of the reinforced soil zone is assigned a load type
“EV” with a corresponding (maximum) load factor, γP-EV = 1.35. The maximum load
factor of 1.35, and not the minimum load factor of 1.00, is always used to find the critical
stress.
2. Any vertical surcharge above the reinforced soil zone that is due to soil or considered as
an equivalent soil surcharge is assigned a load type “EV.” In this scenario, a live load
traffic surcharge that is represented by an equivalent uniform soil surcharge of height heq
is assumed as load type “EV.” This is in contrast to the external stability analysis where
the live load traffic surcharge is assumed as load type “LS” because in external stability
analysis the MSE wall is assumed to be a rigid block. For internal stability analysis, the
assumption of load type “EV” is used so that the amount of soil reinforcement within the
reinforced soil zone is approximately the same as obtained using past working stress
design approach (i.e., calibration by fitting).
3. The unit weight of the equivalent soil surcharge is assumed to be the same as the unit
weight of the reinforced soil zone, r, which is generally greater than or equal to the unit
weight of the retained backfill.
4. Any vertical surcharge that is due to non-soil source is assigned a load type “ES.”
Example of such a load is the bearing pressure under a spread footing on top of
reinforced soil zone. However, the application of the load factor of γP-ES = 1.50 that is
assigned to load type “ES” is a function of how the vertical pressures are computed as
follows:
 If the vertical pressures are based on nominal (i.e., unfactored) loads, then use γP-ES
=1.50.
 If the vertical pressures were based on factored loads, then use γP-ES = 1.00. This is
because once the loads are factored they should not be factored again.

It is recommended that the factored vertical pressure be evaluated using both the above
approaches and the larger value chosen for analysis.
The supplemental factored horizontal pressure, σh, could be from a variety of sources. Two
examples of supplemental horizontal pressures are as follows:
1. Horizontal pressures due to the horizontal (shear) stresses at the bottom of a spread
footing on top of reinforced soil zone.
2. Horizontal pressures from deep foundation elements extending through the reinforced
soil zone.
Supplemental horizontal pressures are assigned a load type “ES” since they represent
surcharges on or within the reinforced soil zone. However, similar to the vertical pressures
due to non-soil loads, the application of the maximum load factor of γP-ES = 1.50 that is
assigned to load type “ES” is a function of how the horizontal pressures are computed as
follows:
 If the horizontal pressures are based on nominal (i.e., unfactored) loads, then use γES-
MAX = 1.50.
 If the horizontal pressures were based on factored loads, then use γP-ES = 1.00. This is
because once the loads are factored they should not be factored again.
As with vertical pressure, it is recommended that the factored horizontal pressure be

evaluated using both the above approaches and the larger value chosen for analysis.
The application of the above guidance is illustrated below for four MSE wall configurations
ranging from simple to complex geometries. The logic used in development of these
equations can be extended to any other MSE wall configuration with complex system of
surcharges.
Example 1: MSE wall with level backfill and no surcharge. This represents the simplest
MSE wall configuration for which the horizontal stress at any given depth Z below the
top of the reinforced soil zone is given as follows:
σH = Kr [(r Z) γEV-MAX] (4-28)

where, r is the unit weight of soil in the reinforced soil zone, and γEV-MAX is the
maximum load factor (=1.35) for load type “EV.” The value of Kr is obtained by
assuming that: (i) the variation of Kr/Ka ratio shown in Figure 4-10 starts from the top of
the reinforced soil zone, and (ii) Ka is computed using the Rankine formula (Eq. 4-25).
Example 2: MSE wall with sloping backfill. This configuration is commonly used for
side-hill retaining wall applications. Example of this configuration is shown in Figure 4-
10. As shown in Figure 4-11, the sloping surcharge is approximated by an equivalent
uniform soil surcharge of height, Seq. For this case, the horizontal stress at any depth Z
below the top of the reinforced soil zone can be written as follows:
σH = Kr [r (Z + Seq) γEV-MAX] (4-29)
The value of Kr is obtained by assuming that: (i) the variation of Kr/Ka ratio shown in
Figure 4-10 starts from the top of the reinforced soil zone, and (ii) Ka is computed using
the Rankine formula (Eq. 4-25) assuming that the backfill is level. Use of Equation 4-29
is demonstrated in Example Problem E-3 in Appendix E.
Example 3: MSE wall with level backfill and live load surcharge. This configuration is
commonly used for grade-separated roadways. Assuming that the live load is expressed
as an equivalent uniform soil surcharge of height, heq, (equal to 2 ft) the horizontal stress
at any depth Z below the top of the reinforced soil zone can be written as follows:
σH = Kr [r (Z + heq) γEV-MAX] (4-30)
Figure 4-10 starts from the top of the reinforced soil zone, and (ii) Ka is computed using
the Rankine formula (Eq. 4-25). Use of Equation 4-30 is demonstrated in Example
Problem E-4 in Appendix E.
Example 4: Bridge abutment with a spread footing on top of MSE wall. In this
configuration the bridge superstructure rests on a spread footing on top of a MSE wall.
This configuration is discussed in detail in Chapter 6. It is included here as an example
of a complex system of surcharges that can be used to explain the computation of
horizontal stress for such cases. For development of the equation of horizontal stress,
refer to Figures 4-12 and 4-13. Assumptions are that the live load is expressed as an
equivalent uniform soil surcharge of height, heq, as per Table 4-4, the height of the
roadway fill above the reinforced soil zone is h, and σv and σH increase TMAX. Then,

the horizontal stress at any depth Z below the top of the reinforced soil zone can be
written as follows:
σH = Kr [r (Z + h + heq) γEV-MAX + (Δσv-footing) γP-ES]+ (σH) γP-ES (4-31)
where σv and σH are the vertical (normal) and horizontal (shear) pressures at the
bottom of the spread footing. As noted earlier, the value of γP-ES is 1.50 if nominal (i.e.,
unfactored) pressures are used, and is 1.00 if factored pressures are used with the final
value being chosen based on larger values of (σv-footing)γP-ES and (σH)γP-ES.
Figure 4-10 starts from the finished pavement grade behind the spread footing, and (ii) Ka
is computed using the Rankine formula (Eq. 4-25). Use of Equation 4-31 is demonstrated
in Example Problem E-5 in Appendix E.

feet
stability calculations.

Figure 4-13. Distribution of stresses from concentrated horizontal loads.

Figure 4-14. Reinforcement load contributory height.
e.2 Calculate Maximum Tension, TMAX

Calculate the maximum factored tension TMAX in each reinforcement layer per unit width of
wall based on the vertical spacing Sv from:
TMAX  σ H S v (in force per unit reinforcement width {kips/ft}) (4-32a)
The term Sv is equal to the vertical reinforcement spacing for a layer where vertically
adjacent reinforcements are equally spaced from the layer under consideration. In this case,
H, calculated at the level of the reinforcement, is at the center of the contributory height.
The contributory height is defined as the midpoint between vertically adjacent reinforcement
elevations, except for the top and bottom layers reinforcement.

For the top and bottom layers of reinforcement, Sv is the distance from top or bottom of wall,
respectively, to the midpoint between the first and second layer (from top or bottom of wall,
respectively) of reinforcement. Sv distances are illustrated in Figure 4-14.
The maximum reinforcement tension, TMAX, for the top and bottom layers of reinforcement,
and for intermediate layers that do not have equally spaced adjacent layers, is calculated as
the product of the contributory height and the average factored horizontal stress acting upon
that contributory height. The average stress can be calculated based upon the tributary
trapezoidal area (i.e. average of the stress at top and at the bottom of the contributory height)
or at the midpoint of the contributory height, as illustrated in Figure 4-14.
Alternatively, for discrete reinforcements (metal strips, bar mats, geogrids, etc.) TMAX (force
per unit width) may be calculated at each level as PTMAX-UWR in terms of force per unit width
of reinforcement, as:
σH Sv
PTMAX-UWR  (4-32b)
Rc
where:
Rc = ratio of gross width of strip, sheet, or grid to the center-to-center
horizontal spacing between the strips, sheets, or grids (see Eq. 3-9 and
Figure 3-3); e.g., Rc = 1 for full coverage reinforcement.
For discrete reinforcements of known spacing and segmental precast concrete facing of
known panel dimensions, TMAX (force per unit width) can alternatively be calculated per
discrete reinforcement, PTMAX-D, per panel width, defined as.
σ H S v WP
PTMAX  D  (4-32c)
NP
where:
PTMAX-D = maximum factored load in discrete reinforcement element
WP = width of panel
NP = number of discrete reinforcements per panel width (e.g., 2, 3, etc.)
4.4.7.f Calculate Soil Reinforcement Resistance

The procedure and discussion on definition of nominal long-term reinforcement design
strength (Tal), for both steel and geosynthetic reinforcements, are presented in Section 3.5 of
this manual. The factored soil resistance is the product of the nominal long-term strength,
coverage ratio, and applicable resistance factor, . The resistance factors for tensile rupture

of MSE wall soil reinforcements are summarized in Table 4-7. The factored tensile
resistance, Tr, is equal to:
Tr =  Tal (4-33)
Tal (as noted in Section 3.5) and Tr may be expressed in terms of strength per unit width of
wall, per reinforcement element, or per unit reinforcement width.
Table 4-7. Resistance Factors, , for Tensile and Pullout Resistance for MSE Walls
Resistance
Reinforcement Type and Loading Condition
Factor
Strip reinforcements (A)
Static loading 0.75
Combined static/earthquake loading 1.00
(B)
Metallic reinforcement and Combined static/traffic barrier impact 1.00
connectors Grid reinforcements (A, C)
Static loading 0.65

(B)
Combined static/traffic barrier impact 0.85
Static loading 0.90
Geosynthetic reinforcement
and connectors
(B)
Combined static/traffic barrier impact 1.20
Pullout resistance of tensile Static loading 0.90
reinforcement (metallic and Combined static/earthquake loading 1.20
geosynthetic) Combined static/traffic barrier impact (B)
1.00
Notes:
A. Apply to gross cross-section less sacrificial area. For sections with holes, reduce gross
area in accordance with AASHTO (2007) Article 6.8.3 and apply to net section less
sacrificial area.
B. Combined static/traffic barrier impact resistance factors are not presented in AASHTO.
C. Applies to grid reinforcements connected to rigid facing element, e.g., a concrete panel or
block. For grid reinforcements connected to a flexible facing mat or which are continuous
with the facing mat, use the resistance factor for strip reinforcements.

4.4.7.g Select Grade of and/or Number of Soil Reinforcement Elements at Each Level
The soil reinforcement vertical layout, the factored tensile force at each reinforcement level,
and the factored soil reinforcement resistance were defined in the previous three steps. With
this information, select suitable grades (strength) of reinforcement, or number of discrete
(e.g., strip) reinforcements, for the defined vertical reinforcement layout. Then with this
layout check pullout and, as applicable, extreme event loadings. Adjust layout if/as
necessary.
Stability with respect to breakage of the reinforcements requires that:
TMAX  Tr (4-34)
Where TMAX is the maximum factored load in a reinforcement (Eqs. 4-32) and Tr is the
factored reinforcement tensile resistance (Eq. 4-33).
4.4.7.h Internal Stability with Respect to Pullout Failure
Stability with respect to pullout of the reinforcements requires that the factored effective
pullout length is greater than or equal to the factored tensile load in the reinforcement, TMAX.
Each layer of reinforcement should be checked, as pullout resistance and/or tensile loads may
vary with reinforcement layer. Therefore, the following criteria should be satisfied:
TMAX
 Le  (4-35)
F *α σ v C R c
where:
Le = The length of embedment in the resisting zone. Note that the boundary
between the resisting and active zones may be modified by concentrated
loadings.
TMAX = Maximum reinforcement tension
  = Resistance factor for soil reinforcement pullout. See Table 4-7.
F* = Pullout resistance factor (see Chapter 3) with variation in depth starting at
the same elevation as that for Kr/Ka variation.
α = Scale correction factor (see Chapter 3)
σv = Nominal (i.e., unfactored) vertical stress at the reinforcement level in the
resistant zone, including distributed dead load surcharges, neglecting
traffic loads. See Figure 4-15 for computing v for sloping backfills.
C = 2 for strip, grid, and sheet type reinforcement
Rc = Coverage ratio

beneath a sloping backfill.

Therefore, the required embedment length in the resistance zone (i.e., beyond the potential
failure surface) can be determined from:
TMAX
Le   3 ft 1 m  (4-36)
 F *  v C R c
If a traffic or other live load is present, it is recommended that TMAX be computed with the
live loads and that the pullout resistance be computed excluding the live loads. This
addresses the possibility of the live loads being present near the front of the wall but not
above the reinforcement embedment length. The pullout resistance and the TMAX can be
calculated with the live load excluded (AASHTO {2009 Interims} specifications) if it can be
shown that the live load will be on the active and resistant zones at the same time or on the
resistant zone alone. An agency should note their pullout calculation requirement, if it varies
from AASHTO, in their specifications.
Commentary C11.10.6.2.1 (AASHTO, 2009 Interims) notes that traffic loads and other live
loads are not included for pullout calculations. Therefore, if TMAX calculation for checking
the reinforcement and connection strengths included a live load surcharge the value must be
recomputed, without the surcharge load, for Equation 4-35 or 4-36.
If the criterion is not satisfied for all reinforcement layers, the reinforcement length has to be
increased and/or reinforcement with a greater pullout resistance per unit width must be used,
or the reinforcement vertical spacing may be reduced which would reduce TMAX.
The total length of reinforcement, L, required for internal stability is then determined from:
L = La + Le (4-37)
where La is obtained from Figure 4-9 for simple structures not supporting concentrated
external loads such as bridge abutments. Based on this figure the following relationships can
be obtained for La:
For MSE walls with extensible reinforcement, vertical face and horizontal backfill:
La = (H - Z) tan (45 - ’/2) (4-38)
where Z is the depth to the reinforcement level.

For walls with inextensible reinforcement, vertical face and horizontal backfill, from the
base up to H/2:
La = 0.6 (H-Z) (4-39)
For the upper half of a wall with inextensible reinforcements, vertical face, and horizontal
backfill:
La = 0.3H (4-40)
For construction ease, a final uniform length is commonly chosen, based on the maximum
length required. However, if internal stability controls the length, it could be varied from the
base, increasing with the height of the wall to the maximum length requirement based on a
combination of internal and maximum external stability requirements. See Chapter 6, section
6.3 for additional guidance.
4.4.7.i Check Connection Strength

The connection of the reinforcements with the facing, should be designed for TMAX for all
limit states. The resistance factors () for the connectors are the same as for the
reinforcement strength, and are listed in Table 4-7 (Article 11.10.6.2.2 (AASHTO, 2007).
Connections to Concrete Panels

The metallic reinforcements for MSE systems constructed with segmental precast panels are
structurally connected to the facing by either bolting the reinforcement to a tie strip cast in
the panel or connected with a bar connector to suitable anchorage devices in the panels. The
capacity of the embedded connector as an anchorage must be checked by tests as required by
Article 5.11.3 AASHTO (2007) for each geometry used. Connections between metallic
reinforcements and facing units should be designed in accordance with AASHTO Article
6.13.3, and consider corrosion losses in accordance with AASHTO Article 11.10.6.4.2a. The
design load at the connection is equal to the maximum load on the reinforcement.
Polyethylene geogrid reinforcements may be structurally connected to segmental precast

panels by casting a tab of the geogrid into the panel and connecting to the full length of
geogrid with a bodkin joint, as illustrated in Figure 4-16. The capacity of the embedded
connector as an anchorage must be checked by tests as required by Article 5.11.3 AASHTO
(2007) for each geometry used. A slat of polyethylene is used for the bodkin. Care should
be exercised during construction to eliminate slack from this connection.

Polyester geogrids and geotextiles should not be cast into concrete for connections, due to
potential chemical degradation. Other types of geotextiles also are not cast into concrete for
connections due to fabrication and field connection requirements.
Figure 4-16. Bodkin connection detail (looking at cross section of segmental panel face).
Connections to MBW Units

MSE walls constructed with MBW units are connected either by (i) a structural connection
subject to verification under AASHTO Article 5.11.3, (ii) friction between the units and the
reinforcement, including the friction developed from the aggregate contained within the core
of the units, or, (iii) a combination of friction and shear from connection devices. This
strength will vary with each unit depending on its geometry, unit batter, normal pressure,
depth of unit, and unit infill gravel (if applicable). The connection strength is therefore
specific to each unit/reinforcement combination and must be developed uniquely by test for
each combination.

The nominal long-term connection strength, Talc developed by frictional and/or structural
means is determined as follows:
T  CR cr
Talc  ult (4-41)
RFD
where:
Talc = nominal long-term reinforcement/facing connection strength per unit
reinforcement width at a specified confining pressure
Tult = ultimate tensile strength of the geosynthetic soil reinforcement,
defined as the minimum average roll value (MARV)
RFD = reduction factor to account for chemical and biological degradation
CRcr = long-term connection strength reduction factor to account for reduced
ultimate strength resulting from the connection
CRcr may be obtained from long-term or short-term tests, as described below.
CRcr Defined with Long-Term Testing

A series of connection creep tests are performed over extended periods of time to
evaluate creep rupture at the connection. The long-term connection creep rupture
data is extrapolated to the specified design life (e.g., 75 years, 100 years) to define the
creep reduced connection strength, Tcrc, at the specified design life. Details for long-
term testing and interpretation of results are presented in Appendix B. With this
long-term testing, CRcr is defined as follows:
Tcrc
CR cr  (4-42)
Tlot
Tlot is the ultimate wide width tensile strength of the reinforcement material roll/lot
used for the connection strength testing. The Tlot strength, for example, might be
103% to 115% of the minimum average roll value (MARV) ultimate strength, Tult (or
noted Tult-MARV).
CRcr Defined with Short-Term Testing

Short-term (i.e., quick) ultimate strength tests, per ASTM D6638, are used to define
an ultimate connection strength, Tultconn, at a specified confining pressure. Tests
should be performed in accordance with ASTM D6638, Determining Connection

Strength Between Geosynthetic Reinforcement and Segmental Concrete Units
(Modular Concrete Blocks). With short-term testing, CRcr, is defined as follows:
Tultconn
CR cr  (4-43)
RFcr Tlot
RFcr is the geosynthetic creep reduction factor (see Chapter 3), and Tlot is the
ultimate wide width tensile strength of the reinforcement material roll/lot used for
the connection strength testing.
Raw data from short-term connection strength laboratory testing should not be
used for design. The wall designer should evaluate the data and define the
nominal long-term connection strength, Talc. Steps for this data reduction are
summarized and discussed in Appendix B. An example of reduction of short-
term connection strength data is presented in Appendix B.
Note that the environment between and directly behind the modular blocks at the connection
may not be the same as the environment within the reinforced soil zone. Therefore, the long-
term environmental aging factor (RFD) may be significantly different than that used in
computing the nominal long-term reinforcement strength Tal.
The connection strength as developed above is a function of normal pressure, which is

developed by the weight of the units. Thus, it will vary from a minimum in the upper portion
of the structure to a maximum near the bottom of the structure for walls with no batter.
Further, since many MBW walls are constructed with a front batter, the column weight above
the base of the wall or above any other interface may not correspond to the weight of the
facing units above the reference elevation. The concept is shown in Figure 4-17, and is
termed a hinge height (Simac et al., 1993). Hence, for walls with a nominal batter of more
than 8 degrees, the normal stress is limited to the lesser of the hinge height or the height of
the wall above the interface. This vertical pressure range should be used in developing CRcr.
This recommendation is based on research findings that indicated that the hinge height
concept is overly conservative for walls with small batters (Bathurst et al., 2000).

(NMCA, 1997).

4.4.7.j Lateral Movements
The evaluation of lateral wall movements in LRFD is the same as in ASD as the
deformations are evaluated at the Service I limit state. In general, most internal lateral
deformations of an MSE wall face usually occur during construction. Post construction
movements, however, may take place due to post construction surcharge loads, settlement of
wall fill, or long-term settlement of the foundation soils.
The magnitude of lateral displacement depends on fill placement techniques, compaction

effects, reinforcement extensibility, reinforcement length, reinforcement-to-facing
connection details, and details of the wall facing. The rough estimate of probable lateral
displacements of simple MSE walls that may occur during construction can be estimated
based on empirical correlations (see Figure 2-15). In general, increasing the length-to-height
ratio of reinforcement, from its theoretical lower limit of 0.5H to the AASHTO specified
0.7H, decreases the deformation by about 50 percent. For critical structures requiring precise
tolerances, such as bridge abutments, more accurate calculations using numerical modeling
may be warranted.
A deformation response analysis allows for an evaluation of the anticipated performance of

the structure with respect to horizontal (and vertical) displacement. Horizontal deformation
analyses are the most difficult and least certain of the performed analyses. In many cases,
they are done only approximately. The results may impact the choice of facing, facing
connections, or backfilling sequences.
4.4.7.k Vertical Movement and Bearing Pads

Bearing pads are placed in horizontal joints of segmental precast concrete panels in order to
allow the panel and the reinforcement to move down with the reinforced fill as it is placed
and settles, mitigate downdrag stress, and provide flexibility for differential foundation
settlements. Internal settlement within the reinforced fill is practically immediate with some
minor movement occurring after construction due to elastic compression in granular
materials. The amount of total movement is the combination of the internal movement and
external differential movement. The bearing/compression pad thickness and compressibility
could be adjusted according to the anticipated movement. Otherwise concrete panel cracking
and/or downdrag on connections resulting in bending of connections and/or out of plane
panel movement can occur. Calculation of the external settlement was reviewed in Section
4.4.6.d. Normally the internal movement is negligible for well graded, granular fill and
external movement will usually control the compression pad requirements as listed in Table
2-3. However, when using sand type fill and/or marginal fill containing an appreciable
amount of fines, the internal movement can be significant and should be calculated to
evaluate additional thickness requirements of the bearing pad. Immediate settlement of

granular fill can be calculated using the Schmertmann method, as described in the FHWA
NHI-06-088 and NHI-06-089, Soils and Foundation Reference manuals (Samtani and
Nowatzki, 2006).
The stiffness (axial and lateral), size, and number of bearing pads should be sized such that
the final joint opening will be at least ¾ +1/8-inch, unless otherwise shown on the plans. As
noted in Chapter 2, a minimum initial joint width of ¾-inch is recommended. The stiffness
(axial and lateral), size, and number of bearing pads are should be checked assuming a
vertical loading at a given joint equal to 2 to 3 times the weight of facing panels directly
above that level. Laboratory tests in the form of vertical load-vertical strain and vertical
load-lateral strain curves of the bearing pads are required for this check.
4.4.8 Step 8 – Design of Facing Elements
4.4.8.a Design of Concrete, Steel and Timber Facings

Facing elements are designed to resist the horizontal forces developed in Section 4.3.
Reinforcement is provided to resist the maximum loading conditions at each depth in
accordance with structural design requirements in Section 5, 6 and 8 of AASHTO (2007) for
concrete, steel and timber facings, respectively. The embedment of the soil reinforcement
to panel connector must be developed by test, to ensure that it can resist the TMAX loads.
As a minimum, temperature and shrinkage steel must be provided for segmental precast
panel facing. Epoxy protection of panel reinforcement or a minimum of 3 in. (75 mm) of
concrete cover is recommended where salt spray is anticipated.
For modular concrete facing blocks (MBW), sufficient inter-unit shear capacity must be
available, and the maximum spacing between reinforcement layers should be limited to twice
the front to back width, Wu, as defined in Figure 4-17, of the modular concrete facing unit or
2.7 ft (32 in., 800 mm) whichever is less. The maximum depth of facing below the bottom
reinforcement layer should typically be limited to the width, Wu (see Figure 4-17), of the
modular concrete facing unit used. The top row of reinforcement should be limited to 1.5 the
block depth (e.g. one unit plus a cap unit) (AASHTO 11.10.2.3.1 {2007}).
The factored inter-unit shear capacity as obtained by testing (ASTM D6916) at the
appropriate normal load should exceed the factored horizontal earth pressure at the facing.
For seismic performance Zones 3 or 4, facing connections in modular block faced walls
(MBW) should use shear resisting devices between the MBW units and soil reinforcement,
and should not be fully dependent on frictional resistance between the soil reinforcement and

facing blocks. Shear resisting devices between the facing blocks and soil reinforcement such
as shear keys, pins, etc. should be used. For connections partially or fully dependent on
friction between the facing blocks and the soil reinforcement, the nominal long-term
connection strength Tac, should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value. Further, the
blocks above the uppermost layer of soil reinforcement must be secured against toppling
under all seismic events.
4.4.8.b Design of Flexible Wall Facings

Welded wire or similar facing panels should be designed in a manner which prevents the
occurrence of excessive bulging as backfill behind the facing elements compresses due to
compaction stresses, self weight of the backfill or lack of section modulus. Bulging at the
face between soil reinforcement elements in both the horizontal and vertical direction
generally should be limited to 1 to 2 in. (25 to 50 mm) as measured from the theoretical wall
line. Specification requirements and design detailing to help achieve this tolerance might
include limiting the face panel height to 18 in. (460 mm) or less, the placement of a nominal
2 ft (0.6 m) wide zone of rockfill or cobbles directly behind the facing, decreasing the
vertical and horizontal spacing between reinforcements, increasing the section modulus of
the facing material, and/or by providing sufficient overlap between adjacent facing panels.
Furthermore, the top of the flexible facing panel at the top of the wall should be attached to a
soil reinforcement layer to provide stability to the top of the facing panel.
Geosynthetic facing elements generally should not be left exposed to sunlight (specifically
ultraviolet radiation) for permanent walls. If geosynthetic facing elements must be left
exposed permanently to sunlight, the geosynthetic should be stabilized to be resistant to
ultraviolet radiation. Furthermore, product specific test data should be provided which can
be extrapolated to the intended design life and which proves that the product will be capable
of performing as intended in an exposed environment. Alternately a protective facing should
be constructed in addition (e.g., concrete, shotcrete, etc.).
4.4.9 Step 9 – Assess Overall/Global Stability
This design step is performed to check the overall, or global, stability of the wall. Overall
stability is determined using rotational or wedge analyses, as appropriate, to examine
potential failure planes passing behind and under the reinforced zone. Analyses can be
performed using a classical slope stability analysis method with standard slope stability
computer programs. In this step, the reinforced soil wall is considered analogous to a rigid
body and only failure surfaces completely outside a reinforced zone (e.g., global failure
planes) are considered. Computer programs that directly incorporate reinforcement elements

(e.g., ReSSA) can be used for analyses that investigate both global and compound failure
planes. See Section 4.4.10 for failure planes that pass partially through the reinforced zone.
Per Article 11.6.2.3 AASHTO (2007), the evaluation of overall stability of MSE walls should
be investigated at the Service I Load Combination, and using an appropriate resistance factor.
Commonly used slope stability programs can be used to conduct this evaluation. The load
factor at Service I limit state is 1.0 for permanent loads. In lieu of better information, the soil
shear resistance factor () is defined in Article 11.6.2.3 (AASHTO, 2007) as:
 = 0.75; where the geotechnical parameters are well defined, and the slope does not
support or contain a structural element; and
 = 0.65; where the geotechnical parameters are based on limited information, or the
slope contains or supports a structural element
The intent of the term “structural element” is that a resistance factor of 0.65 should be used
for slope stability analysis if the slope/wall supports a bridge foundation, a building, or
similar structure foundation that cannot tolerate significant movement or if the consequences
of the failure of the supported structure are severe. A resistance factor of 0.75 may be more
appropriate for slopes/walls that support structures such as a sign foundation where
movements may not be detrimental or the consequences of the failure are not significant.
The Agency/Owner should define whether the MSE wall structure itself is a classified as a
significant “structural element” (i.e., consequences of failure are severe) and a resistance
factor of 0.65 is applicable, or if it is a minor structure and a resistance factor of 0.75 is
applicable. (Also note that a slope supporting a structural element should have well defined
geotechnical parameters.)
The codification of LRFD load and resistance factors by probabilistic calibrations for the
design of slopes are currently being research and developed. Commercial slope stability
analysis programs fully compatible with AASHTO LRFD procedures are not readily
available. Therefore, designs today might be performed by traditional (non-LRFD) methods
and with existing slope stability programs, and a comparison of computed safety factor to
target resistance factor.
The AASHTO (2007) stated resistance factors of 0.75 and 0.65 are (generally) approximately
equivalent to the safety factors of 1.3 and 1.5, respectively , that is:
  0.75  1 0.75  1.3  FS and   0.65  1 0.65  1.5  FS

Note that AASHTO resistance factors are stated to the nearest 0.05, so as to not overstate the
level of accuracy of a resistance value. Therefore, if assessing global stability with limit
equilibrium slope stability methods, the target safety factors are:
FS = 1.30 where the geotechnical parameters are well defined;
FS = 1.50 where the geotechnical parameters are based on limited information; and
FS = 1.50 where the wall/slope contains or supports a structural element.
This is consistent with past practice, per FHWA NHI-00-043 (Elias et al., 2001).
The evaluation of overall stability should be performed with reasonable estimates of short-
and long-term water pressures (a geotechnical parameter) acting on the wall. If the
evaluation of overall stability does not indicate a satisfactory result then the reinforcement
length may have to be increased or the foundation soil may have to be improved. The design
must be revised according to these changes.
Most agencies typically perform global stability assessments for MSE walls. Global stability
generally is assessed by the agency during feasibility design, which might result in ground
improvement or other wall options, and again after the wall is designed. The MSE wall
vendors/suppliers typically exclude overall stability check and responsibility in their package
unless contract documents require such an evaluation by the wall vendor/supplier.
4.4.10 Step 10 – Assess Compound Stability
Additional slope stability analyses should be performed for MSE walls to investigate
potential compound failure surfaces, i.e., failure planes that pass behind or under and through
a portion of the reinforced soil zone as illustrated in Figure 4-18. For simple structures with
rectangular geometry, relatively uniform reinforcement spacing, and a near vertical face,
compound failures passing both through the unreinforced and reinforced zones will not
generally be critical. However, if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced
soil types or reinforcement lengths, high surcharge loads, seismic loading, sloping faced
structures, significant slopes at the toe or above the wall, or stacked (tiered) structures,
compound failures must be considered.
This design step is performed to check potential compound failure planes passing through the
reinforced soil zone. Compound stability is determined using rotational or wedge analyses,
as appropriate, performed with computer programs that directly incorporate reinforcement
elements (e.g., ReSSA) in the analyses. The reinforced soil wall is not considered a rigid
body and is modeled with appropriate soil properties and the soil reinforcement layers as
discrete elements. The long-term strength of each reinforcement layer intersected by the

failure surface should be considered as resisting forces in the limit equilibrium slope stability
analysis. The facing system should be modeled with separate, but appropriate strength
properties.
Proposed Procedure: Current AASHTO (2007) states that compound stability should be
investigated. However, procedures (i.e., load and resistance factors) are not specifically
defined. The recommended procedure is to follow global stability procedures and include
reinforcement strength.
If assessing compound stability with limit equilibrium slope stability methods (e.g., modified
Bishop, Spencer, etc.) a load factor of 1.0 should be used. Compound analyses should use
the same AASHTO (2007) stated global stability resistance factors () of 0.75 and 0.65.
These resistance factors are approximately equivalent to safety factors of 1.3 and 1.5,
respectively, as previously noted.
Therefore, if assessing compound stability with limit equilibrium slope stability methods, the
target safety factors with limit equilibrium analysis are:
FS = 1.30 where the geotechnical parameters are well defined;
FS = 1.50 where the geotechnical parameters are based on limited information; and
FS = 1.50 where the wall/slope contains or supports a structural element
This is consistent with past practice, per FHWA NHI-00-043 (Elias et al., 2001).
Note, however, that the method of incorporating the soil reinforcement strength into the
stability calculations does affect the magnitude of factor of safety computed. See Section 9.3
for recommendations on how reinforcement strength should be incorporated.
The evaluation of compound stability should be performed with reasonable estimates of

short- and long-term water pressures. If the evaluation of compound stability does not
indicate a satisfactory result then the reinforcement length, reinforcement strength,
reinforcement vertical spacing, and/or depth of wall may have to be increased, or the
foundation soil may have to be improved. The design must be revised according to these
changes, and compound stability rechecked as appropriate.
Compound stability analyses require detailed information on both the subsurface conditions
(typically defined by the agency) and the soil reinforcement layout (typically vendor
defined). Unlike global stability analyses, the responsibility for this analysis is not clearly
defined. Agencies should perform an initial assessment of a proposed MSE wall structure
with an assumed reinforcement layout to determine if compound stability is a concern and

must be addressed in final design. Typical geometries where compound stability is of
concern are illustrated in Figure 4-18. Generally, MSE wall vendors/suppliers exclude
compound stability check and responsibility in their package, unless specifically required by
the Owner.
Compound stability can be addressed by selecting one of the following three options for
specifying and bidding the MSE wall (Schwanz et al., 1997):
1. Agency Design. Agency prepares complete design for the MSE wall including external,
internal, global, and compound stability analyses. This requires material specifications
for all wall components.
2. Vendor Design. Agency prepares line and grade plans, and allows approved vendors to
supply the complete design and wall components. Agency is responsible for and must
provide detailed subsurface profile(s), soil shear strength, soil unit weight, and
groundwater information for the vendor to use in external, global, and compound stability
analyses. Agency should perform a feasibility analysis to ensure global stability can be
achieved with the line and grade provided to the vendors.
3. Combined Design. Agency prepares line and grade plans, assesses global and compound
stability requirements, and specifies/detail reinforcement requirements for adequate
stability resistance. For example, the agency might specify two layers of reinforcement
within a range of elevations (at bottom of wall) with minimum strength and minimum
lengths required. Wall vendor completes wall design with incorporation of reinforcement
required for adequate compound stability resistance.
Applications of the above three options by the St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers are summarized by Schwanz et al. (1997). Advantages and disadvantages with
each option are discussed in the cited reference.

and water at toe of the slope.

4.4.11 Step 11 – Wall Drainage Systems
Drainage is a very important aspect in the design and specifying of MSE walls. The Agency
should detail and specify drainage requirements for vendor designed walls. Furthermore, the
Agency should coordinate the drainage design and detailing (e.g., outlets) within its own
designers and with the vendor. The Agency is also responsible for long-term maintenance of
drainage features, as discussed in Section 5.3.4.
4.4.11.a Subsurface Drainage

Subsurface drainage must be addressed in design. The primary component of an MSE wall is
soil. Water has a profound effect on this primary component of soil, as it can both decrease
the soil shear strength (i.e., resistance) and increase destabilizing forces (i.e., load). Thus,
FHWA recommends drainage features be required in all walls unless the engineer determines
such feature is, or features are, not required for a specific project or structure.
Drainage design and detailing are addressed in Section 5.3. Note that MSE walls using free
draining reinforced fill do not typically need a full drainage system, but do need a method for
discharging water collected within the reinforced wall fill. Also note that MSE walls can be
designed for water loads, if needed. Basic soil mechanics principles should be used to
determine the effect of phreatic surface on wall loads. See discussion in Chapter 7 for design
of MSE walls for flood and scour events.
4.4.11.b Surface Water Runoff

Surface drainage is an important aspect of ensuring wall performance and must be addressed
during design and during construction. Appropriate drainage measures to prevent surface
water from infiltrating into the wall fill should be included in the design of a MSE wall
structure. Surface drainage design and detailing are addressed in Section 5.3.
4.4.11.c Scour
There are additional detailing considerations for walls that are exposed to potential scour.
The wall embedment depth must be below the Agency predicted scour depth. Wall initiation
and termination detailing should consider and be design to protect from scour. Riprap may
be used to protect the base and ends of a wall. A coarse stone wall fill may desired to drain
rapidly. The reinforced wall fill at the bottom of the structure may be wrapped with a
geotextile filter to minimize loss of fill should scour exceed design predictions. These items
are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

4.5 TEMPORARY WALLS
Temporary walls are normally considered wall structures with a 36 month or less service life
(Article 11.5.1 {AASHTO, 2007}). The design method remains the same as for permanent
walls, except for the calculation of the soil reinforcement long-term nominal strength, Tal.
Metallic soil reinforcements are not normally galvanized for temporary walls. An exception
might be when aggressive wall fill materials are being used and galvanization is specified to
provide corrosion resistance.
The long-term nominal strength for black steel (i.e., non-galvanized) in non-aggressive
reinforced fill soil may be calculated with the whole steel cross-section for temporary walls.
The long-term nominal strength for black steel (i.e., non-galvanized) and non-aggressive wall
fill soil may be calculated with a corrosion rate of 1.1 mils/yr (28 m/yr) (FHWA NHI-09-
087 {Elias et al., 2009}). Higher corrosion rates need to be considered for reinforced fills
that are moderately aggressive or corrosive, and a corrosion specialist should be consulted to
assess the sacrificial steel requirements or other possible corrosion protection measures.
Steel reinforcement should be galvanized if a service life greater than 36 months is required
for a temporary structure.
For geosynthetic soil reinforcements, the long-term nominal strength may be calculated with
a minimum durability reduction factor of 1.0 in lieu of 1.1 minimum used for permanent
walls. This is for temporary walls and for geosynthetics that meet the minimum
requirements listed in Table 3-12.
4.6 DESIGN CHECKLIST
Agencies should have an established, or should establish a, protocol for checking designs.
This is particularly important for vendor supplied designs, but should also be used with in-
house designs. The protocol should assign responsibilities for the review and list items that
should be checked. Thus, the protocol can be in the form of a checklist.
Based upon work by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), an example design
checklist follows. This example may be used by agencies to develop their own checklist with
their defined responsibilities and references to the agency’s standard specifications, standard
provisions, etc. Some of the items on the following checklist are project specific, and others
are project and wall structure specific.

MSE WALLS - DESIGN REVIEW
EXAMPLE CHECKLIST
TO BE FILLED BY RESIDENT ENGINEER

Project (Name, Contract No., etc.)
Resident Engineer (RE)
Date MSE submittal received
Is this a re-submittal? If yes, attach previous checklist
Name of Engineer of Record (ER)
Date submittal transmitted to ER
Date comments due back to RE
REVIEWED BY
Materials
Date Date
TO BE FILLED BY ER Group Due Name Organization
Received Reviewed
Date**
Professional Engineer
of Record*(ER)
Date completed checklist sent to RE
* Contact designated agency Design Engineer immediately upon receipt of the
submittal(s) from RE.
** Due date for submittal to Design Engineer.
This checklist has been completed

under the supervision of the
Professional Engineer of Record
whose seal and signature appears
hereon.

LEGEND FOR ABBREVIATIONS / ACRONYMS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
DE Agency Design Engineer from assigned to the project.
APL Approved Products List (For latest APL visit______________).
ER Engineer of Record (Registered Professional Engineer in the state)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
MBW Modular Block Wall

MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth
MSEW 3.0 Version 3.0 of proprietary software, MSEW, by ADAMA Engineering (visit
www.geoprograms.com)
NA Not Applicable
NHI National Highway Institute
PE Professional Engineer of Record (shall be a Registered Professional
Engineer)
PGR Project Geotechnical Report
Project Complete final plan set for the project
Drawings
RE Resident Engineer
Section #, This refers to an appropriate section, figure or table in the following manual
Figure # or by FHWA/NHI:
Table # “Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes,” Publication No. FHWA NHI-10-024 Vol I and
NHI-10-025 Vol II, (Authors: Ryan R. Berg, Barry R. Christopher and
Naresh C. Samtani)
Spec Project specification including standard specification and special provisions
_______ ______ Department of Transportation
Vendor Working drawings provided by MSE wall vendor
Drawings
All symbols used within the questions are consistent with those used in the documents
in the “Reference” column

NOTES FOR CHECKLIST
1. The following information/material should be collected before starting the checklist:
a. Contractor submittals (transmittal letter, design drawings, design calculations)
b. Project documents (final plan set, standard specifications, special provisions,
Project Geotechnical Report)
c. FHWA/NHI manual (“Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil
Slopes,” Publication Nos. FHWA NHI-10-024 Vol I and NHI-10-025 Vol II,
December 2009; Authors: Ryan R. Berg, Barry R. Christopher and Naresh C.
Samtani)
d. Latest version of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, including
interims
e. All due dates for checklist
f. Name of the structural engineer
g. Name of the roadway engineer
h. Name of “prime” designer
2. Each question must have a “Yes”, “No” or “NA” box checked. Any comment or
action required should be entered in the “Comments/Action Required” column. If the
“No” or “NA” box is checked then an appropriate comment or action required must
be entered. Use separate sheets if comments cannot be fitted in the space within the
checklist.
3. The documents listed under the “Reference” column in the checklist are not intended
to be a complete list of documents. Rather, the most common documents are listed
where guidance/information related to the question in the checklist may be found.
More stringent criteria may exist in other project documents (e.g., drainage, signage,
utilities, etc.) that may be relevant to a given question. In such an event, the
governing document should be noted in the “Comments/Action Required” column of
the checklist.
4. Add any pertinent project specific questions to the checklist as necessary. Two empty
rows are provided at end of each section for this purpose. Use additional sheets as
necessary if more space is required.
5. This checklist is intended to be completed, signed, and sealed by the Engineer of
Record who is Registered Professional Engineer in the state.
6. The Engineer of Record should contact the project structural or roadway engineer in
case of discrepancies between the contractor submittals and reference documents.
7. Wall details that were reviewed and approved as part of the “Approved Products List”
will be available on a website; contact the _______ for further information.
8. After completing the checklist the ER should include an attachment that identifies
specific questions that the MSE wall vendor (or in-house designer) has to address.

Reference Yes No NA Comments/
(See Note 3) Action
Required
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Is the wall vendor pre-approved? APL
(visit _____for a list of pre-approved
wall systems)
2. Is the wall within the limitations of the APL
pre-approved product? (e.g., wall height,
external loading, environmental
constraints, seismic loading and other
project specific constraints; visit
_________________ for limitations)
3. Has the Contractor used the correct Project/vendor
design survey data (e.g., existing ground drawings
elevations and horizontal offsets) for wall
design?
4. Has the Contractor correctly reflected the Project/vendor
location of utilities in the area of the Drawings
wall(s)?
5. Is the wall profile (top and bottom Project/vendor
elevations) including start and end Drawings
stations correct?
6. Is the wall design life specified? Spec/
Section 2.8
7. Have the following items been specified
by the vendor and are they in
conformance with the project
requirements?
a. Material requirements
i. Soil Properties (strength, gradation, Spec
PI, soundness, electrochemical)
ii. Soil Reinforcement (ultimate and Spec
yield tensile strengths, reduction
factors for geosynthetics)
iii. Concrete (strength and other Spec/Project
properties) Drawings
iv. Concrete reinforcement (type, Spec/Project
number and strength) Drawings
v. Leveling Pad (strength) Spec/Project
Drawings
vi. Steel facing elements for wire mesh Spec
systems (ultimate and yield tensile
strengths)
b. Construction procedures including APL
sequence
c. Soil compaction procedures and APL/spec/
restrictions for reinforced fill, retained PGR
fill and foundation preparation
d. Facing alignment tolerances Spec

(See Note 3) Action
Required
e. Acceptance/rejection criteria Spec
(tolerances, facing finish, etc.)
f. Corrosion protection systems for soil Spec
reinforcement
g. Handling and storage of Spec/APL/
reinforcements PGR
8. Is the initial wall batter during APL
construction specified?
9. Are the structural (select) backfill Spec
dimensions shown?
10. Are the wall quantities (area of wall, Spec
volume of structural fill, etc.) listed in
accordance with the pay quantity
schedule in the project specifications?
11. Wall installation guide
a. Has the proprietary vendor submitted APL
a wall installation guide?
b. Does the submitted wall installation PGR/Spec
guide address site-specific conditions?
12. Is the Contractor’s transmittal letter
acceptable? (e.g., does it contain
acceptable statements consistent with the
submittal?)
{add as appropriate, may be agency or
project specific}
project specific}
II. TOP OF WALL

1. Do the top of wall elevations match the Project
roadway design elevations? drawings
2. Are top of wall elevations such that they Project
can allow for proper interfacing with drawings
barriers, copings, surface ditches, bridge
abutments, etc. as shown on the plans?
project specific}
project specific}
III. LEVELING PAD (Note: Only lean

concrete leveling pads are allowed)
1. Are the leveling pad dimensions shown? Spec
2. Does the leveling pad profile satisfy the Section 2.8/
minimum depth of embedment criteria? PGR/ Project
Drawings
3. Are the leveling pad elevations such that Project
they allow for transverse and longitudinal drawings

(See Note 3) Action
Required
drainage structures shown on the plans?
4. Are leveling pad steps such that they can APL/vendor
accommodate the bottom row facing unit drawings
type and size without cutting and/or
splicing of the facing units?
project specific}
project specific}
IV. FACING UNITS AND JOINTS

1. Are the facing units from the pre- APL
approved list?
2. Do facing units meet the project aesthetic Spec/Project
criteria? Drawings
3. Have the material properties of the facing Section
units been specified? (Examples: 4.4.8/Spec
density, strength, freeze-thaw, etc.)
4. Are the materials properties of the facing Section
units in conformance with the project 4.4.8/Spec
criteria? (Examples: density, strength,
freeze-thaw, etc.)
5. Are the facing units structurally adequate Section
as per the project facing unit structural 4.4.8/Spec
criteria and/or per AASHTO?
(deformation of facing elements
including local bending should be within
allowable limits)
6. Is the horizontal joint width between Section 2.8,
facing units in conformance with project Table 2-1
criteria?
7. Does the joint bearing pad material Spec
conform to project specifications?
8. Is the joint bearing pad material of proper Spec/APL
compressive strength such that facing
unit to facing unit crushing and /or high
stress concentrations on any facing units
are prevented?
9. For Modular Block Wall (MBW) units Section 4.4.7
with geosynthetic soil reinforcement has
the hinge height concept been used for
establishing connection details?
project specific}
project specific}

(See Note 3) Action
Required
V. DRAINAGE
1. Are all vertical and horizontal joints Spec
covered with geotextile fabric on the
backside of the wall facing units?
2. Is the geotextile fabric covering the joints Spec
of sufficient width and continuous across
the joints?
3. Do the geotextile fabric properties Spec
(survivability, filtration and permittivity)
covering the joints meet project
specifications?
4. Has drainage along the backcut been PGR/Spec
included as per project criteria?
5. If geocomposite is used for drainage, PGR/APL/
then is it pre-approved and do its Spec
properties (flow capacity, filtration and
permeability) meet project requirements?
6. Is the water from subsurface drainage PGR/Spec
adequately led out of the wall system?
e.g., collector and drain system with
weepholes, grades towards wall ends, etc.
7. Is surface drainage in accordance with Project
project criteria? Drawings
8. If Modular Block Wall (MBW) units are Section
used for facing then has adequate drain 5.35/Figure
fill been provided? 5.6/Spec
project specific}
project specific}
VI. SPECIAL WALL DETAILS

1. Are wall interface details with other Spec/
walls that will be constructed before, Section5.5
during, or after this contract shown?
2. Are following special wall details shown
and are they adequate?:
a. special facing element if interfacing Spec/APL/
with other wall systems Section 5.5
b. slip joint(s) (e.g., at wing walls,
Spec/APL
differential settlement concerns, etc.)
c. wall end(s) Spec/APL
d. connection to appurtenances (e.g., box Spec/APL/
inlets and large obstructions) Section 5.5
e. acute angles Spec/APL/
PGR
f. coping Spec/APL/
Section 4.5

(See Note 3) Action
Required
g. railing, guard rails or traffic barriers Spec/APL/
Section 5.1
h. miscellaneous obstructions (e.g., Spec/APL/
utilities) below ground elevation Section 4.55.4
i. measures to prevent migration of de- Spec/APL/
icing salts in the reinforced fill Section 5.3
j. measures to protect against rapid
Spec/APL/
drawdown conditions and hydrostatic
Section 4.55.3
pressures
3. Are structural frames (“yokes”) provided Spec/APL/
to navigate the bar mat soil Section 4.55.4
reinforcements around vertical
obstructions within the MSE backfill?
(examples of vertical obstructions
include piles, shafts, inlet structures, etc.)
4. Are the structural frames designed APL/
properly so that moments and torques are Bridge
not introduced in the bar mat soil Group
reinforcements and/or the
reinforcement/facing unit connection?
5. Is the splay of strip reinforcements Spec
limited to less than 15 degrees?
6. If strip reinforcements are splayed, then PGR/Spec
is the length increased to compensate for
reduction in effective length?
7. Is the maximum vertical bend (maximum Spec/
15 degrees) in metallic soil Section 5.4
reinforcements within acceptable limits?
8. Are geosynthetic reinforcement details APL
around vertical obstructions acceptable?
9. Are overlapping reinforcements Spec
separated vertically by at least 3-in. of
soil?
10. If walls are tiered, then are they in Spec/
accordance with project criteria?, e.g., Section 6.2
bench widths, aesthetics within benches,
etc.
11. If instrumentation is required per project PGR/
specs, then is it provided? (List the Spec
instrumentation in the comments column)
12. Are corrosion/durability protection Spec/
details acceptable? Section 3.5
project specific}
project specific}

(See Note 3) Action
Required
VII. SOIL REINFORCEMENT
1. Is the soil reinforcement type (extensible APL
or inextensible) and configuration (strip,
grid or sheet) in conformance with pre-
approved list?
2. Are the following soil reinforcement APL
dimensions in conformance with those
approved by the Agency during the pre-
approval process?
a. strip thickness or bar diameter APL
b. strip width or bar mat width APL
c. center to center spacing of the APL
longitudinal bars in bar mats
d. center to center spacing of the APL
transverse bars in bar mats
e. Geosynthetic grid (uniaxial/biaxial) APL
openings and junction sizes
3. Is the connection of the soil APL
reinforcement to the facing units as per
the pre-approved connection detail?
4. Is the soil reinforcement specified to Spec/
have the correct type and thickness of the Section 3.5
corrosion protection as per the project
specifications?
5. Is all soil reinforcement, except at acute Spec/
angle corners, perpendicular to the face PGR
of the wall facing units? If no, please
comment.
6. Is all soil reinforcement connected to Spec
facing units?
7. If metallic soil reinforcements are cut Spec/
and/or spliced then have the corrosion APL
protection measures at cuts/connections
been provided and are they acceptable?
(Note: cutting transverse bars of bar mats
is not allowed)
8. Are means and methods for splicing of APL
geosynthetic reinforcement (overlap,
mechanical connections, edge seams,
etc.) in accordance with that approved by
the Agency during the pre-approval
process?
9. Are placement procedures for APL
reinforcement acceptable?
project specific}
project specific}

(See Note 3) Action
Required
VIII. EXTERNAL STABILITY
1. Have all assumed soil parameters PGR/Spec/
(Cohesion, Angle of Internal Friction, Section 3.3,
Soil Unit Weight, and Sliding Friction 4.4.6
Coefficient) for retained, reinforced and
foundation soils been listed?
2. Are soil parameters consistent with those PGR/Spec
recommended in the geotechnical report /
project specifications?
3. Have the maximum bearing pressures Vendor
been listed along the length of the wall? drawings
4. Have all the loads been incorporated into PGR/
the wall analysis and design? (e.g., traffic Section 4.4.4
loads, seismic loads, sloping surcharge,
broken-back surcharges, etc.)
5. Have all the critical sections along all Project
walls been analyzed? (e.g., highest wall Drawings/
sections, sections where slopes above and PGR
below the walls are steepest, etc.)
6. Are the static and seismic analyses Spec/Section
adequate (as per performance 4.4.6, 7.1.1
requirements) for the following failure
modes?
a. Sliding Spec/Section
4.4.6.a
b. Eccentricity (overturning) Spec/Section
4.4.6.c
c. Bearing Spec/Section
4.4.6.c
i. General bearing capacity Spec/Section
4.4.6.c
ii. Local bearing capacity / lateral Spec/Section
squeeze 4.4.6.c
iii. Is the bearing resistance greater PGR
than the maximum bearing pressure
at all locations along the wall?
7. Is the wall embedment equal to or greater PGR
than the project requirements?
8. Has total settlement analysis been PGR
performed?
9. Has differential settlement analysis been PGR
performed?
10. Have slip joints been provided to prevent PGR/APL/
stresses due to large anticipated Section 5.4.5
differential settlements?
11. Is an undercut needed due to soft or poor PGR/
soils? If so, is the depth of treatment and Spec
the replacement material specified?

(See Note 3) Action
Required
12. Will deep foundations be needed for very PGR/
deep layers of soft/loose soils? Spec
13. Will waiting period(s) and stage PGR/
construction be needed if the design wall Spec
pressure exceeds the maximum allowable
bearing pressure?
project specific}
project specific}
IX. INTERNAL STABILITY

1. Have calculations for internal stability of PGR/
the wall been performed? Spec
2. Has the static and seismic internal PGR/Spec/
stability evaluation been performed by Section 7.1
the “Simplified Method”?
3. Have all the critical sections along all Project
walls been analyzed? (e.g., highest wall Drawings/
sections, sections where slopes above and PGR
below the walls are steepest, etc.)
4. Is pullout resistance adequate at each PGR/Spec/
level of the reinforcement? Section .4.7.h
5. Is the correct value of nominal strength PGR/Spec/
of steel used? (e.g., 0.55 Fy for strips and Section 3.5
0.48Fy for bar mats)
6. Are corrosion loss rates in conformance PGR/Spec/
with project criteria? Section 3.5
7. Has the cross-sectional area for the soil PGR/Spec/
reinforcement been corrected for Section 3.5
corrosion losses over the design life of
the structure?
8. Is resistance against tensile failure PGR/Spec/
adequate at each level of reinforcement? ection 4.4.7.f
9. Are the connections designed for Spec/Section
maximum tension in soil reinforcements? 4.4.7.i
10. Have the proper values of F* (including Section 3.4,
Cu, Fq, , tan and variation with depth) 4.4.7.h
been used?
11. Is the correct value for the scale Section 3.4,
correction factor, , been used? 4.4.7.h
12. Is the correct value of unit perimeter, C, Section 3.4,
used? 4.4.7.h
13. For geosynthetic reinforcement have the Section 3.5/
reduction factors for creep (RFCR), Spec
durability (RFD) and installation damage
(RFID) been specified and are they
acceptable?

(See Note 3) Action
Required
14. For geosynthetic reinforcement is the Section 3.5/
computation of long-term allowable Spec
strength acceptable?
15. Have the correct stress ratio (Kr/Ka) and Section
lateral pressure coefficient (Ka) been 4.4.7.c,
used for computing internal loads? Figure 4-10
16. Has the correct internal failure surface Section
been used for static and seismic cases? 4.4.7.b
17. Has the vertical stress been computed as Section
per the requirements of the Simplified 4.4.7.e
Method?
18. Are the definitions of the reinforcement APL/Section
configuration (grid openings, ratios of the 3.4
bar diameters to spacing of bars in bar
mats, etc.) consistent with pre-approved
product list?
19. Have all the external loads been Section
incorporated into the wall analysis and 4.4.5, 7.1.1
design? (e.g., traffic impact loads,
seismic loads, sloping surcharge, broken-
back surcharges, etc.)
20. Have all the internal loads been PGR/Spec/
incorporated into the wall analysis and Section
design? (e.g., lateral loads from piles at 4.4.7, 6.1
abutments or overhead mast structures)
21. Has the internal stability evaluation PGR/Spec/
accounted for complex geometries such Section
as tiered structures, acute corners, back- 6.1 – 6.6
to-back walls, and obstructions?
22. Is the vendor’s analysis acceptable to the GER/
Geotechnical Engineer of Record based PGR
on an independent verification using
“Simplified Method” and MSEW 3.0 or
hand calculations? Please attach a copy
of the verification calculations using the
Simplified Method.
project specific}
project specific}
X. GLOBAL / COMPOUND
STABILITY
1. Has the owner’s geotechnical engineer of PGR
record checked global stability?
2. Has the vendor checked compound PGR/Spec/
stability? Section 4.4.10
3. Has the vendor checked the global PGR/Spec
stability?

(See Note 3) Action
Required
4. Is the safety factor against global stability PGR/Spec
failure adequate?
5. Is the safety factor against compound PGR/Spec
stability failure adequate?
6. Are the geotechnical parameters for PGR/Spec
global and compound stability analyses
appropriate and consistent with those
used for other failure modes?
7. Is ground improvement needed based on PGR
global stability analysis?
project specific}
project specific}
XI. FILE INFORMATION

1. Has the Geotechnical Engineer of Record
completed this checklist? If not, who?
2. Has a representative from agency’s ____
Group ensured that this checklist has
been completed and outstanding issues
identified?
project specific}
project specific}
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS BY ENGINEER OF RECORD

No. Attachment Comments/Action Required
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
As a minimum the ER should include an attachment that identifies the specific issues that
need to be addressed by the MSE wall designer (vendor).

4.7 COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN
The repetitive nature of the computations required at each level of reinforcement lends itself
to computer-assisted design. The computer program MSEW (ADAMA, 2000) developed
under FHWA sponsorship analyzes and/or designs MSE walls using any type of metallic or
geosynthetic reinforcement in conjunction with any type of facing (precast concrete, MBW,
etc.). Version 1.0 has been designated exclusively for use by U.S. State Highway Agencies
and by U.S. Federal agencies and performs computations in compliance with the ASD design
methods in FHWA (Elias et al., 2001) and AASHTO (2002). Version 3.0 is available for
purchase through ADAMA Engineering (www.MSEW.com) and includes LRFD-based
computations. Alternatively, spreadsheet based solutions can be developed. The example
problems in Appendix E, provide comprehensive step-by-step solutions that can be easily
programmed into a spreadsheet.
Other MSE wall analysis and design programs are available. Many wall vendors have their
own programs that are tailored to their system, and may have additional features for
estimating quantities and costs. Agency personnel should understand the features and finer
points of the computer program and spreadsheets that they use to design or check vendor
designs. Likewise, wall vendors and design consultants should understand the features and
finer points of computer programs and spreadsheets they use. This is particularly important
with the recent change to an LRFD design platform.
4.8 VENDOR DESIGNS
As previously discussed, it is recommended that Agencies use a pre-approved proprietary

wall system list (an approved products list) for specifying MSE walls with a performance or
end-result approach. Specific wall systems and respective vendors, along with any
application restrictions (e.g., height limit), are provided on the list. Detailed evaluations are
typically required for placement on an approved products list. The design program and
spreadsheets used by the vendor should be reviewed by the Agency as part of this evaluation.
4.9 STANDARD MSEW DESIGNS
MSEW structures are customarily designed on a project-specific basis. Most agencies use a
line-and-grade contracting approach, with the contractor selected MSEW vendor providing
the detailed design after contract bid and award. This approach works well for segmental and
full-height panel faced walls, and can be used for MBW unit faced walls. However, standard

designs can be developed and implemented by an agency for MSEW structures, somewhat
similar to standard concrete cantilever wall designs used by many agencies.
Use of standard designs for MSEW structures could offer the following advantages over a
line-and-grade approach:
 Agency is more responsible for design details and integrating wall design with other
components.
 Pre evaluation and approval of materials and material combinations, as opposed to
evaluating contractor submittal post bid.
 Economy of agency design versus vendor design/stamping of small walls.
 Agency makes design decisions versus vendors making design decisions.
 More equitable bid environment as agency is responsible for design details, and vendors
are not making varying assumptions.
 Reduces the possibility of substandard work, systems and designs with associated
approved product lists.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), with support of the FHWA (via
Demo 82 project) developed and implemented standardized MSEW designs (Berg, 2000) for
MBW unit faced and geosynthetic reinforced MSEW structures. The use of these standard
designs are limited by geometric, subsurface and economic constraints. Structures outside of
these constraints should be designed on a project-specific basis. The general approach used
in developing these standards could be followed by other agencies to develop their own,
agency-specific standard designs.
Standardized designs require generic designs and generic materials. Generic designs require
definition of wall geometry and surcharge loads, soil reinforcement strength, structure height
limit, and MBW unit properties of width and batter. As an example, the Mn/DOT standard
designs address four geometric and surcharge loading cases, and could be used for walls up
to 23 ft (7 m) in height. Since original development the number of cases has been reduced to
three and the maximum height has been reduced to 12 ft (3.6 m) due to MBW durability
concerns (see Section 3.6.2 for discussion on MBW freeze-thaw durability).
Definition of generic material properties for the standard designs requires the development of
approved product lists for MBW units, soil reinforcement and MBW unit-soil reinforcement
combinations. The combinations require a separate approved product list as the connection
strength is specific to each unique combination of MBW unit and reinforcement, and often
controls the reinforcement design strength. An additional requirement for MBW units is an
approved manufacturing quality control plan on file with the agency. This requirement is a

result of the stringent durability (to freeze thaw and deicing salt conditions) specifications for
the units and the long duration testing used to demonstrate durability.
An example design cross section and reinforcement layout table from the Mn/DOT standard
designs are presented in Figure 4-19 and Table 4-8. A list of approved combinations
(Mn/DOT, 2009) of MBW units and soil reinforcements with classification as MBW-700,
MBW-1050, or MBW-1400, is used in conjunction with the table and figure. Note that the
Mn/DOT standard designs are not directly applicable to, nor should they be used by, other
agencies.
Another example of an agency standard design is Washington DOT’s geosynthetic walls.

Standard designs for two stage construction of walls up to 35 ft (11 m) are provided. The
geosynthetic wrap-around walls are constructed in the first stage. The walls can be faced
with shotcrete or cast-in-place concrete in the second stage.
Table 4-8. Example MBW Faced MSE Wall Standard Design (Minnesota DOT, 2008).
MODULAR BLOCK WALL REINFORCEMENT LAYOUT
— CASE 4 - 1:3 FILL SLOPE —
Wall Batter Maximum

Strength of Soil Minimum Maximum Nominal
MBW Range Unreinforced Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Reinf. (plf) Reinforcement Wall Block
Reinforcement (degrees) Wall Height
Length, L Height Width
Class L. Term Design (in.) H1 S1max H2 S1max H3 S1max
(ft) (ft) (in.) > <
(Tal) (Ta) (ft) (in.) (ft) (in.) (ft) (in.)
0 3 24 8.5 24 3.5 16
3 7 24 9.2 24 2.8 16
12.0 12
7 10 24 11.2 24 0.8 16
10 15 24 12.0 24
MBW-700 1050 700 0.7 H
0 3 42 4.6 32 3.9 24 3.5 16
3 7 42 5.2 32 3.9 24 2.9 16
21
7 10 42 5.2 32 5.9 24 0.9 16
10 15 42 5.9 32 6.1 24
0 3 24 12.0 24
3 7 24 12.0 24
12.0
7 10 24 12.0 24
10 15 24 12.0 24
MBW-1050 1575 1050 0.7 H 12
0 3 42 5.6 42 3.3 32 3.1 24
3 7 42 8.2 42 2.6 32 1.2 24
21
7 10 42 8.5 42 3.5 32
10 15 42 9.8 42 2.2 32
0 3 24 12.0 24
3 7 24 12.0 24
12.0
7 10 24 12.0 24
10 15 24 12.0 24
MBW-1400 2100 1400 0.7 H 12
0 3 42 8.9 42 3.1 32
3 7 42 10.8 42 1.2 32
21
7 10 42 12.0 42
10 15 42 12.0 42

Figure 4-19. Example of standard MSEW design. (Minnesota DOT, 2008)

CHAPTER 5
MSE WALL DETAILS
Proper attention to details of various components is critical to the successful implementation

of MSE wall projects. This Chapter discusses various details related to the following
elements of MSE walls:
 Top of wall elements such as copings, traffic barriers and geomembrane caps
 Bottom of wall elements such as leveling pads
 Drainage features such as filters, drains and pipes
 Internal elements such as obstructions in reinforced soil mass and slip joints
 Wall initiations and terminations
 Aesthetics
The example details shown in this chapter have been used successfully in actual
projects. However, these details may need modifications to fit the requirements of
specific projects. Therefore, the user should treat the details in this chapter as initial
guidance and modify them as appropriate before actual implementation on a given
project and for a given product.
5.1 TOP OF WALL ELEMENTS
The top of wall is important from both aesthetic as well as technical aspects. Aesthetically,
the top of a MSE wall should provide a smooth profile. Technically, the top of wall needs to
integrate roadway elements such as pavements, traffic barriers, and drainage features.
5.1.1 Copings
The purpose of a coping is to create a smooth and aesthetically pleasing clean line at the top
of an MSE wall. Copings can be cast-in-place or precast. Precast coping can generally be
installed more rapidly than cast-in-place coping. Figures 5-1a to 5-1c provide common
details for cast-in-place and precast copings for segmental precast concrete facing units.
Figure 5-1d shows a common detail for a precast cap unit on top of modular block wall.
FHWA NHI-10-024 5 – MSE Wall Design Details

(a)
(b) (c)
(d)
Figure 5-1. Example copings for MSE walls.

Regardless of whether the coping is cast-in-place or precast, the coping should have full-
depth open joints, i.e., reinforcement should not be continuous across the joints. General
guidance for copings is as follows:
 For segmental precast concrete facing units, the joints for a cast-in-place coping should
align with the vertical joints in the MSE wall face at a frequency not exceeding 10 ft (3
m) on centers with a preferable frequency of every panel width. The spacing of the joints
may be increased to 20 ft (6 m) if differential settlement is not a concern.
 For modular block facing units, the joints in a cast-in-place coping should line up with
the vertical joints in the face at a frequency not exceeding 5 ft (1.5 m) or less as required
to line up with block joints. The spacing of the joints may be increased to 10 ft (3 m) if
differential settlement is not a concern. Precast cap units should have a width equal to
the width of a modular block unit and should be attached to the top modular facing unit
using a mortar and pin connection. Adhesives should not be used for permanent
structures unless the agency is prepared to perform continuous maintenance to check and
reattach the cap blocks as necessary. Warranties for separation and displacement of
glued cap blocks are, at best, usually on the order of ten years and that assumes that
blocks meet the required installation conditions of the adhesive manufacturer, e.g., the
blocks are clean, dry and bonded at the required curing temperature.
The cast-in-place coping can provide a smooth finish and be adjusted to meet final top of
wall elevations after settlements have occurred. Cast-in-place copings are also recommended
in situations where a wall follows a horizontal or vertical curve with less than a 100 ft (30 m)
curve. Since precast coping sections are cast with square ends, joints between coping
sections as seen from the front of the wall may become too tight or too wide depending on
whether the radius point is in front or behind the wall face, respectively. Custom fitted cast-
in-place coping should be used at kink points and corners in the wall and at slip joints so that
the in-plane movement on each side of the slip joint can be tolerated without compromising
the purpose of the slip joint.
Before installing precast coping, the top of the wall must be smooth and free of steps or
irregularities. To accomplish this, level-up concrete is cast on top of the facing units. The
smooth finished grade of this concrete fill should follow a line approximately 9 in. (225 mm)
below the top of coping elevation. Top facing units that are to receive precast coping may
have protruding dowels that tie in to the level-up concrete. The dowels are field trimmed 1 to
2 in. (25 to 50 mm) below the top of level-up concrete before pouring the level-up concrete.

5.1.2 Traffic Barriers
Figure 5-2 presents a variety of traffic barrier configurations. Typically, the base (or
moment) slab length is a minimum of 20 ft (6 m) and jointed to adjacent slabs with shear
dowels. The width typically varies from 4 ft (1.2m) to 6 ft (1.8m). The actual designs of
traffic barriers should be in accordance with AASHTO (2007). In all cases, the base slab
must be sized to prevent overturning and sliding of the barrier system during impact. When
the base slab extends over the tops of the facing units to form a coping, a recess into which
the facing units fit must be designed in the underside of the slab and a positive bond breaker
must be provided to ensure isolation of the barrier from the facing units. Both vertical and
horizontal bond breaks are required to avoid direct impact loads on the facing unit and to
prevent prying loads on the top panels during traffic loading. If a precast coping or precast
traffic barrier is used, the top of the wall must be smooth and free of steps or irregularities.
To accomplish this, level-up concrete fill is cast on top of the facing units (similar to that for
coping).
5.1.3 Parapets
Where only pedestrian or bicycle loads are anticipated, the safety railing may be in the form
of a concrete pedestrian parapet. A parapet is a cast-in-place or precast concrete rail located
directly or nearly on top of the facing units. Although not designed for vehicular impact
loading parapets do use a moment slab for stability. The moment slab may also serve as a
sidewalk. The moment slab should be strong enough to resist the nominal (ultimate) strength
of the pedestrian parapet. Where there is a possibility of vehicular load, the parapet should
be protected by a non-mountable curb at the edge of the traveled roadway or the parapet be
designed for impact load.
5.1.4 Post and Beam Barriers
Where post and beam barriers such as guardrail systems are used, the posts are driven
directly into the reinforced soil mass or installed in concrete-filled forms placed during
backfill placement and compaction. The posts should be placed at a minimum distance of 3
ft (1 m) from the wall face, driven 5 ft (1.5 m) below grade, and reinforced spaced to miss the
posts where possible. If the reinforcements cannot be missed, the wall should be designed to
account for the presence of an obstruction as discussed later in this Chapter.

min
¾"
(a) (b)
COMPRESSIBLE
JOINT MATERIAL
MODULAR
BLOCK
(c)
on top of panels, (c) barrier on top of modular block units.

5.1.5 Drainage Related Top of Wall Elements
Whenever possible, the top surface of wall should be graded such that water drains away
from the wall. A grassed swale or concrete ditch can be used behind the facing to collect and
remove water. However, when this is not possible, depending on the configuration of the
backslope with respect to the top of the wall and local hydrogeological considerations,
several different details may need to be implemented from a drainage perspective. These
elements are discussed in Section 5.3.
5.2 BOTTOM OF WALL ELEMENTS
The primary bottom of wall element is a leveling pad. Figure 5-3 shows common details of a
leveling pad. Following are some considerations for the leveling pad:
 For structural walls, the leveling pad should be constructed from lean (e.g., 2,500 psi
{17.2 MPa}) unreinforced concrete. The strength and thickness should be such that it
allows cracking of the leveling pad during differential settlement as/if needed to relieve
stress concentrations that can occur. Gravel pads may be allowed only for non-structural
walls such as those for landscaping purposes.
 The common thickness of a leveling pad is 6 in. (150 mm). The width of the leveling pad
should be such that it extends at least 3 in. (75 mm) beyond the thickness of the facing
unit. Thus, for example, if the segmental precast concrete facing unit is 6 in. (150 mm)
thick, then the width of the leveling pad shall be at least 12 in. (300 mm). At sharp
curves the width of the leveling pad may be increased for segmental precast concrete
facing units which are typically 5 ft (1.5 m) or 10 ft (3 m) wide so that the entire panel is
resting on the leveling pad and at least 3 in. (75 mm) overhang of the leveling pad on
each side of the facing unit.
 For ease of construction and to prevent misalignment of joints, the top of the leveling pad
within any given step should be such that it does not vary by more than 1/8 in. (3 mm)
over any 10 ft (3 m) run.
 Any openings between leveling pad steps should be completely filled after erection of the
first row of panels. Where openings are more than 3 in. (75 mm) wide, filling with lean
unreinforced cast-in-place concrete is preferred. For smaller openings, a geotextile filter
with sufficient overlap of the panels and foundation soil could be used to fill openings.

When there is a roadway immediately adjacent to the bottom of the wall, it is advisable to
provide a crash protection barrier to protect the wall against vehicular impact. The size and
configuration of this barrier is a function of the vehicle sizes and speed limits on the roadway
in front of the wall. An alternative to a crash barrier is a non-mountable, i.e., a high, curb at
the edge of the traveled roadway adjacent to the wall.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(c) Step detail for modular block facing units.

5.3 DRAINAGE
Good drainage is essential to the proper performance of an MSE wall. There are two types of
drainage considerations for an MSE wall, internal and external. Internal drainage
considerations are related to control of surface or subgrade water that may infiltrate the
reinforced soil mass. The internal drainage of an MSE wall depends on the characteristics of
the backfill used in the reinforced soil mass. External drainage considerations deal with
water that may flow externally over and/or around the wall surface taxing the internal
drainage and/or creating external erosion issues. The external drainage depends on the
location of the MSE wall with respect to local hydrogeological factors and generally deals
with diverting water flow away from the reinforced soil structure.
Regardless of the source of the water, i.e., internal or external, the cardinal rule in the design
of MSE walls, as with any other wall type, is to allow unimpeded flow of water through the
wall and/or collect and remove water before it enters the zone of influence of the wall to
prevent the following:
 build-up of hydrostatic forces that increase lateral pressures,

 piping, i.e., erosion of one soil into another, which creates paths for additional water flow
or clogging of drainage aggregate, and
 external soil erosion from the toe, around the edges or at the top of the wall.
It is recommended that adequate drainage features be required for all walls unless the
engineer determines that such features are not needed for a specific project. During a
determination of the need for drainage features, the engineer must include consideration for
both subsurface (e.g., ground water, perched water, flooding and tidal action) and surface
infiltration water (e.g., rain, runoff, and snow melt).
Effect of Fines on Drainage

Soil particles with sizes smaller than the U.S. No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve are referred to as
“fines.” The permeability of an overall soil mass is affected significantly by the amount of
fines. In general, soils with less than 3 to 5% non-plastic fines by weight are considered to
be free draining and water can readily flow through the soil mass even under low hydraulic
gradients. In the case of MSE walls, a reinforced soil mass with less than 3 to 5% non-plastic
fines will allow unimpeded flow provided the permeability of the reinforced fill is greater
than the permeability of the retained fill and the wall is not exposed to significant water
events such as flooding, tidal action or significant snow melt.

When the amount of the fines is more than 3 to 5%, the permeability is significantly reduced
and drainage requirements must be carefully evaluated as groundwater and/or infiltration of
surface water can result in build-up of seepage/hydrostatic forces within the reinforced soil
mass. Surface water that infiltrates into the reinforced soil mass will tend to move toward the
permeable face of an MSE wall and can have a destabilizing effect due to a potential increase
in seepage forces (Terzaghi et al., 1996; Cedergren, 1989). Such a condition can occur
during severe rainstorms, if the permeability of the fill is equal to or less than about 0.002
cm/sec (Terzaghi et al., 1996; Cedergren, 1989). Therefore, good drainage features should
be incorporated into the design if low permeability reinforced fill is used, i.e., if the
reinforced fill has more than 3 to 5% non plastic fines. Special precaution is also advised for
hillside construction due to the potential for seepage to occur through retained soil and rock
seams, faults and joints during rain events that may not be apparent during subsurface
exploration and construction.
Internal and external drainage details, which represent good drainage, are presented in the
following Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, respectively. Good design of drainage features requires
proper consideration of the filtration properties of various geomaterials within and external to
the MSE wall as well as drains that are adequately sized to effectively remove any seepage
water. The drainage components including filtration criteria and drain component
requirements are presented in Section 5.3.3.
5.3.1 Internal Drainage Systems
There are two specific forms of internal drainage as shown in Figure 5-4, (a) drainage near
wall face due to infiltration of surface water near the wall face, and (b) drainage behind and
under reinforced soil mass from groundwater. Groundwater may be present at an elevation
above the bottom of the wall and would flow to the MSE walls from an excavation backcut;
or it may be present beneath the bottom of the MSE wall. A groundwater surface beneath a
MSE wall may rise into the reinforced soil mass, depending on the hydrogeology of the site.
Surface water may infiltrate into the reinforced soil mass from above or from the front face
of the wall, for the case of flowing water in front of the structure.

Surface Water Infiltration
Wall
face Retained fill
Reinforced fill
Groundwater
Foundation Soil
Figure 5-4. Potential sources and flowpaths of water.
Internal Drainage Near Wall Face

A filter is provided at all vertical and horizontal joints in the wall face to prevent the
migration of fines from the reinforced soil mass through the joints. The location and
configuration of the filter is a function of the type of wall facing units as follows:
 For segmental precast wall facing units, the filter is commonly in the form of geotextile
fabric that is placed across all horizontal and vertical joints as shown in Figure 5-5. The
geotextile should extend a minimum of 4 in. (100 mm) on either side of the joint and up
into the coping to prevent soil from moving around the geotextile. The geotextile filter
characteristics should be such that it is compatible with the backfill in the reinforced soil
mass as discussed in Section 5.3.3.

Figure 5-5. Example layout of filter at joints between segmental precast facing units.
 Modular block wall (MBW) facing units are typically constructed with a zone of free
drainage aggregate adjacent to the back face of the units. The minimum width of this
aggregate zone is typically 1 ft (300 mm). In addition to serving as a back face drain, this
aggregate is required for stiffness of the wall face and constructability, i.e., placement
and compaction of wall fill may be difficult based on the configuration of the MBW
units. This column of aggregate is often a high permeability well graded gravel as
discussed in Section 5.3.3. The gradation of the aggregate should be used to determine
the maximum allowable vertical joint opening between MBW units, using slot criterion
given by Equation 5-8 in Section 5.3.3. The configuration of the gravel filter is a
function of whether the modular block unit is solid or with a hollow-core. For solid
modular block units, the well graded gravel should be at least 1 ft (300 mm) wide as
shown in Figure 5-6a. For hollow-core modular block units, the well graded gravel
should be at least 1 ft (300 mm) wide with a minimum volume of 1 ft3 per ft2 (0.3 m3/m2)
of wall face as illustrated in Figure 5-6b. The gradation of the gravel should be sized to
be compatible with the reinforced wall fill gradation in the reinforced soil mass, i.e. meet
soil filter criteria as discussed in Section 5.3.3. Alternatively, a geotextile may be used
between the gravel and reinforced wall fill to meet filtration requirements, as illustrated
in Figure 5-6b. Finally, the construction sequence should be specified to ensure a
workable drain system.

1-ft
min
(a)
(b)
1-ft min
(Collin et al., 2002).

 Figure 5-7 provides a common detail for face drainage in the case of wire-faced walls. In
this case, the geotextile filter is placed between the facing stones and the reinforced soil
mass.
Internal Drainage Under and Behind the MSE Wall

For walls in locations where groundwater can result in build-up of seepage/hydrostatic forces
within the height of the reinforced soil mass and/or surface water infiltration is anticipated, a
base drain that provides drainage beneath the MSE wall and a back or chimney drain that
provides drainage behind the reinforced soil mass is strongly recommended to ensure proper
long-term functionality of the MSE wall. This is because, as noted earlier, a reinforced fill
with more than 3 to 5% non plastic fines is not “free draining.”
The base drain and back drain should be designed to collect and remove groundwater before
it enters the reinforced mass and allows infiltration water to preferentially flow downward
and toward the back of the wall, away from the face. An example of such a drainage system
is illustrated in Figure 5-8 for segmental precast facing unit structure. Figure 5-6a shows a
common detail for modular block unit faced structures. Figures 5-9 and 5-10 show
alternative drainage systems that include geocomposite drains and blanket drains in lieu of
open graded gravel drains with a geotextile or well-graded soil filter. Information on the
various drains to relieve hydrostatic pressures is provided below. Design of the base drain
and backdrain and the drainage system components is covered in Section 5.3.3.
Figure 5-7. Example layout of geotextile filter near the face for welded wire facing units.

Note: Number
preceding foot and
inch dimensions is
in millimeters.
Figure 5-8. Example drainage blanket detail behind the retained backfill.

Figure 5-9. Example drainage detail using a geocomposite sheet drain.

TOP SOIL
LOW PERMEABILITY FILL
CURB
ASPHALT
DRAINAGE AGGREGATE
DRAINAGE COMPOSITE
(CHIMNEY DRAIN)
GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT
GEOTEXTILE FILTER (TYP.)
BLANKET DRAIN
COLLECTOR PIPE
LEVELING PAD (WELL GRADED SAND AND GRAVEL)
al., 2002).
Walls with Possibility of Inundation

For walls potentially subject to inundation, such as those located adjacent to rivers, canals,
detention basins or retention basins, a minimum hydrostatic pressure equal to 3 ft (1 m)
should be applied at the high-water level for the design flood event. Effective unit weights
should be used in the calculations for internal and external stability beginning at levels just
below the equivalent surface of the pressure head line. Where the wall is influenced by water
fluctuations, the wall should be designed for rapid drawdown conditions which could result
in differential hydrostatic pressure greater than 3 ft (1 m). As an alternative to designing for
rapid drawdown conditions, No. 57 coarse aggregate, as specified in AASHTO M 43, could
be provided as reinforced backfill for the full reinforced zone of the wall and to the
maximum height of submergence of the wall. A geotextile filter should be provided at the
interface of the No. 57 coarse aggregate and reinforced backfill above it, at the interface of
the retained backfill behind it, and at the interface of the coarse gravel and subgrade beneath
it, unless the coarse aggregate meets the soil filtration criteria for the adjacent soils (see
Section 5.3.3). The geotextile should meet the filtration and survivability criteria in Section
5.3.3. Adjoining sections of geotextile filter/separator shall be overlapped by a minimum of
1 ft (0.3 m). An example detail is shown in Figure 5-11.

SHORING IF
NEEDED
300 (1′-0")
ABOVE
Q500 LEVEL
Note: Number
preceding foot and
inch dimensions is in
millimeters.
Figure 5-11. Example detail for wall that may experience inundation.
5.3.2 External Drainage
Surface drainage is an important aspect of ensuring MSE wall performance and must be
addressed during design. Appropriate measures to prevent surface water from infiltrating
into the wall backfill should be included in the design of all MSE walls. This typically
requires coordination with designers of other project elements.
During construction of an MSE wall, the Contractor should grade the wall fill surface away
from the wall face at the end of each day of construction to prevent water from ponding
behind the wall and saturating the soil. In addition to softening the subgrade, surface water
running onto a partially completed wall fill can carry fine-grained soils into the backfill work
area and locally contaminate a free-draining granular backfill with fines. If finer grained
backfill is being utilized for the reinforced wall fill, saturation can cause movements of the
partially constructed wall.

When possible, finished grading at the top of a wall structure should provide positive
drainage away from the wall to prevent or minimize infiltration of surface water into the
reinforced wall fill. If the area above the wall is paved, a curb and gutter is typically used to
direct the flow away from the wall. Drainage swales lined with concrete or asphalt can be used
to collect and discharge surface water. Vegetation lined swales may be used where a
vegetated finished grade slopes to the wall. Water runoff over the top of a wall where the
backfill slopes towards it can lead to erosion behind the top of the wall and underming of the
wall. Such runoff can also cause staining of the wall face as soil is carried with the water.
Construction of a collection swale close to the wall will help to prevent runoff from going
over the top of the wall. Runoff flow will concentrate at grading low points behind the face
and cause ponding which leads to undesirable infiltration of water into the backfill and
increased compressibility due to softening of the backfill.
Collection and conveyance swales should prevent overtopping of the wall for the design
storm event. Extreme events such as heavy rainfalls of short duration have been known to
cause substantial damage to earth retaining structures due to erosion and undermining,
flooding, and/or increased hydrostatic pressures both during and after construction. This is
particularly true for sites where surface drainage flows toward the wall structure and where
finer-grained backfills are used.
If the surface grading is such that there is likelihood of surface water flowing towards an
MSE structure, then the water should be collected in a gutter or other collection feature that
is part of the site drainage features. Such site drainage features are designed for an assumed
or prescribed design storm event. For MSE walls, the design storm event should be based on
a minimum 100 year event. However, extreme events can occur that result in short duration
flows, e.g., 1 to 3 hours, which significantly exceed the design capacity of the stormwater
management system. When such events occur, site flooding can cause overtopping of the
wall, erosion and undermining, and an increase in hydrostatic forces within and behind the
reinforced soil mass. Therefore, the site layout and wall structure should include features for
handling flows greater than the design event as is typically done in the design of an overflow
spillway for a dam. The project civil engineer should address potential excess flows and
coordinate work with the wall designer. Consideration should be given to incorporating
details of overflow features, such as a spillway, into the wall design for sites where surface
water flows towards the wall structure. An example of an overflow feature is shown in
Figure 5-12. Maintenance issues included in Section 5.3.4 should be addressed to ensure that
all site drainage features are performing adequately.

Figure 5-12. Example MSE wall overflow sill at top of wall.
Drainage Swale at Top of Wall

A drainage swale is a man-made depression in the ground surface used to intercept surface
water and direct it in a controlled manner to an outlet. Drainage swale can also be used to
reduce the potential for surface water from overtopping the wall. Figure 5-13 shows typical
drainage swale details for segmental precast concrete facing and modular block wall facing
units. When a drainage swale is used, the project civil engineer and the wall designer should
address and detail the outlet(s) for the swale. For example, the swale can be detailed to
discharge water at the end of the wall structure or to low overflow points along the wall
length. Overflow points should be detailed on the construction drawings. The designer
should anticipate and address in design and detailing the possibility of water runoff from
extreme events which will overtop the drainage swale and run down the wall face, unless the
swales are specifically sized for such events. For sloping backfills, the wall designer should
also address collection and diversion of water at the top of the slope. Site water runoff from
above the backslope should not be directed toward the MSE wall backslope.
Vegetated swales as shown in Figure 5-13b can provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance.
However, the effectiveness of the low permeability soil in preventing water from migrating into
the reinforced soil mass and drainage aggregate should be evaluated. Shrinkage cracks in the
low permeability soil during periods of extended dry weather may increase the permeability of
the layer to the extent that it is no longer an effective barrier layer. Therefore, a geomembrane
should be used beneath any vegetated swale.

(a)
3'-0"
8" MIN. TOPSOIL

8" LOW PERMEABILITY
SOIL
IMPERMEABLE 4" CONCRETE
OR ASPHALT LINING
COMPACTED INFILL
DRAINAGE GEOTEXTILE
AGGREGATE
SEGMENTAL
UNIT
3'-0"
TOPSOIL
8" MIN.
8" LOW PERMEABILITY
SOIL
SWALE LINED WITH VEGETATION
GEOMEMBRANE (OPTIONAL)
COMPACTED INFILL
DRAINAGE GEOTEXTILE
AGGREGATE
SEGMENTAL
UNIT
(b)
Figure 5-13. Example drainage swale near top of wall. ((b) Collin et al., 2002).

Geomembrane Barriers
A geomembrane barrier can be used to prevent surface water infiltration and associated
seepage forces that can occur when using poorly draining reinforced fill. In addition steel
soil reinforcements in the upper portion of MSE walls exposed to runoff containing deicing
salts are affected by higher corrosion rates than defined by current corrosion rate models.
Therefore, a geomembrane barrier should be placed below the road base and just above the
first layer of soil reinforcement. The geomembrane should be tied into a drainage system to
collect and discharge the runoff. As per Article 11.10.8 of AASHTO (2007), a roughened
surface PVC, HDPE or LLDPE geomembrane with a minimum thickness of 30 mils (0.75
mm) should be used. All seams in the membrane should be glued or welded to prevent
leakage.
An example detail for use of geomembrane barrier to prevent infiltration of runoff into the
reinforced soil mass is illustrated in Figure 5-14a. As shown in Figure 5-14a, the
geomembrane should be sloped to drain away from the facing to an intercepting longitudinal
drain outletted beyond the reinforced mass. Installation of a geomembrane infiltration barrier
is shown in Figure 5-14b and 5-14c. Design requirements for the geomembrane are covered
in Section 5.3.3.
Pavement Permeability and Runoff

Pavements are porous structures. Surface water flows through asphalt pavement cracks and
concrete joints and cracks into the pavement base material(s). The flow into the base
aggregates can be significant, with up to 50% of the water falling on the pavement finding its
way to the base course, and much more if there are cracks in the pavement, e.g., upwards of
97% will flow though a 1/8 in. (3 mm) crack according to AASHTO (1986). This water then
saturates the subgrade because the relatively high permeability base aggregate ponds the
water above the MSE wall. The situation is compounded if the site and pavement grades
toward a low spot as shown in Figure 5-15. The MSE wall designer should interact with the
project civil engineer to ensure that such a condition is mitigated and positive drainage
measures are provided to capture the pavement drainage in the form of proper grading away
from the wall and edge drains. Consideration should also be given to using the
geomembrane detail shown in Figure 5-14, to intercept and discharge the water seeping
through cracks in the pavement.
Surface runoff on the pavements that overtops the wall can cause undermining of the wall.
Sloping the roadway towards a ditch is a common way to guard against wall overtopping.
This is also sometimes referred to as roadway "in sloping."

30 mil (min)
Impervious
6” Perforated Pipe
Membrane
Cover in Geotextile
(HDPE)
(Drain to end of wall)
Wearing
Surface Drainage Layer
Base #57 Aggregagate
Course
> 5%
Front Face
of MSE wall
5 ft 1 ft
Specified
Backfill
(a)
(b) (c)
penetration.

grades (Collin et al., 2002)
Grade at Toe and Ends of the Wall

The final grade at the toe and ends of the wall, both as designed and as constructed, is an
important consideration for water flow conditions. Surface water flow along the toe of a
MSE wall may occur around the ends or along the face of the structure and has the potential
to erode the soil. An example of water damage is shown in Figure 5-16. Erosion of soil at
the toe of a wall eventually may undermine the MSE wall facing units. Thus, design and
construction details normally should direct flow away from the toe of wall structures. This
can be accomplished with site grading and with a soil berm or slope at the toe of the wall.
Erosion control details are required where water will flow adjacent to the wall toe.
Geotextile lined riprap stone or other means should be used to prevent scour. The designer
also may elect to embed the wall deeper (i.e., lower foundation level) where the potential for
erosion of the wall toe exists. Consideration should be given to turning the wall 90 degrees
inward from the face.
The ends of the wall that terminate in or intercept embankment slopes should also be
protected from erosion. Walls that terminate in slopes should be adequately keyed into the
slope and a swale used to divert water away from the ends of the wall to mitigate erosion.
Wing walls for approach fills should also be design such that water does not flow down the
slope along the back of the wall face. Again a swale can be used to divert water and the
surface of the slope should be graded to promote water flows away from the wall.

Figure 5-16. Example of surface flow erosion at the bottom of an MSE wall.
5.3.3 Filtration and Drainage System Component Requirements
Construction of an MSE wall may involve several types of soils. Groundwater flow from
one soil type to another, and then to a drain and outlet feature, should be unimpeded. Soil
filtration and permeability requirements must be met between adjacent zones of different
soils to prevent impeded flow or piping. Adjacent soils of interest in an MSE wall system are
as follows:
 the reinforced fill and any drainage layers,

 the reinforced fill, facing elements such as joints and/or face drainage aggregate and
geotextile covering the joints,
 the reinforced fill and retained fill,
 the reinforced fill and foundation soil, and
 the reinforced fill and embankment fill above the wall and low permeable surface fill that
may be used to reduce infiltration.
Filters may be in the form of a graded granular soil or a geotextile. Design of both soil filters
and geotextile filters are discussed below. Design of geocomposite drains, drainage inflow
and outflow, drain collection and outlet pipes and geomembrane barriers are also discussed.

Soil Filters
As water flows from one soil zone to another, the downstream soil must meet filter criteria to
prevent piping of the upstream soil. Furthermore, the downstream soil must have adequate
permeability relative to the adjacent, upstream soil. Therefore, the downstream soil must
have the correct gradation range to function properly as a filter. The gradation requirements
of the filter are also a function of the upstream soil gradation because the design flow capacity
of the filter cannot be realized if the upstream soil pipes into the downstream soil. The pore
sizes in the filter soil must be small enough to retain the larger size particles of the soil, which in
turn retain the smaller sizes of the retained soil. The filter pore size is mathematically a function
of its controlling particle size.
Design criteria for soil filters are summarized below and are based upon gradations of two
adjacent soils. The particle sizes used in design are the D15, D50, and D85 sizes (subscript
denotes the percentage of material, by weight, which has a smaller diameter). These criteria are
applicable to adjacent soils with gradation curves that are approximately parallel. The
equations are not applicable to gap-graded soils, soil-rock mixtures, non steady-state flow
and soils with gradation curves that are not approximately parallel. When criteria are not
applicable, filter design should be based upon laboratory filtration tests. The reader is
referred to Cedergren (1989) for a comprehensive discussion on soil filtration.
The soil filtration criterion to prevent piping (i.e., retention) of the upstream soil into the filter is:
D15( filter )
5 (5-1)
D 85(soil)
To ensure sufficient permeability of the filter material, the ratio of the filter D15 to the
upstream soil D15 should be as shown in Equation 5-2.
D15( filter )
4  20 (5-2)
D15(soil)
An additional criterion to prevent movement of soil particles into or through filters is presented
in Equation 5-3. For CL and CH soils without sand or silt particles, the D15 size of the filter in
Equation 5-2 may be as great as 0.016 in, and Equation 5-3 may be disregarded. However, if
the upstream soil, i.e., retained fill or backcut soils, contains particles of uniform non-plastic fine
sand and silt sizes, the filter must be designed to meet these criteria.

D 50( filter )
 25 (5-3)
D 50(soil)
Geotextile Filters
A geotextile is often used as a filter between a finer-grained and a more permeable soil. The
geotextile must retain the finer-grained soil, while allowing water to readily pass into the more
permeable soil, and function throughout the life of the earth retaining structure. Thus, geotextile
design must address retention, permeability, and clogging. The geotextile must also survive the
installation process.
The following design steps are from the FHWA Geosynthetic Design and Construction
Guidelines Manual (Holtz et al. 2008).
Step 1. Determine the gradation of the material to be separated/filtered. The filtered material
is directly upstream or downstream of the geotextile filter for the drainage layer.
Determine D85, D15, Cu = D60/D10 and the percent passing a No. 200 (0.075 mm)
sieve. When the soil contains particles 1 in. (25 mm) and larger, use only the
gradation of soil passing the No.4 (4.75 mm) sieve in selecting the geotextile (i.e.,
scalp off the + No.4 (+4.75 mm) material).
Step 2. Determine the permeability of the upstream or downstream material to be filtered.

These include the reinforced fill, foundation soil, retained fill and the natural soil in
cut slope.
Step 3. Apply design criteria for retention, permeability and clogging resistance to determine
apparent open size (AOS), permeability (k), and permittivity (ψ) requirements for the
geotextile (after Holtz et al., 2008). AOS, k and ψ of the candidate geotextile are
determined from standard ASTM tests and is typically the value published by the
geotextile manufacturers/suppliers. Use only needlepunched nonwoven or
monofilament woven geotextiles (i.e., slit film woven geotextiles shall not be used).
A. Retention Criteria – Steady State Flow
Using the D85 and Cu values from Step 1, determine the largest allowable pore size as
follows:
AOS < B D85 (5-4)
where:
AOS = apparent opening size of the geotextile

B = dimensionless coefficient
D85 = soil particle size for which 85% are smaller
The AOS value of the candidate geotextile is determined from the results of the ASTM
D4751 test method, and is typically the value published by the geotextile
manufacturers/suppliers. The B coefficient ranges from 0.5 to 2 and is a function of the
upstream finer-grained soil, type of geotextile, and/or the flow conditions. For sands,
gravelly sands, silty sands and clayey sands (i.e., sands with less than 50% passing the
No. 200 sieve), B is a function of the uniformity coefficient, Cu (Cu= D60/D10), of the
upstream soil. Table 5-1 presents values of B for various values of Cu.
If the upstream soil contains any fines, only the portion passing the No. 200 sieve should
be used for selecting the geotextile. For silts and clays (more than 50% passing the No.
200 sieve), B is a function of the type of geotextile as given in Table 5-2.
These retention criteria are for internally stable soils and steady-state seepage conditions.
Laboratory performance tests should be conducted for unstable soils. For soils with a Cu
> 20, unsteady seepage may occur. For dynamic and cyclic flow condition use AOS <
0.5D85. See Holtz et al. (2008) for further information on dynamic flow conditions such
as wave action.
Table 5-1. Values of B for Various Cu Values

for Soils with Less than 50% Passing the No. 200 Sieve.
Cu B
Cu < 2 1
2 < Cu < 4 0.5 Cu
4 < Cu < 8 8 / Cu
Cu > 8 1
Table 5-2. Values of B and AOS for Soils with

More than 50% Passing the No. 200 Sieve Based on Type of Geotextile.
Type of Geotextile B AOS

Woven monofilament B=1 AOS < D85
Nonwoven B = 1.8 AOS < 1.8D85
Both woven and nonwoven - AOS < 0.012 in. (0.3 mm)

B. Permeability/Permittivity Criteria
For steady-state flow, low hydraulic gradient and well graded or uniform upstream soil,
the permeability and permittivity criteria are:
 For kgeotextile > ksoil (Less Critical / Less Severe) (5-5a)

permeability kgeotextile > 10 ksoil (Critical / Severe)
 For  > 0.5 sec-1 for < 15% passing No. 200 sieve (5-5b)
permittivity  > 0.2 sec-1 for 15% to 50% passing No. 200 sieve (5-5c)
 > 0.1 sec-1 for > 50% passing No. 200 sieve (5-5d)
where:
k = coefficient of permeability (or hydraulic conductivity) and
 = geotextile permittivity, which is equal to kgeotextile/tgeotextile.
Critical or severe applications are described in Holtz et al. (2008) and, as indicated in
Equation 5-5a, a geotextile permeability of 10 times the soil permeability should be
used. The geotextile permittivity is determined from the results of the ASTM D4491
test method.
C. Clogging Criteria
a. For steady state flow, low hydraulic gradient and well graded or uniform upstream
soil, the clogging criterion is:
AOS > 3 D15(upstream soil) (5-6)
This equation applies to soils with Cu > 3. For soils with Cu < 3, a geotextile with the
maximum AOS value from the retention criteria should be used.
b. Other qualifiers
Nonwoven geotextiles: Porosity (geotextile) > 50%

Woven geotextiles: Percent open area > 4%
c. Alternative: Run filtration tests, especially for critical and severe applications

Step 4. In order to perform effectively, the geotextile must also survive the installation
process. AASHTO M288 (2006) provides the criteria for geotextile strength required
to survive construction of roads, as shown in Table 5-3. Use geotextile Class 2 where
a moderate level of survivability is required (e.g., for geotextile filters at the wall face
and on back drains). Class 1 geotextiles are recommended when heavy construction
equipment is used and/or angular fill will be placed directly above or below the
geotextile (e.g., geotextile filters for base drains). A minimum of 6 in. (150 mm) of
base/subbase should be maintained between the wheel and geotextile at all times.
Table 5-3. Geotextile Survivability Requirements (AASHTO M 288, 2006).

Geotextile Class
Test
Test Units Class 1 Class 2
Method
< 50%* > 50%* < 50%* > 50%*
ASTM N 1400 900 1100 700
Grab Strength
D4632 (lb) (315) (200) (250) (157)
ASTM N 1200 810 990 630
Seam Strength
D4632 (lb) (260) (180) (220) (140)
ASTM N 500 350 400 250
Tear Strength
D4533 (lb) (110) (80) (90) (56)
ASTM N 2750 1925 2200 1375
Puncture Strength
D6241 (lb) (620) (433) (495) (309)
Ultraviolet Stability ASTM At face joints - 70% after 500 hours of exposure
%
(Retained Strength) D4355 Buried in wall - 50% after 500 hours of exposure
*Note: Elongation measured in accordance with ASTM D4632 with < 50% typical of woven
geotextiles and > 50% typical of nonwoven geotextiles. (1 N = 0.22 lbs, 1 kPa = 0.145 psi)
Step 5. Collect samples of geotextile, reinforced fill and retained fill at time of construction
to confirm acceptance.
Step 6. Monitor installation during construction.
Step 7. Observe effectiveness of drainage system during and after storm events.
For a more thorough treatment of geotextile drains see Holtz et al. (2008).

Geocomposite Drain
A geocomposite, or prefabricated, drain consists of a geotextile filter and a water collection
and conveyance core. The cores convey the water and are generally made of plastic waffles,
three-dimensional meshes or mats, extruded and fluted plastic sheets, or nets. A wide variety
of geocomposites are readily available. For MSE wall design, only geocomposites that allow
two-sided flow (i.e., flow into the drains from both sides) should be used. However, the
filtration and flow properties, detailing requirements, and installation recommendations vary
and may be poorly defined for some products. The geotextile of the geocomposite should be
designed to meet filter and permeability requirements discussed previously in this section. The
flow capacity of geocomposite drains can be determined by using the procedures described in
ASTM D4716. Long-term compressive stresses and eccentric loadings on the geocomposite
core should be considered during design and selection.
MSE walls can place a significant stress on the geocomposite. Hence, the design pressure on a
geocomposite core should be limited to either of the following:
 the maximum pressure sustained on the core in a test of 10,000 hr minimum duration; or
 the crushing pressure of a core, as defined with a quick loading test, divided by a safety
factor of five.
Finally, as with in drain system, consideration should be given to system performance factors
such as distance between drain outlets, hydraulic gradient of the drains, potential for
blockage due to small animals, freezing, etc. Other design aspects of geocomposite drains
are addressed in Holtz et al. (2008).
Installation details, such as joining adjacent sections of the geocomposite and connections to
outlets, are usually product-specific. Product-specific variances should be considered and
addressed in the design, specification, detailing and construction phases of a project. General
construction specification requirements will be review in Chapter 10. Post installation
examination of the drainage core/path with a camera scope should be considered for critical
applications.
Drainage Inflow and Outflow Design Requirements

For proper design of the drains at the back or base of the reinforced soil mass, the flow into
the system and the flow in the drain must be evaluated. These flow conditions are discussed
below and apply to either gravel or geocomposite drains. Cedergren (1989) and Huntington
(1957) present a more thorough treatment of pressures induced by the influence of ground
water and seepage acting on retaining walls as well as drainage design.

Flow into the System. Anticipated flow into the drain system may be estimated using
Darcy’s Law. Flow is equal to:
q = kiA (5-7)
where:
q = infiltration rate
k = effective permeability of retained backfill soil
i = average hydraulic gradient in retained backfill soil
A = area of soil normal to the direction of flow
Conventional flow net analysis can be used to calculate the hydraulic gradient.
Some drains consist of drainage aggregate surrounding a perforated pipe with a filter (usually
a geotextile) surrounding the drainage aggregate. Flow into the drainage aggregate may be
calculated with Equation 5-7. Flow from the drainage aggregate into the pipe is through the
circular or slot perforations. Perforated, corrugated HDPE pipe is manufactured with
minimum inlet openings of approximately 1 square inch per 1 foot length (20 cm2 per meter
length) for standard pipe (AASHTO M252, 2006). Standard pipe is generally adequate for
most subsurface drainage applications. Hole diameter or slot width must be checked relative
to the size of the surrounding drainage aggregate, to ensure soil retention. For slots, Equation
5-8 may be used to check retention.
D 85(drain fill)
 1.2 to 1.4 (5-8)
Slot Width
For circular perforations, Equation 5-9 may be used to check retention.
D 85( drain fill)

 1.0 (5-9)
Hole Diameter
Flow Capacity of the Drain. Flow capacity within aggregate drains can be estimated with
Equation 5-7, using k and i for the soil drain material. Flow capacity within geocomposite
drains is expressed in term of unit width using the following form of Darcy’s Law.
q = iB (5-10)

where:
q = flow rate
 = transmissivity of geocomposite drain
i = hydraulic gradient in drain
B = width of geocomposite drain
The geocomposite transmissivity should be evaluated with an appropriate laboratory model

test. Product long-term transmissivity should be quantified at anticipated (or greater) design
pressure and over time to evaluate potential decrease of flow capacity due to creep (i.e., creep
of geotextile into flow channel).
Flow Capacity of the Drain Pipe. Flow capacity within drain pipes, flowing full, can be
computed with the Manning’s equation. Flow is equal to:
0.463 8 / 3 1 / 2
q d s (5-11)
n
where:
q = flow rate (cfs)
n = roughness coefficient, or Manning’s value
d = diameter of pipe (feet)
s = slope of energy grade line (ft per ft)
Drain Collection and Outlet Pipes

Collection and outlet pipes are often used with the drain directly behind the facing units and
with the drain at the back of the reinforced soil mass. Examples of such drains are shown in
Figures 5-8 and 5-10. Pipes are generally laid at required slopes, with a minimum of 2% for
constructability and to ensure positive flow. Outlets are generally spaced based on the flow
capacity of the pipes or alternatively at 20 ft (6 m) to 50 ft (15 m) maximum lateral spacing,
and protected as noted in a later discussion on maintenance. The outlet pipes should be solid
and gravity flow (e.g., 2% minimum grade) to daylight or the storm drain system.
Geomembrane Barriers
Design and specification of a geomembrane as a deicing salt barrier must address installation
requirements. A geomembrane must be capable of withstanding the rigors of installation to
ensure the integrity of the barrier. The subgrade material, subgrade preparation,
geomembrane placement method, overlying soil fill type, and placement and compaction of
overlying fill soil all affect the geosynthetic barrier's survivability. Recommended properties
of geomembrane barriers (Koerner, 1998) are presented in Table 5-4. A minimum thickness
of 30 mils (0.75 mm) is recommended for geomembranes above MSE walls.

Three areas of construction which are critical to a successful installation are:
 subgrade preparation;
 handling/installation including field seaming; and
 sealing around penetrations and adjacent structures.
The subgrade must provide support to the geosynthetic barrier and minimal point loadings.
The subgrade must be well-compacted and devoid of large stones, sharp stones, grade stakes,
etc., that could puncture the geosynthetic barrier. In general, no objects greater than ½ in.
(12 mm) should be protruding above the prepared subgrade (Daniel and Koerner, 1993).
Handling and installation specifications for geomembrane and other geosynthetic barriers
should, as a minimum, conform to the manufacturer's recommendations. All seams in the
membrane should be glued or welded to prevent leakage. Special project requirements for
geomembranes should be noted in the construction specifications and plans.

Survivability (after Koerner, 1998).
Required degree of survivability

Property and test method
Medium1 Very high2
Thickness, mils (mm) – ASTM D5199 or

30 (0.75) 40 (1.00)
ASTM D5994 for Textured
Tear (Die C), lbf (N) - ASTM D1004 10 (45) 20 (90)
Puncture, lbf (N) - ASTM D4833 32 (140) 45 (200)
NOTES:
1. Medium refers to placement on machine-graded subgrade with medium loads. Soil
fill should have a maximum size of ¾-inch.
2. Very high refers to placement on machine-graded subgrade of very poor texture.
Soil fill with maximum size greater than ¾-inch.

Geomembrane selection should also consider installation details of attachment to the MSE
wall facing and details around penetrations. Construction details around penetrations and
adjacent structures depend upon the chosen geosynthetic material and the project design. As
such, they must be individually designed and detailed. For example, batten strips and
mechanical fasteners were used with the 30 mil (0.75 mm) thick HDPE geomembrane shown
in Figure 5-14c. Geosynthetic manufacturers and waste containment manuals can provide
design guidance.
Another design consideration may be the frictional resistance of the geomembrane. As per
Article 11.10.8 of AASHTO (2007), typically, a roughened surface PVC, HDPE or LLDPE
geomembrane with a minimum thickness of 30 mils (0.75 mm) should be used. Such
roughened geomembranes are readily available in the marketplace.
5.3.4 Maintenance of Drainage
Features that minimize water flow into an MSE wall and features that preserve MSE wall
drainage should be maintained over the life of the structure. For example, cracks in
pavement above MSE walls should be sealed. Differential settlements and pavement cracks
around catch basins should be corrected to minimize potential inflow into the reinforced soil
or retained soil mass. These maintenance items are for non-wall features and the wall
designer may have little influence on these items. However, in interacting with designers of
other project features, the need to maintain items that potentially could affect the wall should
be discussed.
One of the maintenance items that the wall designer has control over is the drain outlet(s).
Screens should be installed and maintained on drainpipe outlets. Screening is used to prevent
small animals from nesting in and clogging the pipe. Outlet screens and cleanouts to provide
access to clogged drainage should be detailed on the retaining wall construction drawings.
Additional items should be detailed when outlets are located in a soil embankment beneath
the MSE walls. Drains are not effective unless the outlets are maintained, i.e., not clogged.
Outlets in soil embankments should drain onto a concrete (usually precast) apron and should
be marked with a permanent metal fence post. The apron and post minimize the chance of
the outlet being run over and crushed by mowers or covered in subsequent construction
activities. The apron and post should be detailed on the wall construction drawings.

5.4 INTERNAL DETAILS
There are a number of internal details that must be properly designed and implemented to
ensure that the MSE wall system performs in an acceptable manner over its design life. This
section presents common internal details
5.4.1 Contact between Dissimilar Metals
Often, several different types of metallic elements such as steel piles and drain pipes are placed
in the reinforced soil mass. The metals used in such elements are different than those used in
steel reinforcements. Corrosion can occur when dissimilar metals come in contact with each
other due to galvanic action. Therefore, all steel soil reinforcements should be separated from
other metallic elements by at least 3 in. (75 mm).
5.4.2 Vertical Obstructions in Reinforced Soil Mass
Vertical obstructions are structures that are embedded in or extend vertically through the
reinforced soil mass. Examples of vertical obstructions are a catch basin, grate inlet, sign
foundation, bridge foundation, light poles, guardrail post, or culvert. Under no
circumstances, should any reinforcement be left unconnected to the wall face or
arbitrarily cut/bent in the field to avoid the obstruction. A review of any modification to
the design to avoid an obstruction must be made and approved by the wall designer of record.
Additional consideration must be given to obstructions that exert a load on the wall (e.g.,
deep foundations, overturning of signs and light poles). Such applications may require
additional reinforcement and facing support to resist the local increase in lateral stress.
Likewise, the wall may exert lateral earth pressure or vertical downdrag stress on the
obstruction due to movement of the wall, the consequences of which to the obstruction
design and performance must also be evaluated.
The best design is to adjust the location of the obstruction and/or the soil reinforcement so
that there is no interference. In some cases, where interference between the vertical
obstruction and the soil reinforcement is unavoidable, the design of the wall near the
obstruction may be modified using one of the following alternatives.
Alternative 1 - Fit the soil reinforcement around the obstruction without cutting the soil
reinforcement as shown in Figure 5-17. In this alternative, the facing units near the
obstruction are fitted with extra facing connections such that soil reinforcing can be
connected at locations away from the vertical obstruction. For example, as shown in Figure
5-17a, a 5 ft (1.5 m) panel that needs a 4-wire bar mat may be fitted with 8 clevis loop

connections and in the field the bar mat can be attached to any 4 consecutive clevis loops
depending on the location of the vertical obstruction. Similarly, as shown in Figure 5-17b, a
5 ft (1.5 m) panel with the obstruction blocking 2 strip reinforcements, a strong back
consisting of a galvanized steel angle can bridge across two panels. The strong back then
allows the two displaced reinforcements to be attached to each side of the obstruction.
Where soil reinforcements are not centered on the panel, eccentric load of the facing panel
must be evaluated with respect to the structural capacity of the face to resist increased
bending moments and the potential for face rotation.
In case of strip reinforcements with a nut and bolt connection, it may be possible to splay the
reinforcements around the obstruction as shown in Figure 5-17c. In such cases, the splay
angle should be less than 15-degrees and the tensile capacity of the splayed reinforcement
shall be reduced by the cosine of the splay angle. The splay angle is defined as the angle
measured from a line perpendicular to the wall face in a horizontal plane. Due to the clevis
loop or similar connection for bar mats splaying at more than 3- to 5-degrees is not possible
without introducing moments at the connection and uneven loading of the clevis loop
connectors. Under no circumstances should a bar mat be cut to force longitudinal wires
around the vertical obstruction because it creates damaging moments on the cross bar welds
as well as at the facing connection and cracking of galvanization. Bar mats should not be
splayed if the connection mechanism does not accommodate such splay without cutting of
cross bars.
If the soil reinforcements are navigated around the vertical obstruction, then care must be
taken to balance forces in the wall face to assure that the wall panels do not rotate outward.
Facing units with a joint in front of the vertical obstruction may be structurally connected
across the joint as shown in Figure 5-17, or a longer panel may be considered, e.g., 10 ft (3
m) instead of 5 ft (1.5 m) wide panel. The structural connection should not extend across
more than one joint, i.e., 2 panels. If such a condition occurs, then Alternatives 2 and 3
should be implemented as appropriate.
Alternative 2 - Assuming that reconfiguration of soil reinforcements as per Alternative 1 is

not possible and the reinforcement layers must be partially or fully severed in the location of
the obstruction, the surrounding reinforcement layers should be designed to carry the
additional load which would have been carried by the severed reinforcements.
In this alternative, the portion of the wall facing in front of the obstruction should be made
stable against a toppling (overturning) or sliding failure.

(a)
(b)
SPLAY REINFORCING STRIPS TO AVOID OBSTRUCTION
(c)
reinforcements.

Alternative 3 - A structural frame can be placed around the obstruction which is capable of
carrying the load from the facing in front of the obstruction to reinforcement connected to the
structural frame behind the obstruction. This is illustrated in Figure 5-18a and 5-18b and in
Figure 5-19. The structural frame and connections should be designed in accordance with
Section 6 (“Steel Structures”) of AASHTO (2007) for the maximum tension at any level of
reinforcements within the reinforced soil mass. The structural frame should be designed such
that moments in the soil reinforcement or connection at the wall face are not generated.
Note that as shown in Figure 5-18c it may be feasible to connect the soil reinforcement
directly to the obstruction depending on the reinforcement type and the nature of the
obstruction. Figure 5-20 shows example details for MSE walls with modular block units
with limited height vertical obstructions such as catch basin or fence post foundations near
the wall face.

Wall face
(a)
Wall face
(b)
(c)
Figure 5-18. Vertical obstructions in reinforced soil mass with segmental precast facing units.

(a)
(b) (c)
block face – note corner detail.

(a)
CAP UNIT
PRIMARY
GEOGRID
SECONDARY
GEOGRID
FACING UNIT
10 FT GEOGRID EMBEDMENT LENGTH
(b)

soil mass with modular block units.

5.4.3 Horizontal Obstructions in Reinforced Soil Mass
Horizontal obstructions are structures which are embedded in or extend horizontally through
the reinforced soil mass for a substantial length along the wall. The horizontal obstructions
are commonly due to utilities such as storm drain pipes. Horizontal obstructions in
reinforced soil mass should be avoided because not only do they create construction
problems but obstructions such as utility pipes can be very expensive to repair and
maintain as it may require dismantling the wall system. If horizontal obstructions cannot
be avoided, then some considerations for design are provided below:
 For inextensible reinforcements, the horizontal obstruction may be avoided if it is

possible to deflect the reinforcement in a smooth manner up to 15 degrees of vertical
skew as shown in Figure 5-21. Deflections greater than 15 degrees tend to break the
galvanization and may reduce the tensile and pullout resistance of the inextensible soil
reinforcements.
 Guidance for extensible reinforcements such as geogrids is presented in Figure 5-22.
 In cases where it is not possible to orient the reinforcements as shown in Figures 5-21 and
5-22, use of back-up panels may be considered as shown in Figure 5-23.
 It is not recommended to tie the reinforcements to pipes. Special details must be

developed to accommodate the obstruction without attaching to it.
 Utility pipes in the reinforced mass are likely to settle differentially as the fill settles
during construction. Downdrag stress should be anticipated where pipes intersect the
wall face or a vertical structure such as a drop inlet. Significant leakage of water into
MSE walls has been known to create wall problems including failures. Therefore,
utilities should only be placed in double wall design systems such as locating utilities
inside box culverts with inspection galleries or using double wall pipe with
instrumentation to indicate leakage. Only leak proof joints should be used on drainage
pipes. Where differential movement and downdrag stresses are anticipated, flexible
connections should be used and designed to tolerate the estimated movement and stress.
 Pressurized water mains should not be constructed within an MSE structure.

3” (min)
soil cover
(a)
Required minimum distance (X)
Additional depth (d) required, in.
to achieve smooth bend, in.
3 27
6 39
9 48
12 60
15 72

reinforcements.
Figure 5-22. Navigating horizontal obstruction in MSE walls with extensible reinforcement.

Figure 5-23. Example of backup panels for large horizontal obstructions.
5.4.4 Wall Face Penetrations
In some cases, pipes must penetrate the MSE wall or pass through the retained wall fill.
Penetrations through the reinforced soil and/or wall facing units maybe at skew or
perpendicular angles from the wall face.
If a pipe must penetrate through the face of the wall, the wall facing elements should be
designed to fit around the pipe such that the facing elements are stable and the wall backfill
an not spill through the wall face where it joins the obstruction. Differential movement
between the facing and reinforced fill should be anticipated and associated downdrag stress
must be consider in the design. Therefore, dry packing around the pipe should be done after
the wall is substantially complete. Common details for penetrations through segmental
precast concrete and modular block facing units are shown in Figures 5-24 and 5-25,
respectively. Not noted on these details are the bedding and backfill for the pipe. Granular
bedding may be significantly more permeable than the reinforced fill and/or the retained
backfill. In these cases, the pipe bedding is a potential conduit for bringing water to the MSE
wall structure. Therefore, a headwall is required to at the end of the pipe to prevent water
from entering the bedding. Potential flow should be addressed in the wall details. A clear
flow path, with filtration criteria addressed, from the pipe bedding and backfill to the
drainage aggregate should be detailed. Weep holes through the concrete face collar may be
needed to drain the pipe bedding and backfill.

Figure 5-24. Example pipe penetrations through segmental precast panel facing units.

Collar
REFER TO ELEVATION VIEW FOR

LENGTH, TYPE AND LOCATION OF
SOIL REINFORCEMENT
Figure 5-25. Example pipe penetration through modular block facing units.
Catch basins and manholes may penetrate vertically through the reinforced fill or retained
backfill. The backfill around these manholes may be a granular soil. If the manhole backfill
soils are more permeable than the wall fill soils, the manhole backfill is a potential conduit
for water flow and collection. The wall designer should address this potential, as provided
drainage if the surrounding wall fill soils are less permeable.
For critical wall structures, the wall designer may want to consider the possibility of leaking
pipes saturating the surrounding soil. If this is a concern, a high permeability soil (relative to
the wall fill) around the pipe leading to a drain or outlet may be used to provide a safety flow
path.
5.4.5 Slip Joints
Where subsurface conditions and/or wall profile change abruptly, significant differential
settlement may occur at the wall face with associated problems such as joint openings and
facing unit to unit contact. In such cases, consideration may be given to use of slip joints
which are continuous vertical joints. A slip joint is different than a regular vertical joint
between panels in that there is a vertical separation between adjacent facing units that
extends the full height of the wall. Due to this configuration of the joint, the wall on each
side behaves independently.

Following conditions merit consideration of slip joints:
 Where abrupt differential settlement of more than 1% (or 0.01) is expected.
 Where there is an abrupt change in wall height of 5-ft or more.
 Where the wall is underlain by a relatively rigid feature such as an abutment footing or
rock outcrop.
 Where a light weight rigid structure such as a box culvert intersects the face of a MSE
wall.
 Where the wall terminates into a cast-in-place structure (see Section 5.5 for additional
information)
 Where tight horizontal curves occur.
Figure 5-26 shows common slip joint details for segmental precast concrete facing units. As
shown in the figure, the slip joint design uses either an exposed slip joint panel having its
own soil reinforcement element or a hidden “backup” panel in the backfill behind the facing
panel. In either case the normal connection between two panels is broken and independent
movement on each side of the slip joint is possible. Figure 5-27 shows a slip joint detail for
modular block facing walls.
5.4.6 Wall Curves
Curves in walls are approximated by chords that are equal to the nominal width of the facing
units. Therefore, smaller wall facing units such as the modular block units are able to
navigate sharp curves better than larger precast concrete facing units. Similarly, 5-ft (1.5 m)
wide precast concrete facing units can navigate sharper curves than 10 ft (3 m) wide facing
units. For precast concrete facing units, curves with radius as small as 50 ft (15 m) can be
achieved for 5 ft (1.5 m) wide facing units with a ¾-in. (19 mm) joint opening. For curved
walls, regardless of the type of wall facing, it is critical to provide details for wall layout.
The relationship of wall alignment to roadway alignment should be clearly provided. Clear
dimensions need to be provided on project drawings for offsets from reference alignments
and whether these offsets are relative to top of wall or bottom of wall, especially in the event
of stepped foundations.
Figure 5-28 shows a typical detail for layout of geogrid reinforcement for walls with modular
block facing units. Geogrid reinforcements typically require 100% area coverage whereas
steel reinforcements are generally discrete and can be placed perpendicular to the wall face
curves. In the case of geosynthetic reinforcements excessive overlap can result in reduced
pullout resistance since contact between geosynthetics is smoother than contact between soil
and geosynthetic. Therefore, a minimum soil layer of 3 in. (75 mm) between geosynthetics
in the overlap zone is recommended as shown in Figure 5-28.

Figure 5-26. Example slip joints for segmental precast panel facings.

FIELD CUT FACING UNIT AT
SLIP JOINT LOCATION
Figure 5-27. Example slip joint for modular block wall facings.

Figure 5-28. Example layout of geogrid reinforcement for walls with curves.

5.4.7 Wall Corners
When two MSE wall segments intersect to form an “external” (e.g., 90 degree) or an
“internal” (e.g., 270 degree) corner, both wall segments will tend to move laterally such that
corners tend to open up. Corner elements should be provided as shown in Figures 5-26a and
5-26b to accommodate differential movements, prevent fill from moving through the crack,
and provide aesthetic treatment.
Geotextile
Wall facing
panel
Soil reinforcement
Corner element
(a) External corner
Wall facing
Geotextile panel
Corner element
Soil reinforcement
(b) Internal corner
Figure 5-29. Example corner details.

Acute Angle Corners
External wall corners with an angle of less than 70 degrees, i.e., acute angle, should be
avoided because of construction difficulties, e.g., compaction in corners and placement of
reinforcements. However, if such a situation cannot be avoided, then the wall corner should
based on following considerations:
 The acute angle corner should be designed as a bin wall for the extent of the wall where
the full length of the reinforcement cannot be installed without encountering the
opposite wall face. In the bin wall section, the reinforcing elements are either
structurally connected to both wall faces forming the acute angle corner or overlapped if
there is adequate space to develop the required pullout resistance.
 Full-height vertical slip joints should be provided at the interface of acute corner and
after the last column of panels where full length reinforcements can be placed.
 The soil reinforcement attached to the slip joints should be oriented perpendicular to the
slip joint panels and shall be the full design length.
 Light weight concrete should be considered as an alternate to placing and compacting

fill.
 Deformation compatibility between the bin wall section and the rest of the MSE
structure should be carefully evaluated.
5.4.7 Two-Stage Facing
MSE walls with 2-stage facing systems can be used where significant (e.g., > 1/100)
differential settlements are anticipated and use of slip joints, larger joint openings and/or
ground improvement are not feasible to minimize the adverse effects of differential
settlements. In an MSE wall with 2-stage facing, the primary MSE wall is constructed with a
flexible face such as wire face or geosynthetic. After the primary flexible face wall has been
constructed, it is left in place for a pre-determined amount of time to induce the settlements.
Once the settlements are within acceptable limits, the facing units are installed in the second
(final) stage. Figure 5-30 shows conceptual details of a 2-stage system that has been
implemented in the industry; other similar details can be developed. Following are some
general considerations for a 2-stage MSE wall system:

 The 2nd facing while usually consists of concrete panels should have a
leveling/foundation pad with alignment/restraining mechanisms such as pins or dowels to
receive and align the facing units as well as provide bearing resistance.
 In addition to the usual connections between facing units, e.g., tongue-and-grove joints,
additional connection elements such as dowels may be needed based on the facing unit
type.
 Turn-buckle type of connectors are used between the 1st stage wire mesh facing and the
2nd stage concrete facing units. The size and type of the turn-buckles and the number of
connectors is a function of the facing panel size, distance between the two facing units,
the type of infill used as well as the amount of relative settlement anticipated between the
two facing systems after the 2nd stage facing is constructed. Detailed structural analysis
and design of the connections should be performed.
 The sequence of construction should be clearly noted on the plans.
Connectors (turn-buckle
type); use appropriate
connector for top most
facing unit near top of wall
Flexible facing
MSE wall Dowel
system Joint between two
facing units
2nd stage facing

units
Space between 1st and

2nd stage facings with
appropriate infill
Alignment/restraining
pin/dowel mechanisms
Leveling/foundation pad
Figure 5-30. Conceptual connection details for a 2-stage facing system.

5.5 WALL INITIATIONS AND TERMINATIONS
The initiation and/or termination of an MSE wall may abut into another structure feature,
slope or existing ground. The junctures of MSE walls with other structures are critical
locations that are often observed to have distress such as misaligned facing units, leakage of
backfill and erosion. Therefore, proper detailing is required at these locations. Following are
some recommendations for wall initiations and terminations:
 The juncture of MSE walls and cast-in-place structures must be designed to prevent loss
of fines and must allow for differential settlement between the two types of construction.
Typical configurations for segmental precast panel facing units are shown in Figure 5-31.
Either bituminous joint filler as shown in Figure 5-5a or a backer rod system and sealant
as shown in Figure 5-31 is used. A common detail for a MBW facing unit is shown in
Figure 5-32.
 A cast-in-place structure may have a lip to mask the joint as shown in Figure 5-31c.
Sufficient distance between the facing and lip should be provided to allow for outward
movement of the wall during construction. A geotextile should be used behind the joint
to contain the soil. Joint filler such as expanded polystyrene may be used between the
edge of the facing panel and the cast-in-place structure.
 Abrupt changes in wall heights should be avoided near wall initiation and termination
points. This results in differential settlements and undesirable rotation of the facing units
due to reduced confining pressures at such locations. Consideration may be given to not
stepping the leveling pad within 10 ft (3 m) of the start or end of the wall.
 When starting or terminating into slopes and existing ground, the wall should be
protected against erosion by vegetation and adequate embedment. In cases where the
wall is adjacent to a steep slope or stream, riprap underlain by a filtration aggregate or
geotextile may be needed. Swales should be used to divert water away from the end of
the wall as discussed in section 5.3.3.

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
structures.
FIELD CUT MODULAR BLOCK GEOTEXTILE

UNIT – MINIMUM SIZE = ¼ UNIT
4" WIDE ASPHALT IMPREGNATED EXPANSION
JOINT GLUED TO END/EDGE OF BLOCK
Figure 5-32. Common joint between modular block facing units and CIP structures.

5.6 AESTHESTICS
One of the attractive features of MSE walls is that aesthetics can be readily incorporated into the
precast facing units. Several examples of wall aesthetics are shown in Figure 5-33. The choice
of aesthetic treatments is virtually unlimited, however, it must be recognized that any aesthetic
treatment should be compatible with the precasting processes and the construction tolerances.
Following are some general guidelines that should be considered while developing aesthetic
treatments:
 Cost of treatments that require special form-liners must be considered in the project cost
estimate because form-liners require special fabrication and their number of uses is limited.
 Generally, the relief of the protruding artwork should be less than 1.5 in. (38 mm).
 Do not hang heavy aesthetic treatments from the facing units unless the facing units and the
internal soil reinforcements are designed to withstand the forces from the artwork and
environmental forces due to wind, snow, etc.
 Consider facing construction tolerances in formliner fabrication processes.
 Consider compatibility of the wall construction tolerances with the tolerances in details of
the adjacent aesthetic treatments. Relief patterns are difficult to maintain between a cast-in-
place structure and an adjacent MSE walls as illustrated in Figure 5-33(a), and is not
recommended. Relief patterns between structures should be interrupted by a false column
or other feature, as illustrated in Figure 5-33(b).
 Horizontal patterns parallel to the horizontal panel joints may not align after construction
due to differential settlement.
 Consider using irregular patterns such as Ashlar stone that tend to hide inevitable
imperfections in lines across joints between facing units.
 Consider the angle of sunlight expected at the location of the wall. At various times of the
day, sunlight tends to accentuate the effect of the aesthetic features. The effect of
imperfections resulting from regular construction tolerances on the artwork may be
exaggerated leading to a false sense of problems and/or poor artwork.

 Consider use of colors that are compatible with the wall facing material and weathering of
the color scheme.
 Aesthetic treatments may use obstructions, acute corners, and face penetrations for effect,
which require careful design review along with increased inspection.

(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 5-33. Example of MSE wall aesthetics.

(a)
(b)
Figure 5-34. Examples of cast-in-place abutment to MSE wall panel transitions, (a) no
transition between C.I.P. and precast panels and difficult to match lines, (b) a false column
between C.I.P. and precast panels masks lines that may not match.

CHAPTER 6
DESIGN OF MSE WALLS WITH COMPLEX GEOMETRICS
The basic design methods outlined in Chapter 4 consider MSE structures with simple geometries
with reinforcement layers of the same length supporting either a horizontal backfill or a
surcharge slope. Although most MSE structures fall into this category, structures with more
complex geometries or significant external loads are feasible and require consideration during
the selection process. They include:
 Bridge abutments with MSE walls
 Superimposed (tiered) MSE walls
 MSE Walls with uneven length reinforcements (trapezoidal walls)
 Back-to-back MSE (BBMSE) walls
 Shored MSE (SMSE) walls for steep terrains and low volume roads
 Stable feature MSE (SFMSE) walls
Schematics of these complex cases are illustrated in Figure 6-1.
The shape and location of the maximum tensile forces line are generally altered by both the
geometry and the loads applied on the complex MSE wall structure. It is possible to assume an
approximate maximum tensile force line for each. However, supporting experience and analysis
are more limited than for rectangular reinforced soil walls.
For complex or compound structures, it is always difficult to separate internal stability from
external stability because the most critical slip-failure surface may pass through both reinforced
and unreinforced sections of the structure. For this reason, both global and compound stability
analyses are required for these types of complex structures. The current method for performing
these analyses is to use an ASD reinforced soil slope stability computer method, as detailed in
Chapter 9. An alternative method is to adapt the simple modification to the global and
compound stability analyses for the LRFD procedure as discussed in Chapter 4.
The following sections give guidelines for each complex case identified in Figure 6-1.
FHWA NHI-10-024 6 – Complex Cases

H1
Lt
H′
H
H2
Lb
L
(a) Bridge abutment (b) Superimposed (Tiered) walls
Lt
Lb
(c) Trapezoidal walls (d) Back-to-back walls

Lt Lt
Shoring Wall Stable Feature

(rock face)
H H
Lb MSE Reinforcement
Lb
MSE Reinforcement
(e) Shored walls (f) Stable feature walls
Figure 6-1. Types of complex MSE structures.

6.1 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS WITH MSE WALLS
Bridge abutments have been designed to support the bridge superstructure on a spread
foundation constructed directly on the reinforced soil zone, or on a deep foundations constructed
through the reinforced soil zone.
The configuration wherein bridge superstructure is supported on a spread footing on top of the
reinforced soil zone may be more economical compared to abutments supported by deep
foundation through the reinforced soil zone, and should be considered when the projected
settlement of the foundation and reinforced volume is rapid/small or essentially complete, prior
to the erection of the bridge beams. Based on field studies of actual structures, AASHTO (2007)
suggests, that tolerable angular distortions (i.e., limiting differential settlements) between
abutments or between piers and abutments be limited to the following angular distortions (in
radians):
 0.008 for simple spans, and

 0.004 for continuous spans
This criteria, suggests that for a 100 ft (30 m) span for instance, differential settlements of 4.8 in.
(120 mm) for a continuous span or 9.6 in. (240 mm) for a simple span, would be acceptable, with
no ensuing overstress and damage to superstructure elements. On an individual project basis
differential settlements of smaller amounts may be required from functional or performance
criteria. Settlements well within the tolerable range can often be achieved with MSEW
abutments abutments on spread footings.
6.1.1 MSEW Abutments on Spread Footings
Where fully supporting the bridge loads, MSEW bridge abutments are designed by considering
them as rectangular walls with surcharge loads at the top. The base width of the bridge support
spread footing, bf, and the location of the toe of the footing with respect to the back face of the
walls panels, cf, is commonly such that bf + cf is greater than H/3. In this case, the shape of the
maximum tensile force line, i.e., the critical failure surface, has to be modified to extend to the
back edge of the spread footing. The variation of Kr/Ka and F* also need to be modified. Figure
6-2 shows definitions of various parameters including measurements of heights and depths.

Roadway
cf bf Surface Kr/Ka F*
z=0 z=0
h
z
z'
z=20 ft z=20 ft
0.3 H'
H' H Z
Active Resistant
Zone Zone
1
0.6
z=H' z=H'
L
d z z
Notes:
 d is the depth of embedment
 Z is measured below bottom of footing; z is measured from top of spread footing
 H is measured from top of leveling pad to bottom of bridge support spread footing
 h is height of the wall as measured from bottom of bridge support spread footing to
finished roadway surface
 H' is height of wall as measured from top of leveling pad to finished roadway surface
 z = Z + h; z' = H – (cf + bf)/0.6
 Within height z' the length of the reinforcement in the active zone is La= cf + bf
F* parameters for analysis of a MSEW abutment on spread footing.
Although MSEW abutments on spread footings have historically almost always used
inextensible, steel reinforcements, they can also be used with extensible reinforcements.
However, similar shifts in the maximum tension line to the back of the footing have been
observed for extensible reinforcement. Therefore, the maximum tensile force line should also be
modified for extensible reinforcement if the back edge of the footing extends beyond a distance
of H*tan(45°-°/2) from the wall face. These maximum tensile force lines should be compared
with the critical failure surface from compound stability analysis and the more conservative
profile of the failure surface should be selected.
Successful experience with construction of MSEW abutments on spread footings has suggested
that the following additional details be implemented:

 Require a minimum offset from the front of the facing to the centerline of the bridge bearing
of 3.5 ft (1 m).
 Require a minimum clear distance, cf, of 6 in. (150 mm) between the back face of the facing
panels and the front edge of the footing.
 In areas that are susceptible for frost, the frost effect can develop from both the top of the
wall as well as the front of the wall. Where significant frost penetration is anticipated, place
the abutment footing on a bed of non-frost susceptible compacted coarse aggregate (e.g., No.
57 as specified in AASHTO M 43). The thickness of the aggregate bed should be minimum
3 ft (1 m) or 1 ft (0.3 m) below deepest anticipated frost penetration depth, whichever is
greater. Separation geotextile should be provided at the interface of No. 57 coarse aggregate
and the surrounding fills (reinforced, retained and above the footing base). Adjoining
sections of the separation geotextile should be overlapped by a minimum of 1 ft (0.3 m).
 For the analysis of the spread footing on top of the reinforced soil zone, use the following
values of bearing resistance of the reinforced soil zone
o For service limit state, bearing resistance = 4 ksf (200 kPa) to limit the vertical
movement to less than approximately 0.5 in. (12.5 mm)
o For strength limit state, factored bearing resistance = 7 ksf (335 kPa)
(Note: AASHTO does not provide a value of factored bearing resistance at strength
limit state and the recommended value is based on the authors’ experience.)
 Use the maximum horizontal force at top reinforcement level below the abutment for the
design of connections of the panels at all reinforcement levels.
 Extend the density, length and cross-section of reinforcements of the abutments to wingwalls,
for a horizontal distance which is greater of the following:
o 50 percent of the maximum height, H, of the abutment wall face.
o cf + bf + 3 ft (1 m) where cf and bf are as shown in Figure 6-2
 There will be 2-way soil reinforcement within the length of reinforcement perpendicular to
the abutment face. It is preferable that reinforcement is not placed on top of each other in the
zone of 2-way reinforcement. The overlapping reinforcement should be separated by 3 to 6
in. (75 to 150 mm) of soil or some multiple of compacted fill height. This may be achieved
by appropriately adjusting the steps of the leveling pad between the abutment face wall and
the wing walls. This practice is especially recommended where a corrosion monitoring
program is implemented in the abutment area (Elias et al., 2009).

 To prevent adverse stress concentrations at the reinforcement connections, the minimum
vertical clearance between the bottom of the bridge support spread footing and the top level
of reinforcement should be 1 ft (0.3 m).
 Due to the relatively high bearing pressures near the panel connections, the adequacy and
nominal capacity of panel connections should be determined by conducting pullout and
flexural tests on full-sized panels.
 The seismic design forces should also include seismic forces transferred from the bridge
though bearing supports which do not slide freely (e.g., elastomeric bearings).
In the LRFD context, the design of a MSEW abutment on spread footing requires careful
separation of various load types. This results in a complex set of inter-related equations which
are best illustrated by a worked example. Example E4 presents a comprehensive step-by-step
illustration of both external and internal stability of a MSEW abutment on spread footing. The
reader should become familiar with Example E5 because the principles and computations used in
the example problem can also be applied to different complex geometries.
6.1.2 MSEW Abutments on Stub Footings Supported by Deep Foundations through

Reinforced Wall Fill
For cases where MSEW abutments on spread footings may not be viable based on considerations
of unacceptable post-construction settlements or other reasons, the bridge superstructure is
placed on stub footings supported by deep foundations such as driven piles or drilled shafts. In
this configuration, vertical loads are not considered in analysis since they are transmitted to an
appropriate bearing stratum by deep foundations. However, the horizontal bridge and abutment
backwall forces must be resisted by methods dependent on the type of abutment support, namely:
 For conventional abutments, the horizontal forces must be resisted by extending soil
reinforcement from the back edge of the abutment footing (cap). The resistance is provided
by the interaction between the soil and reinforcement over the full length of the
reinforcement. A typical detail is shown in Figure 6-3. Alternatively, the horizontal forces
may be resisted by the lateral resistance of the deep foundation or by other means.

Note: All dimensions are in mm [1 in. = 25.4 mm]
Figure 6-3. Details of a typical pile supported MSE abutment.

 For integral abutments, the horizontal forces and its distribution with depth may be
developed using a lateral load (p)-lateral deflection (y), i.e., p-y methods. These horizontal
forces are added as a supplementary force to be resisted by the reinforcements. These forces
will vary depending on the following:
o magnitude of the horizontal loads and moments,
o diameter and spacing of deep foundations, and
o clear distance between the back face of wall panels and front of the deep foundation
elements.
Several agencies have constructed integral abutments in front of MSE walls as discussed in
Section 6.1.3 in order to avoid applying a lateral stress to soil behind the abutment.
Figure 6-4 shows a typical supplemental lateral pressure that must be considered in the internal
stability analysis. This lateral pressure is addressed in a fashion similar to the inverted triangular
lateral pressure distribution shown in Figure E5-2 of Example Problem E5. The effect of the
roadway fill and the live load surcharge above the MSE wall is also addressed in a fashion
similar to that for the same features in Example E5. The balance of the computations remains
identical to those in Chapter 4.
Based on successful experience of the authors with abutment construction of MSE walls with
deep foundations through the reinforced fill, following are suggested additional details, as
applicable:
 Where significant settlement of the embankment is anticipated, provide casings (e.g.,

sonotubes or corrugated metal pipes) in the reinforced soil zone to permit construction of
deep foundations after the MSE wall is constructed and settlement has occurred. In the case
of driven piles it may be possible to isolate the piles from the casings by filling the annulus
with loose sand just prior to construction of the footing at top of the piles. In the case of
drilled shafts it may not be possible to isolate the shaft from the casing in an economical
manner unless another internal casing is used.
 In the case where deep foundations are constructed prior to MSE wall construction, and
negative skin friction, i.e., downdrag force, is anticipated, provide a casing around the deep
foundation element, through the reinforced fill. The casing is filled with sand just prior to the
construction of the footing at top of the deep foundation element. Alternatively, a bond
breaker can be used on the deep foundation element when negative skin friction, i.e.,
downdrag force, is anticipated.

Roadway
Traffic Surcharge
Surface
Bridge Superstructure
qT h Roadway fill above MSE wall
Z
H Reinforced fill Retained
fill
qB
d Foundation soil
Simplified supplemental lateral

Deep foundation extending more
pressure distribution on back of
than 1 time the height of the MSE
wall facing (may have nonlinear
wall below the wall or socketed
distribution with depth based on
into sound rock
actual geometries and loads)
Notes:
 d is the depth of embedment
 H is measured from top of leveling pad to top of coping
 z is measured below finished grade behind footing
 The Kr/Ka and F* values are assumed to start at z = 0, i.e., below the finished grade
behind the footing.
Figure 6-4. Geometry definition and typical supplemental lateral pressure distribution from
deep foundation on MSE wall face.
 In the case where deep foundations are constructed prior to MSE wall construction and/or the
deep foundation element is not isolated from the casing as noted above, the horizontal
stresses as shown in Figure 6-4 must be included in the analysis of MSE wall. If the deep
foundations are constructed through casings and isolated from the casings, the horizontal
stresses may be neglected in the design of the MSE wall. However, it must be realized that
this configuration leads to a longer unsupported length of the deep foundation that may result
in undesirable movements at the bridge seat level in addition to increased size of the deep
foundation element.

 For driven piles extending though the reinforced soil zone, require a minimum offset from
the back face of the wall panels and the front of the driven pile elements as 1.5 ft (0.5 m).
 For drilled shaft extending through the reinforced soil zone, require a minimum offset from
the back face of the wall panels and the front of drilled shaft elements as 3 ft (1 m). This
criterion provides the necessary clear space to achieve proper compaction of the soil in this
area. Thus, for example, if drilled shafts with a maximum dimension of 2 ft (0.61 m) are used
then the minimum clearance is 3 ft (1 m). For walls where reinforcements will be splayed
(e.g., steel strip reinforcements), require a minimum offset from the back face of the wall
panels and the front of deep foundation elements as the greater of 3 ft (1 m) or 1 times the
diameter of the deep foundation. Thus, for example, if a drilled shaft of 4 ft (1.2 m) diameter
is used then the minimum clearance is 4 ft (1.2 m). These criteria provides the necessary
clear space to achieve proper compaction of the soil in this area and adequate distance for
splaying of reinforcements within the acceptable limits noted in Chapter 5.
 Provide soil reinforcements in the soil behind the abutment footing (cap) as shown in Figure
6-3.
Interference between Soil Reinforcements and Deep Foundations

Design of MSE walls with deep foundations needs careful consideration of the interference
between the soil reinforcements and the deep foundation element(s). Where deep foundation
elements interfere with the reinforcements, specific methods for field installation must be
developed and presented on the plans. Simple cutting and then bending of the reinforcements
during construction should not be allowed. Guidance for navigating soil reinforcement
around vertical obstructions is presented in Chapter 5. Soil cover as recommended in Section
5.4.1 of Chapter 5 between dissimilar metals should be implemented as appropriate.
6.1.3 Alternative Configuration of MSE Walls at Bridge Abutments
An alternative to construction of MSEW abutments that use deep foundations through reinforced
backfill is to construct the MSE walls behind abutment foundations that are constructed. In this
configuration, the foundations are not constructed within or on top of reinforced fills. Rather the
MSE walls supports only the approach fills while the abutments are constructed in configuration
of piers. Special details (e.g., bridge approach slabs) are required for this configuration to
integrate the MSE walls with the bridge abutment. The major advantage of this type of abutment
configuration is that the construction of the foundations for the abutments can be performed
independently of the MSE wall construction and that better construction control can be exercised
for MSE walls since there are no obstructions through the reinforced backfill.

Based on successful experience of the authors with construction of an abutment configuration
with MSE wall behind the abutment foundations, following are suggested additional details, as
applicable:
 Require that the bridge superstructure be placed after the construction of the MSE walls so
that most of the possible foundation deformations have occurred.
 Construct the foundations prior to construction of the MSE wall, but construct the abutment
columns after the construction of the MSE wall. In this construction sequence, the
foundation deformation due to the construction of the adjacent MSE wall can be
compensated for by adjusting the connection of the abutment structure rather than running
the risk of abutment structure deforming to the extent that it does not fit with the bridge
superstructure at the beam seat level.
 Consider construction of a false wall in front of the abutment substructure, i.e., the element
between the foundation and the superstructure. This false panel serves to protect the
abutment elements against vehicular impact as well as protecting vehicle occupants. The
false wall may be structurally connected to the abutment substructure or an independent wall
with a separation of 3 to 6 in. (75 mm to 150 mm) with the decision based on the design of
the abutment substructure and its ability to absorb vehicular impacts.
 For integral abutments with a wall supported on deep foundations, a wrapped or wire faced
MSE wall can be constructed behind the abutment wall, using the abutment as and offset
form with a spacer to maintain the distance between the MSEW and the abutment wall as
shown in Figure 6-5.
6.1.4 Protection of MSE Wall at Abutments
At abutment locations, the permeation or water through expansion joints into the MSE wall
results in a number of seepage problems as discussed in Chapter 5 including the potential for
salt-laden runoff, which could result in a chloride rich, corrosive environment near the face panel
connection for a significant percentage of the wall height. To minimize this problem, seepage
should be controlled as shown on Figure 6-6.

Figure 6-5. Example of use of a geosynthetic wrapped face wall behind an integral abutment.
Note: All dimensions are in mm [1 in. = 25.4 mm]
Figure 6-6. Example abutment seat detail.

6.2 SUPERIMPOSED (TIERED) MSE WALLS
For tall walls consideration should be given to superimposed (tiered) walls from the viewpoint of
constructability. Reconfiguring a tall wall in superimposed walls with smaller heights permits a
fresh start with a new leveling pad, reduces vertical stress on facing elements, and permits better
control of vertical alignment of the wall face. Analytically, depending on the offsets between the
superimposed walls, another beneficial effect might be an overall (equivalent) sloped wall face
that results in lesser lateral force on the whole wall system.
6.2.1 2-Tier Superimposed Walls
Figure 6-7 shows a configuration of a 2-tier superimposed MSE wall system. The design of
superimposed MSE walls requires two analyses as follows:
(1) A design using simplified design rules for calculating external stability and locating the
internal failure plane for internal stability as shown in Figure 6-7.
(2) A slope stability analysis, including both compound and global stability using a reinforced
soil global stability computer program outlined in Chapter 4. This is an essential
computation.
The definition of wall heights, H1 and H2, and offset D between walls for a 2-tier superimposed
wall configuration is shown in Figure 6-7. Using the definitions in Figure 6-7, for preliminary
design, the following minimum values for reinforcement length, of L1 and L2, should be used for
offsets (D) greater than [1/20 (H1 + H2)]:
Upper wall: L'1 ≥ 0.7 H1

Lower wall: L'2 ≥ 0.6 H where H = H1 + H2
Based on the definitions in Figure 6-7, following are basic design guidelines:
 Where the offset distance (D) is greater than H2 tan (90-r), walls are not considered
superimposed and are independently designed from an internal stability viewpoint,
 For a small upper wall offset; D ≤ [1/20 (H1 + H2)], it is assumed that the failure surface does
not fundamentally change and it is simply adjusted laterally by the offset distance D. The
walls should be designed as a single wall with a height H.
In both of the above cases, compound and global stability should be checked.

Figure 6-7. Design rules for a 2-tier superimposed MSE wall system.

The stability analysis for a 2-tier superimposed MSE wall system is performed as follows:
 External stability calculations for the upper wall are conventionally performed as outlined in
Chapter 4. For the lower wall, consider the upper wall as a surcharge (Load type “ES”) in
computing bearing pressures. In lieu of a conventional external sliding stability computation,
perform a wedge type slope stability analysis with failure surfaces along and exiting at the
base as well as below the base. The overall stability should be investigated at the Service I
load combination and a sliding resistance factor of 0.65.
 For calculating the internal stability, the maximum tensile force lines are as indicated in
figure 6-7a. These relationships are somewhat empirical and geometrically derived.
 For intermediate offset distances, see Figure 6-7a for the location of the failure surface and
consider the vertical pressures in Figure 6-7b for internal stress calculations.
 For large setback distances, [D ≥ H2 tan (90-r)], the maximum tensile force lines are
considered independently, without regard to the geometry of the two superimposed walls.
For internal stability computations, the upper wall is neglected.
 The balance of the computations remains identical as in Chapter 4.
6.2.2 Superimposed walls with more than 2-tiers
The criteria for 2-tier wall presented in Figure 6-7 can be extended to walls with more than two
tiers. For such configurations, the global and compound stability analysis becomes even more
critical. Methods outlined in Chapter 4 may be used for evaluating the global and compound
stability. For internal stability analysis, Wright (2005) and Leschinsky and Han (2004) found
that the criteria for additional vertical stress in Figure 6-7b may be used for walls with more than
2-tiers provided that only the immediately overlying tier is considered to contribute to the
increase in vertical stress on the lower tier. As an alternative, Wright (2005) presents an elastic
solution based on an assumption of “rigid” walls for estimating additional vertical stresses in a
given tier of a multi-tier wall due to the effect of all overlying wall tiers. Regardless of the
approach used for estimating the increase in vertical stresses for evaluation of internal stability,
the analysis of tiered walls should proceed from the top wall to the bottom wall so that the
stresses are properly accumulated and accounted for in the design of the bottom-most wall. For
preliminary design, the length of the reinforcement of the bottom-most tier can be assumed to be
0.6 times the total height of the wall system.

6.3 MSE WALLS WITH UNEVEN REINFORCEMENT LENGTHS (TRAPEZOIDAL
WALLS)
Use of this type of reinforcement geometry should be considered only if the base of the MSE
structure is in rock or competent foundation material, i.e., foundation materials which will
exhibit minimal post construction settlements. Examples of competent foundation materials
include materials with SPT N60 value greater than 50 and sound rock.
The design of these walls requires two analyses as follows:
1. A design using simplified design rules for determining internal and external stability.
2. A slope stability analysis performed using a reinforced soil stability program checking both
global (i.e., circular and wedge type analysis) and compound failure planes.
Simplified design rules for these structures are as follows:
 As shown in Figure 6-8, the wall is represented by a rectangular block (Lo, H) having the
same total height and the same cross-sectional area as the stepped section for external
stability calculations.
 The maximum tensile force line is the same as in rectangular walls (bilinear or linear
according to the extensibility of the reinforcements).
 Minimum base length (L3) of 0.4H or 8 ft (2.5 m) whichever is greater, with the difference in
length in each zones being less than 0.15 H.
For internal stability calculations, the wall is divided in rectangular sections and for each section
the appropriate L (L1, L2, L3), is used for pullout calculations, using methods developed in
Chapter 4.

L1
L2 H
L3
L0 (0.7 H min)
Figure 6-8. Dimensioning of MSE wall with uneven reinforcement lengths.
6.4 BACK–TO–BACK MSE (BBMSE) WALLS
Back-to-back walls are often used for highway ramps. For walls which are built back-to-back as
shown in Figure 6-9, a modified value of lateral pressure influences the external stability
calculations. As indicated in Figure 6-9, two cases can be considered and are discussed below.
 Case I
For Case I, the overall base width is large enough so that each wall behaves and can be designed
independently. In particular, there is no overlapping of the reinforcements. Theoretically, if the
distance, D, between the two walls is shorter than D = H1 tan (45° - °/2) where H1 is the taller
of the parallel walls, then the active wedges at the back of each wall cannot fully spread out and
the active thrust is reduced. However, for design it is assumed that for values of D > H1 tan (45o
- °/2) ≈ 0.5H1 then full active thrust is mobilized.
 Case II
For Case II, there is an overlapping of the reinforcements such that the two walls interact. When
the overlap, LR, is greater than 0.3H2, where H2 is the shorter of the parallel walls, no active
earth thrust from the backfill needs to be considered for external stability calculations.
For intermediate geometries between Case I and Case II, the active earth thrust may be linearly
interpolated from the full active case to zero.

LR
45°+/2 45°+/2
H2 H1 H2 L1 H1
L2
L2 D L1 Wb
Case I Case II
Figure 6-9. Back–to–back MSE walls.
For Case II geometries with overlaps (LR) greater than 0.3H2, the following guidelines should be
used:
 L1/H1 ≥ 0.6 where L1 and H1 is the length of the reinforcement and height, respectively, of
the taller wall.
 L2/H2 ≥ 0.6 where L2 and H2 is the length of the reinforcement and height, respectively of the
shorter wall.
 Wb/H1 ≥ 1.1 where Wb is the base width as shown in Figure 6-9 and H1 is the height of the
taller wall.
The above guidelines are valid for static load conditions or in areas where the seismic horizontal
accelerations at the foundation level are less than 0.05g. Back-to-back walls in seismically
active areas should be designed based on a more detailed analysis that includes effects of
potential non-uniform distribution of seismic and inertial forces within the wall.
For back-to-back walls designers might be tempted to use single layers of reinforcements that are
connected to both wall facings. This alternative creates an unyielding structure creating an at
rest stress state (Ko) from the top to the bottom of the wall, resulting in much higher
reinforcement tensions than previously used in the design method in this manual. The design
must include the increases in lateral stress in the determination of the tension in reinforcement
and connection and in the design of facing elements. Additionally compaction may induce
higher stress at the connection, which must be accounted for in the lateral earth pressure

calculations. Furthermore, difficulties in maintaining wall alignment could be encountered
during construction, especially when the walls are not in a tangent section. The exception is the
use of geosynthetic wrapped faced walls, where alignment with connections is not an issue.
However, while there is a potential for stress relief due to extensible reinforcements, very few
instrumented structures have been constructed and therefore even in the case of geosynthetic
reinforcements Ko should conservatively be used to calculate the tension in the reinforcements
unless numerical modeling is performed to evaluate the anticipated stress state and
instrumentation is used to confirm the actual stress conditions.
6.5 SHORED MSE WALLS FOR STEEP TERRAINS AND LOW VOLUME ROADS
In steep terrains MSE wall construction necessitate excavation to establish a flat bench to
accommodate the soil reinforcements with a minimum length of greater than 8 ft (2.5 m) or 70%
of the height of the wall. Additionally, the required depths of embedment are proportional to the
steepness of the slope below the wall toe. In some cases, the excavation required for
construction of a MSE wall becomes substantial, and unshored excavation for the MSE wall is
not practical, particularly if traffic must be maintained during construction of the MSE wall.
Shoring, most often in the form of soil nail walls, has been employed to stabilize the backslope
(or back-cut), with a MSE walls being designed and constructed in front of it. Figure 6-10 shows
a generic cross-section of this configuration. In this configuration, if the shoring wall is designed
as a permanent wall it can significantly reduce the long-term lateral pressures on the MSE wall.
Such MSE wall configuration is known as a shored MSE or SMSE wall. Details of SMSE walls
systems are presented in FHWA-CFL/TD-06-001 (Morrison et al., 2006).
(Morrison et al., 2006).

For successful implementation of the SMSE walls, the following guidelines should be
implemented. These guidelines are valid for static load conditions or in areas where the seismic
horizontal accelerations at the foundation level are less than 0.05g. SMSE walls in seismically
active areas should be designed based on a more detailed analysis that includes effects of
potential non-uniform distribution of seismic and inertial forces within the wall system (both the
MSE and the shoring components). Finally, it should be recognized that these walls were
developed for low volume roads in mountains and are not recommended in urban areas for
roadway widening applications because of the relatively high risk for tension cracks under
dynamic effects of traffic at the interface between an existing wall and new MSE wall.
 The shoring wall should be designed as a permanent wall whose design life is equal to or
greater than that for the MSE wall. For design of shoring systems using ground anchors and
soil nail walls, see Sabatini et al. (1999) and Lazarte et al., (2003), respectively.
 Ensure that the drainage features of the MSE wall system and the permanent shoring wall
behind it are integrated so that there are no lateral pressures due to hydrostatic conditions in
either wall. Note, as discussed in Chapter 5, thin vertical drains behind the face of the soil
nail wall do not necessarily fully relieve hydrostatic stress. Thus, some level of hydrostatic
stress based on flow net analysis should be included in the design or horizontal drains and
should be considered in the design of SMSE walls.
 Figure 6-11 presents the minimum recommended geometry of a SMSE system. The
minimum length of the reinforcement is 0.3H or 5 ft (1.5 m) whichever is greater. Where
adequate construction space is available (or can be made temporarily available with
permanent underground easement), it is recommended that the upper two layers of
reinforcement are extended to a minimum length of 0.6H or a minimum of 5 ft (1.5 m)
beyond the shoring wall interface, whichever is greater, as illustrated in Figure 6-11a. This
feature limits the potential for tension cracks to develop at the shoring/MSE wall interface,
and resists lateral loading effects. Extension of the upper two layers is intended to result in a
wall cross-section as depicted in Figure 6-11a, where the height of the shoring wall is at least
2/3 of the MSE wall height, H. These guidelines should only be applied to wall designs that
meet this constraint over the majority of their length. Walls with short shoring walls, i.e.,
heights less than 2/3H over most of their length are outside the scope of these guidelines. It
should be noted that near the ends of the retaining wall the height usually tapers, and the
shoring wall height may be less than 2/3 of the MSE height for a short distance. However,
application of these guidelines will result in MSE reinforcements not less than 10 ft (3 m)
long at the top of the MSE wall (5 ft (1.5 m) minimum plus 5 ft (1.5 m) minimum).

(a) Lb = Greater of 0.3H or 5 ft 1 m = 3.28 ft
(b) Lb = Greater of 0.3H or 5 ft
Figure 6-11. Minimum recommended geometry of a shored MSE wall system in steep terrains,
(a) with extension of upper two rows of reinforcement, and (b) with the upper two
rows connected to the shoring wall (Morrison et al., 2006).

 Where the shoring wall is less than 2/3 of the height of the MSE wall, as may occur as the
wall ends taper, the engineer should check to assure that reinforcement lengths in the upper
part of the MSE mass is greater than the conventional 0.7H as discussed in Chapter 4.
Generally, this will be satisfied, as long as the total retaining wall height in such sections is
less than about 14 ft (4 m).
 If extension of the upper reinforcements is not feasible, a positive mechanical connection

between the upper two or more reinforcements and the shoring wall is recommended as
shown in Figure 6-11b. Incorporation of interface connections may limit differential
movement between the shoring wall and MSE wall components, as a result limiting
development of a tension crack, especially if the slack in the MSE reinforcements can be
effectively removed. This could potentially be accomplished through the fastening
mechanism or by surcharge loading. Extension of the upper MSE reinforcements is
considered superior to mechanical connection of the reinforcements and is
recommended by the authors.
 The critical failure surfaces for SMSE walls with extensible and inextensible reinforcements
are presented in Figure 6-12. The critical failure surface is approximated using Rankine’s
active earth pressure theory within the reinforced soil mass, assuming that the remaining
portion lies along the shoring/MSE interface. The critical failure surfaces are consistent with
those presented in Chapter 4 (except pullout calculations). Design for internal stability
conservatively neglects the additional retaining benefits provided by longer upper
reinforcement layers shown in Figure 6-10a or the resistance from connections shown in
Figure 6-11b.
 For SMSE walls, lateral pressures are essentially the result of reaction of reinforced soil mass
against the shoring wall, and are thus internal to the MSE mass. At each reinforcement level,
the horizontal stress, h, along the potential failure line is computed using exactly the
procedures in Chapter 4. If superimposed concentrated vertical loads are present then the
increment of vertical stress (v) maybe computed by a modified version of the 2:1 method
as shown in Figure 6-13.

(a) (b)
Figure 6-12. Location of potential failure surface for internal stability design of shored MSE walls
(a) extensible reinforcements, (b) inextensible reinforcements (Morrison et al., 2006).
Notes:
1. The measurement of x may be from either the face of the MSE wall or the shoring wall, depending on
the location of the load footing and the slopes of the various walls.
2. The figure is applicable to MSE walls constructed without a batter, and where the load footing does
not straddle the shoring wall. When wall batters are employed, as is generally recommended, the
vertical stresses can be estimated by geometrically calculating D1 at each reinforcement depth. In the
case where the footing straddles the shoring wall, D1 is always greater than z2, as defined in the figure.
stability calculations (Morrison et al., 2006).

 Internal design differs from design of a conventional MSE wall with regard to pullout of the
reinforcements. Conventional MSE design requires that each layer of reinforcement resist
pullout by extending beyond the estimated failure surface as indicated in Chapter 4. In the
case of a SMSE wall system, only the lower reinforcement layers (i.e., those that extend into
the resistant zone) are designed to resist pullout for the entire “active” MSE mass. The
relevant equations of TMAX and pullout resistance are given in Figure 6-14. The tensile
resistance of the reinforcement as well as the connection strength is evaluated in accordance
with the procedures in Chapter 4.
 External stability design of the MSE component of a SMSE wall should address bearing
capacity and settlement of foundation materials based strength limit state and service limit
state considerations. Limiting eccentricity (i.e., overturning) and sliding are not included as
failure mechanisms due to stabilization provided by the shoring wall. Hydrostatic forces are
eliminated by incorporating internal drainage into the design. Procedures for evaluating
bearing capacity and settlement analysis are the same as those in Chapter 4.
 As part of the design of the individual MSE wall and shoring components, stability internal
to these individual components will have been achieved. However, a global stability
evaluation of the SMSE wall system as a compound structure must also be evaluated.
Various failure modes are shown in Figure 6-15. Although, all failure five failure modes
shown in Figure 6-15 must be evaluated, the most critical failure mechanisms are along the
shoring/MSE interface (Mode 4 in Figure 6-15) and global stability external to the SMSE
wall system must be evaluated (Mode 1 in Figure 6-15). Morrison et al. (2006) present
suggestions for global stability analyses and measures to improve stability. Stability analyses
for the SMSE wall system should use conventional (i.e., ASD) limit equilibrium analysis
methods. As with any earth stability evaluation, selection of appropriate material parameters
is of utmost importance in obtaining a realistic evaluation. In addition, the compound nature
of the SMSE wall system requires defining other factors such as drainage issues which affect
its behavior.

Case 1: For LW < H tan
  Lw  
L w    H    q   FV
  2 tan   
Tmax   FH
tan    
Case 2: For LW = 0.3H
  3H  
3H    H    q   FV
  20 tan   
Tmax   FH
10 tan    
Case 3: For LW ≥ H tan
H tan H  2q   2 FV
Tmax   FH
2 tan    
Notes:
1. The loads FV, FH and W should be multiplied by the appropriate load factors when evaluating
the strength and service limit state load combinations.
2. The pullout resistance of the MSE wall component of a SMSE wall system is considered
adequate if TMAX ≤ pFpo where Fpo is the summation of the pullout resistances from all
layers of reinforcement based on the length of the reinforcement beyond the active zone and
p is the resistance factor as follows:
a. p = 0.90 for L/H > 0.4
b. p = 0.65 for L/H ≤ 0.4
Figure 6-14. Computation for TMAX and evaluation of pullout resistance (after Morrison et al.,
2006).

Figure 6-15. Example global stability and compound failure surfaces (Morrison et al., 2006).
6.6 STABLE FEATURE MSE (SFMSE) WALLS
MSE walls can be considered in front of apparently stable features such as a rock face as shown
in Figure 6-16. Depending on the space between the MSE wall face and the stable feature, the
behavior of the SFMSE wall may be similar to that of a SMSE wall. Following are some
guidelines for such cases:
 Establish that the feature behind the proposed SFMSE wall line is stable and will be stable
during the design life of the SFMSE wall. The feature should be stabilized to the extent
necessary to be compatible with the design life of the SFMSE wall that is being proposed at
that particular location.
 Evaluate the deformation and strength behavior of the feature (rock face or existing wall)
under additional stresses behind it. Hydrostatic pressure and or other lateral pressures may
contribute to the instability of a rock cut in front of which a SFMSE wall is being proposed.
The stability analysis should include an evaluation of potential lateral movements under
anticipated additional loadings on the existing feature.

 Perform a deformation analysis of the foundation under the SFMSE wall and evaluate the
effect of the estimated deformations on the facilities above the top of the wall and in
particular at and immediately above the interface between the existing feature and the
SFMSE wall.
 Evaluate the effect of the increased stresses at the base of the MSE wall on the settlement of
the existing feature. If the existing feature is a retaining wall then it might experience
detrimental settlement in the immediate and long-term as well as downdrag forces at the
interface between the MSE wall and the existing feature.
 Ensure that the drainage features of the SFMSE wall system and the stable feature behind it
are integrated so that there are no lateral pressures due to hydrostatic conditions.
 For SFMSE wall systems, the configuration in Figure 6-16 is recommended wherein at least
the top two reinforcements are extended over the top of the stable feature rather than being
mechanically connected to the stable feature. For roadway widening projects where the
stable feature may be an existing wall, it is recommended that the top of the wall be trimmed
as necessary to accommodate the top layers of reinforcements and mitigate long-term
maintenance issues.
 Extend all soil reinforcement layers above the top of the stable feature a distance back of Lt,
per Figure 6-15, with a minimum of two layers as previously noted.
 Establish the reinforcement layout based on the TMAX values obtained using the guidance
provided in Figure 6-14 and other guidance provided in Section 6.5. The minimum clearance
between the top of the stable feature and the reinforcement layer above it should be 6 in. (150
mm) to prevent adverse stress concentrations in this area and contact between dissimilar
materials.
 Global stability analysis should be performed as the MSE wall will increase driving forces.
Global analysis is especially needed where structures are constructed with a slope at the toe
or on soft ground. All failure modes similar to those shown in Figure 6-15 should be
evaluated.
The above guidelines are valid for static load conditions or in areas where the seismic horizontal
accelerations at the foundation level are less than 0.05g. SFMSE walls in seismically active
areas should be designed based on a more detailed analysis that includes effects of potential non-
uniform distribution of seismic and inertial forces within the wall system (both the MSE and the
stable feature components). Finally, these types of walls are not recommended in urban areas for
cases such as roadway widening because of the relatively high risk for tension cracks under
dynamic effects of traffic at the interface between the existing feature such as a wall and new
MSE wall.
Lt
3 ft min
6.5 ft min
H
Stable Feature
(rock face)
Lb
MSE Reinforcement
1 m = 3.28 ft Lt = 0.8 H min; Lb = Greater of 0.3H or 5 ft
Figure 6-16. Minimum recommended geometry of a stable feature MSE (SFMSE) wall system.

CHAPTER 7
DESIGN OF MSE WALLS FOR EXTREME EVENTS
As per AASHTO (2007) an extreme event is one whose recurrence interval can be thought to
exceed design life. AASHTO (2007) has two limit states to deal with such events. These limit
states are labeled Extreme Event I and Extreme Event II. In the context of MSE walls, the
extreme events with the applicable limit state shown in parentheses that require consideration in
the design process are as follows:
 Seismic events (Extreme Event I
 Vehicular impact events (Extreme Event II)
 Superflood events and scour (Extreme Event II)
This chapter addresses each of the above extreme events along with a review of the applicable
limit state, i.e., Extreme Event I or Extreme Event II.
7.1 SEISMIC EVENTS
Seismic events are analyzed under Extreme Event I limit state as per AASHTO (20071). Seismic
events tend to affect both external and internal stability of MSE walls. Guidance for seismic
analysis presented in this section is based on Anderson et al. (2008) and Kavazanjian (2009) and
represents updated procedures to those in AASHTO (2007).
7.1.1 External Stability
The external stability uses a displacement based approach. The recommended design methodology
is presented in the following steps.
Step 1 Establish an initial wall design based on static loading using information in Chapters 4, 5
and 6.
Step 2 Establish the seismic hazard using Article 3.10.2 of AASHTO (2007). Using the 1,000-
yr return period seismic hazard maps in AASHTO (2007), estimate the following site-
specific values:
 The site peak ground acceleration (PGA), and
 Spectral acceleration at 1-second, S1
1
AASHTO 4th Edition 2007 including 2008 and 2009 Interims. 2008 Interims contain significant seismic revisions.
FHWA NHI-10-024 7 – Extreme Events

Step 3 For the project under consideration, establish the Site Effects in accordance with Article
3.10.3 of AASHTO (2007). This includes the determination of Site Class as per Article
3.10.3.1 of AASHTO (2007) and Site Factors, Fpga and Fv from Tables 3.10.3.2-1 and
3.10.3.2-3, respectively, of AASHTO (2007). The procedure described herein is
applicable to Site Classes A, B, C, D and E. For all sites in Site Class F, site-specific
geotechnical investigations and dynamic site response analysis should be performed.
Step 4 Determine the maximum accelerations, kmax, and peak ground velocity (PGV) as follows:
kmax = Fpga (PGA) (7-1)
PGV (in/sec) = 38FvS1 (7-2)
where Fpga and Fv are site factors determined in Step 3 and PGA and S1 are site peak
ground acceleration and spectral acceleration at the 1-second period, respectively, as
obtained in Step 2.
Step 5 Using a wall height dependent reduction factor, , obtain an average peak ground
acceleration, kav, within the reinforced soil zone as follows:
kav = kmax (7-3)
where the value of  is based on the Site Class of the foundation soils as follows:
 For Site Class C, D and E (i.e., soils)
 F S  
α  1  0.01H 0.5 v 1   1 (7-4)
  k max  
where H is the wall height in feet at the wall face as shown in Figure 7-1.
 For Site Class A and B foundation conditions (i.e., hard and soft rock), the values of
 determined by Equation 7-4 should be increased by 20 percent.
For practical purposes, walls less than approximately 20 ft in height and on very firm
ground conditions (i.e., Site Class B or C), kav ≈ kmax. For wall heights greater than 100
ft, site-specific geotechnical investigations and dynamic site response analysis should be
performed.

Ground Surface
Surface Loads
h
H
h/2
tan I (0.5H )
h H ; where I is the backfill slope angle
1  0.5 tan I 
h/2 is measured from back of wall facing
Figure 7-1. Definition of heights for seismic analyses.
Step 6 Determine the total (static + dynamic) thrust PAE using one of the following two
methods:
Method 1: Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) formulation
PAE  0.5 K AE  γ b h 2 (7-5)
where h is the wall height along the vertical plane within the reinforced soil mass as
shown in Figure 7-1, b is the unit weight of the retained fill and KAE is obtained as
follows:
cos 2 ('b    90  )
K AE 
2
 sin('b  ) sin('b    I )  (7-6)
2  
cos  cos (90  ) cos(  90    ) 1 
 cos(  90    ) cosI  90   
 
where,

 k 
  tan 1  h  with kh = horizontal seismic coefficient and kv = vertical seismic
 1 k v 
coefficient
 = angle of wall friction = lesser of the angle of friction for the reinforced soil mass
('r) and the retained backfill ('b)
I = the backfill slope angle = β (see Figure 4-3) {Note: use GLE for broken back
slopes, see Comment 2 below}
'b = angle of internal friction for retained backfill
 = the slope angle of the face (see Figure 4-5 in Chapter 4)
To use the Mononobe-Okabe formulation, two seismic coefficient, kh and kv, must be
defined. It is assumed that these coefficients are applied simultaneously and uniformly
to all parts of the structure, i.e., to the reinforced and retained fill. Typically, the vertical
seismic coefficient, kv, is assumed to be zero. The horizontal seismic coefficient, kh is
taken to be equal to kmax determined in Step 2.
The total thrust, PAE, calculated as per Equation 7-5 is assumed to act at h/2, i.e., mid-
height of the vertical plane of height h shown in Figure 7-1. Therefore, the stress due to
thrust PAE is assumed to be distributed uniformly over the height h.
Comments on use of M-O formulation:

1. For backfills that are sloped at 3H:1V or steeper, it may not be possible to obtain a
solution for a certain combination of variables in the M-O formulation. This is
because the term sin( –  – I) in Equation 7-6 may become negative and represents
a limiting condition since at I =  –  an unstable slope condition occurs (i.e., FS=1
wherein the failure surface coincides with the slope surface. As the limiting
condition is approached the earth pressures based on M-O formulation become
unrealistically large.
2. M-O formulation is strictly applicable to homogeneous cohesionless soils and may

not yield realistic solutions for more complex cases involving (a) soils which derive
their shear strength from both cohesion and friction, i.e., c- soils, (b) non-uniform
backslope profiles, and (c) complex surface loadings.
For the cases where M-O formulation leads to unrealistic results, it is recommended that
numerical procedures using the same principles of M-O formulation may be used, such
as the well-known graphical Culmann method or Coulomb’s trial wedge method.
However, the more versatile approach for such cases is to utilize the conventional slope
stability programs as described in Method 2.

Method 2: Generalized Limit Equilibrium (GLE) slope stability
a. Define the wall geometry, nominal surface loadings (i.e., loadings with load factor =
1.0), groundwater profile, and design soil properties. The plane where the earth
pressure needs to be calculated should be modeled as a free boundary. This
boundary is a vertical plane located at a distance of h/2 from the back of the wall
facing as shown in Figure 7-2.
b. Choose an appropriate slope stability analysis method. Spencer’s method generally

yields good results because it satisfies the equilibrium of forces and moments.
c. Choose an appropriate sliding surface search scheme, e.g., circular, linear, bi-linear,
block, etc.
d. For seismic analysis, use kh = kav and kv = 0.
e. Apply the earth pressure as a boundary force, PAE, on the face of vertical plane of
height h as shown in Figure 7-2. The angle of the applied force with respect to
horizontal depends on assumed friction angle between the wall and soil which is
lesser of the angle of friction for the reinforced soil mass ('r) and the retained
backfill ('b). Different application points between h/3 and 2h/3 from the base need
to be examined to determine the maximum value of PAE. Change the magnitude of
the applied load until a capacity:demand ratio (CDR) of 1.0 is obtained i.e., the load
and the resistance are balanced. Thus, the force corresponding to a CDR of 1.0 is
equal to the total thrust on the retaining structure.
f. Verify design assumptions and material properties by examining the loads on

individual slices in the output.
g. Once the maximum value of total thrust, PAE, is determined, apply the force at mid
height (h/2) as shown in Figure 7-2 for analysis in following steps.
Step 7. Determine the horizontal inertial force, PIR, of the total reinforced wall mass as follows:
PIR = 0.5(kav)(W) (7-7)
where W is the weight of the full reinforced soil mass and any overlying permanent
slopes and/or permanent surcharges within the limits of the reinforced soil mass. The
inertial force is assumed to act at the centroid of the mass used to determine the weight
W.

Plane for calculating Ground Surface
earth pressure Surface Loads
Typical
Slice
h PAE
H Appropriate
h/2 potential slide
surface (circular,
non-circular, etc.)
h/2
Figure 7-2. Use of a slope stability approach to compute seismic earth pressure.
Step 8 Check the sliding stability using a resistance factor, , equal to 1.0 and the full, nominal
weight of the reinforced zone and any overlying permament sucharges. If the sliding
stability is met, the design is satisfactory and go to Step 11. If not, go to Step 9.
Compute the total horizontal force, THF, is as follows:
 For M-O method:

THF = Horizontal component of PAE(cos  + PIR + EQ(qLS)KAEH + other horizontal
nominal forces due to surcharges (with load factor =1.0)
where, EQ is the load factor for live load in Extreme Event I limit state and qLL is the
intensity of the live load surcharge.
 For GLE method:

THF = Horizontal component of PAE (since all surcharges are included in the slope
stability analysis) + PIR
Compute the sliding resistance, R, as follows:
R = V (

where  is the minimum of tan'r, tan'f or (for continuous reinforcement) tan as
discussed in Section 4.5.6.a and V is the summation of the vertical forces as follows:

V = W + PAEsin + permanent nominal surcharge loads within the limits of the
reinforced soil mass
The sliding stability capacity to demand ratio (CDR) is calculated as follows:
CDRsliding = R / THF
If CDRsliding > 1, the design is satisfactory and go to Step 11 otherwise go to Step 9.
Step 9 Determine the wall yield seismic coefficient, ky, where wall sliding is initiated. This
coefficient is obtained by iterative analysis as follows:
a. Determine values of PAE as a function of the seismic coefficient k (< kmax) as shown
in Figure 7-3a.
b. Determine horizontal driving and resisting forces as a function of k (using

spreadsheet calculations) and plot as a function of k as shown in Figure 7-3b. The
value of ky corresponds to the point where the two forces are equal, i.e., the CDR
against sliding equals 1.0.
Driving
PAE
Force Resisting
Horizontal Force
Force
k k
ky
Figure 7-3. Procedure for determination of ky (Anderson et al., 2008).

Step 10 Determine the wall sliding displacement, d, in inches based on the following
relationships between d, ky/kmax, kmax, and PGV based on whether the site is located in
Western United States (WUS) or Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) as per
Figure 7-4:
 For WUS soil and rock sites and CEUS soil sites
log(d) = -1.51 – 0.74log(ky/kmax) + 3.27log(1- ky/kmax) –
(7-8)
0.80log(kmax) + 1.59log(PGV)
 For CEUS rock sites

log(d) = -1.31 – 0.93log(ky/kmax) + 4.52log(1- ky/kmax) –
(7-9)
0.46 log(kmax) + 1.12log(PGV)
Figure 7-4. Boundary between WUS and CEUS (Anderson et al. 2008).
Step 11 Evaluate the limiting eccentricity and bearing resistance using the same principles
discussed in Chapter 4. Include all applicable loads for Extreme Event I. If M-O
method is used then add other applicable forces to PAE. If GLE method is used then no
additional forces need to be added to PAE since the slope stability analysis includes all
applicable forces. Check the limit states using the following criteria:

1. For limiting eccentricity, for foundations on soil and rock, the location of the
resultant of the applicable forces should be within the middle two-thirds of the wall
base for EQ = 0.0 and within the middle eight-tenths of the wall base for EQ = 1.0.
Interpolate linearly between these values as appropriate.
2. For bearing resistance compare the effective uniform bearing pressure to the
nominal bearing resistance that is based on the full width of the reinforced zone. A
resistance factor of 1.0 is used per Article 10.5.5.3.3 (AASHTO, 2007).
Step 12 If Step 11 criteria are not met, adjust the wall geometry and repeat Steps 6 to 11 as
needed.
Step 13 If Step 11 criteria are met, assess acceptability of sliding displacement, d. The amount of
displacement which is tolerable will depend on the nature of the wall and what it
supports, as well as what is in front of the wall. Typical practice is to limit the lateral
displacement in the range of 2.0 in. (50 mm) to 4.0 in (100 mm) assuming that structures
on top or at toe of the wall can tolerate such displacements.
7.1.2 Internal Stability
For internal stability, the active wedge is assumed to develop an internal dynamic force, Pi, that is
equal to the product of the mass in the active zone and the wall height dependent average seismic
coefficient, kav. Thus, Pi is expressed as follows:
Pi = kav Wa (7-10)
where Wa is the soil weight of the active zone as shown by shaded area in Figure 7-5 and kav given
by Equation 7-3. The force Pi is assumed to act as shown in Figure 7-5. If the weight of the facing
is significant then include it in Wa computation.
The supplementary inertial force, Pi, will lead to dynamic increases in the maximum tensile forces
in the reinforcements. Reinforcements should be designed to withstand horizontal forces generated
by the internal inertia force, Pi, in addition to the static forces. During the internal stability
evaluation, it is assumed that the location and the maximum tensile force lines do not change during
seismic loading.

Figure 7-5. Seismic internal stability of a MSE wall.
The inertial force is distributed to the reinforcements equally as follows:
P
Tmd  i (7-11)
n
where:
Tmd = factored incremental dynamic intertia force at layer i
Pi = internal inertia force due to the weight of backfill within the active zone, i.e., the
shaded area in Figure 7-5
n = number of soil reinforcement layers within the reinforced soil zone,
The load factor for seismic forces is equal to 1.0. Therefore, the total factored load applied to the
reinforcement on a load per unit of wall width basis is determined as follows:
Ttotal  Tmax  Tmd (7-12)
where Tmax is the factored static load applied to the reinforcements determined using the appropriate
equations in Chapters 4 and 6. The reinforcement must be designed to resist the dynamic
component of the load at any time during its design life. This includes consideration of both tensile
and pullout failures as discussed next.

7.1.2.a Tensile Failure
Design for static loads requires the strength of the reinforcement at the end of the design life to be
reduced to account for corrosion for metallic reinforcement, and for creep and other degradation
mechanisms for geosynthetic reinforcements. The adjustment for metallic corrosion losses are
exactly the same described in Chapter 4 for static analysis. For metallic reinforcements, use the
following resistance factors while evaluating tensile failure under combined static and earthquake
loading (per Table 11.5.6-1 of AASHTO {2007}):
 Strip reinforcements: 1.00

 Grid reinforcements: 0.85
In contrast, the procedures for geosynthetic do not require a creep reduction for the short duration
seismic loading condition and only reductions for geosynthetic degradation losses are required.
Strength loss in geosynthetics due to creep requires long-term, sustained loading. The dynamic
component of load for seismic design is a transient load and does not cause strength loss due to
creep. Therefore, the resistance of the reinforcement to the static component of load, Tmax, must be
handled separately from the dynamic component of load, Tmd. The strength required to resist Tmax
must include the effects of creep, but the strength required to resist Tmd should not include the
effects of creep. Thus, for geosynthetic reinforcement rupture, the reinforcement is designed to
resist the static and dynamic components of the load determined as follows:
For the static component:
T RF
S rs  max (7-13)
Rc
For the dynamic component:
T RF RF
S rt  md ID D (7-14)
Rc
where:
 = resistance factor for combined static/earthquake loading = 1.20 from Table 11.5.6-1 of
AASHTO (2007)
Srs = ultimate reinforcement tensile resistance required to resist static load component
Srt = ultimate reinforcement tensile resistance required to resist dynamic load component
Rc = reinforcement coverage ratio

RF = combined strength reduction factor to account for potential long-term degradation
due to installation damage, creep, and chemical aging, equal to RFCR x RFID x RFD
(see Chapter 3)
RFID = strength reduction factor to account for installation damage to reinforcement
RFD = strength reduction factor to prevent rupture of reinforcement due to chemical and
biological degradation
Using the above equations, the required ultimate tensile resistance of the geosynthetic reinforcement
is determined as follows:
Tult = Srs + Srt (7-15)
7.1.2.b Pullout Failure
For pullout of steel or geosynthetic reinforcement, the following equation is used:
Ttotal
Le  (7-16)
 (0.8F * ασ v CR c )
where:
Le = length of reinforcement in resisting zone
Ttotal = maximum factored reinforcement tension from Equation 7-12
 = resistance factor for reinforcement pullout = 1.20 from Table 11.5.6-1 of AASHTO
(2007)
F* = pullout friction factor
α = scale effect correction factor
σv = unfactored vertical stress at the reinforcement level in the resistant zone
C = overall reinforcement surface area geometry factor
For seismic loading conditions, the value of F*, the pullout resistance factor, is reduced to 80
percent of the value used for static design, unless dynamic pullout tests are performed to directly
determine the F* value.
7.1.3 Facing Reinforcement Connections
Facing elements are designed to resist the total (static + seismic) factored load, i.e., Ttotal. Facing
elements should be designed in accordance with applicable provisions of Sections, 5, 6, and 8 of
AASHTO (2007) for reinforced concrete, steel, and timber, respectively.

For segmental concrete block faced walls, the blocks located above the uppermost reinforcement
layer should be designed to resist toppling failure during seismic loading.
For geosynthetic connections subjected to seismic loading, the factored long-term connection
strength, Tac, must be greater than Ttotal (i.e., Tmax + Tmd). If the connection strength is partially or
fully dependent on friction between the facing blocks and the reinforcement (e.g., MBW facing), the
connection strength to resist seismic loads should be reduced to 80 percent of its static value as
follows:
For the static component of the load:
Tmax RFD
S rs  (7-17)
0.8  ( CR cr ) R c
For the dynamic component of the load:
Tmd RFD
S rt  (7-18)
0.8  (CR u ) R c
where:
Srs = ultimate reinforcement tensile resistance required to resist static load component
Tmax = applied load to reinforcement
RFD = reduction factor to prevent rupture of reinforcement due to chemical and biological
degradation from Chapter 3
 = resistance factor = 1.20 applied to both the static and the dynamic components, from
Table 11.5.6.4-1 of AASHTO (2007)
CRcr = long-term connection strength reduction factor to account for reduced ultimate
strength resulting from connection
Srt = ultimate reinforcement tensile resistance required to resist dynamic load component
Tmd = factored incremental dynamic inertia force
CRu = short-term reduction factor to account for reduced ultimate strength resulting from
connection.
For mechanical connections that do not rely on a frictional component, the 0.8 multiplier is removed
from Equations 7-17 and 7-18.

The required ultimate tensile resistance of the geosynthetic reinforcement at the connection is:
Tult-conn = Srs + Srt (7-19)
The connection capacity of a facing/reinforcement connection system that is fully dependent on the
shear resisting devices for the connection capacity will not be significantly influenced by the normal
stress between facing blocks. The percentage of connection load carried by the shear resisting
devices relative to the frictional resistance to meet the specification requirements should be
determined based on past successful performance of the connection system.
For cases where seismic analysis is required as per Section 4 of AASHTO, facing connections in
MBW unit faced walls should use shear resisting devices between the facing blocks and soil
reinforcement such as shear keys and structural pins (i.e., pins manufactured from material meeting
the design life of the structure, e.g., steel and HDPE) and should not be fully dependent on frictional
resistance between the soil reinforcement and facing blocks.
For steel reinforcement connections, AASHTO (2007) recommends that the resistance factors for
combined static and seismic loads as follows:
 Strip reinforcements: 1.00

 Grid reinforcements: 0.85
7.2 VEHICULAR IMPACT EVENTS
Traffic railing impact loads are analyzed under Extreme Event II limit state as per Article A13.2
(AASHTO, 2007). Traffic railing impact events tend to affect only the internal stability of MSE
walls. Guidance for traffic barrier analysis presented in this section is based on NCHRP 22-20
(Bligh et al., 2009), which is an extension of the previous FHWA (Elias et al., 2001) method based
on laboratory and full-scale field tests. Guidance for post and beam railings is based upon
AASHTO (2007).
7.2.1 Traffic Barriers

The impact traffic load on barriers constructed over the front face of MSE walls, must be
designed to resist the overturning moment by their own mass per Article 11.10.10.2 (AASHTO,
2007).

Static Impact Load
The recommended static impact force is 10,000 lb (45 kN) applied on a barrier with a minimum
height of 32 in. (810 mm) above the roadway. Bligh et al. (2009) found that a 10,000 lbs (45
kN) static impact load is equivalent to a dynamic TL-4 railing test level of 54,000 lb (240 kN), as
illustrated in Figure 7-6.
The wall design should ensure that the reinforcement does not rupture or pullout during the
impact event. Where the impact barrier moment slab is cast integrally with a concrete pavement,
the additional force may be neglected. The recommended static impact forces for rupture and for
pullout are based upon the recent NCHRP 22-20 project (Bligh et al., 2009) and past practice.
Load Combination and Load Factors

The load factors and load combination for an Extreme Event II are summarized in Table 4-1. A
load factor, P-EV = 1.35 is used for the static soil load. The traffic surcharge, modeled as an
equivalent soil height of 2 ft, also uses the load factor P-EV = 1.35 (and not  = 0.50), for internal
stability analysis. The static equivalent impact loads are multiplied by a load factor, CT =1.00.
Figure 7-6. Comparison of static and dynamic impact force with 1-inch (25 mm) maximum
displacement (Bligh et al., 2009). (1 kip = 4.44 kN; 1 ft = 0.3 m)

Reinforcement Rupture
The static impact force, adds an additional horizontal force to the upper 2 layers of soil
reinforcement. It is recommended that the upper layer of soil reinforcement be designed for a
rupture impact load equivalent to a static load of 2,300 lb/lft (33.5 kN/m) of wall; and the second
layer be designed with a rupture impact load equivalent to a static load of 600 lb/lft (8.8 kN/m).
A distribution of stresses, as discussed in Article 11.101.10.2 and illustrated in Figure 3.11.6.3-2
(AASHTO, 2007), is not recommended.
The load factor for impact is equal to 1.0. Therefore, the total factored load applied to the
reinforcement on a load per unit of wall width basis is determined as follows:
Ttotal  Tmax  TI (7-20a)
where:
TI = factored impact load at layer 1 or 2, respectively
TMAX = reinforcement tension from static earth and traffic loads
With terms defined, this equation is:
Ttotal  S V K r γ r [(Z  h eq ) γ EV -MAX ]  t i (γ CT ) (7-20b)
where:
ti = equivalent static load for impact load at layer i, (t1 = 2,300 lb/lft and t2 = 600 lb/lft)
and other terms as previously defined (Chapter 4 and/or 7).
An example calculation is presented in Appendix E.6. Note that for geosynthetic reinforcements,
the nominal strength used to structurally size the reinforcements to resist the impact load is not
increased by eliminating the reduction factor for creep, as was done for internal seismic design in
Section 7.2.1. This is recommended because full-scale traffic barrier impact testing with
geosynthetic soil reinforcement has not been performed to date.
Reinforcement Pullout
The pullout resistance of the soil reinforcement to the impact load is resisted over the full-length
of the reinforcements (i.e., L). The traffic surcharge, modeled as an equivalent soil height of 2 ft,
is included in the nominal vertical stress, v, for pullout resistance calculation. Pullout is resisted
over a greater length of wall than the reinforcement rupture loads. Therefore, for pullout, it is
recommended that the upper layer of soil reinforcement be designed for a pullout impact load

equivalent to a static load of 1,300 lb/lft (19.0 kN/m) of wall; and the second layer be designed
with a pullout impact load equivalent to a static load of 600 lb/lft (8.8 kN/m).
Resistance Factors for Tensile and Pullout Resistance

The resistance factors presented in Table 4-7 for “Combined static/traffic barrier impact” are
recommended for Extreme Event II impact loading. (Note that AASHTO does not specifically
address tensile resistance factors for impact loading.) The tensile and connection rupture
resistance factors are a function of the type of reinforcement.
A pullout resistance factor of 1.00 is recommended for metallic and geosynthetic reinforcements.
(Note that AASHTO does not specifically address pullout resistance factors for impact loading.)
Barrier, Coping, and Moment Slab Design

Example traffic barriers are illustrated in Figure 5-2. Typically, the base slab length is 20 ft (6
m) and jointed to adjacent slabs with shear dowels. Parapet reinforcement shall be designed in
accordance with AASHTO Section 13 Railings. See NCHRP 22-20 report (Bligh et al., 2009)
for barrier, coping, and moment loading recommendations. The anchoring slab shall be strong
enough to resist the ultimate strength of the standard parapet, and sized to provide adequate
resistance to sliding and overturning.
MSE Facing Panel Design

The upper facing panel must be separated from the barrier slab with 1 to 2 in. (25 to 50 mm) of
expanded polystyrene (see Figure 5-2(b)). The distance should be adequate to allow the barrier
and slab to resist the impact load in sliding and overturning without loading the facing panel.
Separation between the precast facing and cast-in-place resistance slab is required to prevent
stressing on the facing panels due to slab curing and shrinking.
7.2.2 Post and Beam Railings
Flexible post and beam barriers, when used, shall be placed at a minimum distance of 3.0 ft (0.9
m) from the wall face, driven 5.0 ft (1.5 m) below grade, and spaced to miss the reinforcements
where possible. If the reinforcements cannot be missed, the wall shall be designed accounting
for the presence of an obstruction. Each of the upper two rows of reinforcement shall be
designed for an additional horizontal load of 150 lb/lft (2.2 kN/m) of wall, for a total additional
load of 300 lb/ft (4.4 kN/m).

7.3 SUPERFLOOD EVENTS AND SCOUR
The stability of walls and abutments in areas of turbulent flow must be addressed in design. Wall
design should be based on the total scour depths estimated per Article 2.6.4.4.2 (AASHTO, 2007).
Scour should be investigated for two flood conditions:
C Design Flood
C Check Flood
The design flood (storm surge, tide, or mixed population flood) is the more severe of the 100-year
event or an overtopping flood of lesser recurrence interval. Stability design of the wall should be
assessed assuming that the streambed material above the total scour line has been removed. This
should be analyzed as a strength limit state.
The check flood (storm surge, tide, or mixed population flood) is the more severe of the 500-year
event or an overtopping flood of lesser recurrence interval. Stability design of the wall should be
assessed assuming that the streambed material above the total scour line has been removed. This is
an extreme event, and the extreme event limit state applies. Resistance factors for this extreme limit
state may be taken at 1.0, per Articles 10.6.4 and 10.5.5.3.3 (AASHTO, 2007).

U. S. Department of Transportation Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-025
Federal Highway Administration FHWA GEC 011 – Volume II
November 2009
NHI Courses No. 132042 and 132043
Design and Construction of

Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume II
Developed following:
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design and AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction
Specifications, 4th Edition, 2007, Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2004, with
with 2008 and 2009 Interims. 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Interims.
NOTICE
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect policy of the
Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or
regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade
or manufacturer's names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of
this document.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.
ACCESSION NO.
FHWA-NHI-10-025 FHWA GEC 011-Vol II
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
November 2009
Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume II
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Ryan R. Berg, P.E.; Barry R. Christopher,
Ph.D., P.E. and Naresh C. Samtani, Ph.D., P.E.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.
Ryan R. Berg & Associates, Inc. 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.
2190 Leyland Alcove DTFH61-06-D-00019/T-06-001
Woodbury, MN 55125
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
National Highway Institute
Federal Highway Administration 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

FHWA Technical Consultants: Rich Barrows, P.E., Silas Nichols, P.E., and Daniel Alzamora, P.E.
Technical Consultant: James G. Collin, Ph.D., P.E.
16. ABSTRACT
This manual is the reference text used for the FHWA NHI courses No. 132042 and 132043
on Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes and reflects current
practice for the design, construction and monitoring of these structures. This manual was
prepared to enable the engineer to identify and evaluate potential applications of MSE walls
and RSS as an alternative to other construction methods and as a means to solve construction
problems. The scope is sufficiently broad to be of value for specifications specialists,
construction and contracting personnel responsible for construction inspection, development
of material specifications and contracting methods. With the aid of this text, the engineer
should be able to properly select, design, specify, monitor and contract for the construction of
MSE walls and RSS embankments.
The MSE wall design within this manual is based upon Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD) procedures. This manual is a revision (to LRFD) and an update to the FHWA NHI-
00-043 manual (which was based upon allowable stress design (ASD) procedures).
17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Design, Load and Resistance Factor Design
(LRFD), analysis, performance criteria, No restrictions.
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls,
Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS), soil reinforcement,
geosynthetics, specifications, contracting methods
19. SECURITY CLASSIF. 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. 21. NO. OF PAGES 22

Unclassified Unclassified 378
SI CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME
ml millimeters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
l liters 0.264 gallons gal
m3 cubic meters 35.71 cubic feet ft3
m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
TEMPERATURE
°C Celsius 1.8 C + 32 Fahrenheit °F
WEIGHT DENSITY
kN/m3 kilonewton / cubic m 6.36 poundforce / cubic foot pcf
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
kN kilonewtons 225 poundforce lbf
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce / sq in. psi
kPa kilopascals 20.9 poundforce / sq ft psf
PREFACE
Engineers and specialty material suppliers have been designing reinforced soil structures for
the past 35 years. Currently, many state DOTs are transitioning their design of substructures
from Allowable Stress Design (ASD) to Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
procedures.
This manual is based upon LRFD for MSE wall structures. It has been updated from the
2001 FHWA NHI-00-043 manual. In addition to revision of the wall design to LRFD
procedures, expanded discussion on wall detailing and general updates throughout the
manual are provided. The primary purpose of this manual is to support educational programs
conducted by FHWA for transportation agencies.
A second purpose of equal importance is to serve as the FHWA standard reference for
highway projects involving MSE wall and reinforced soil structures.
and Construction Guidelines Manual which is an update of the current FHWA NHI-00-043,
has evolved from the following AASHTO and FHWA references:
Interim Revisions.
C Earth Retaining Structures, by B.F. Tanyu, P.J. Sabatini, and R.R. Berg, FHWA-NHI-07-
071 (2008).
C AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2004, with 2006
Interim Revisions.
C Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines, by R.D. Holtz, B.R. Christopher, and
R.R. Berg, FHWA HI-07-092 (2008).
Stabilized Earth Slopes on Firm Foundations, by R.R. Berg, FHWA-SA-93-025, January
1993.
Summary of Research and Systems Information, by B.R. Christopher, S.A. Gill, J.P.
Giroud, J.K. Mitchell, F. Schlosser, and J. Dunnicliff, FHWA RD 89-043 (1990).
C Design and Construction Monitoring of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Structures, by
J.A. DiMaggio, FHWA, (1994).
C AASHTO Bridge T-15 Technical Committee unpublished working drafts for the update
of Section 11.0 of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications.
FHWA NHI-10-025
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II iii November 2009
The authors recognize the efforts and contributions of Messrs. Richard Barrows, P.E., Silas
Nichols, P.E., and Daniel Alzamora P.E. who were the FHWA Technical Consultants for this
work.
The authors also recognize the contributions of the other Technical Consultants on this
project. They are:
C Tony Allen, P.E. of Washington DOT
C Christopher Benda, P.E. of Vermont DOT
C James Brennan, P.E. of Kansas DOT
C James Collin, Ph.D., P.E. of The Collin Group
C Jerry DiMaggio, P.E. of the National Academy of Sciences
C Kenneth L. Fishman, Ph.D., P.E. of Earth Reinforcement Testing, Inc.
C Kathryn Griswell, P.E. of CALTRANS
C John Guido, P.E. of Ohio DOT
C Dan Johnston, P.E. of South Dakota DOT
C Dov Leshchinsky, Ph.D. of the University of Delaware
C Michael Simac, P.E. of Earth Improvement Technologies, Inc.
C James L. Withiam, Ph.D., P.E. of D’Appolonia Engineers
And the authors acknowledge the contributions of the following industry associations:
C Association of Metallically Stabilized Earth (AMSE)
C Geosynthetic Materials Association (GMA)
C National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA)
A special acknowledgement of Mr. Jerry A. DiMaggio, P.E. who was the FHWA Technical
Consultant for most of the above referenced publications. Mr. DiMaggio's guidance and
input to this and the previous works has been invaluable.
Lastly, the authors wish to acknowledge the extensive work of the late Victor Elias, P.E. for
his vital contributions and significant effort as Lead Author in preparing the earlier two
(1997, 2001) versions of this manual, and as the author of the earlier companion manuals on
corrosion/degradation of soil reinforcements. Mr. Elias was instrumental in the introduction
and implementation of reinforced soil technology in the U.S., as a Vice President for The
Reinforced Earth Company from 1974 to 1985. He was instrumental in research, refinement
of design methods, and standards of practice and codes for MSE walls, as a Consultant from
1985 until 2006.
FHWA NHI-10-025
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II iv November 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume II
CHAPTER 8 REINFORCED (STEEPENED) SOIL SLOPES PROJECT EVALUATION..... 8-1

8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 8-1
8.2.1 Types of Systems ..................................................................................... 8-1
8.2.2 Construction Materials............................................................................. 8-2
8.3 DESIGN APPROACH ........................................................................................ 8-2
8.3.1 Use Considerations .................................................................................. 8-2
8.3.2 Design of Reinforcement for Compaction Aid........................................ 8-4
8.3.3 Design of Reinforcement for Steepening Slopes and Slope Repair ........ 8-4
8.3.4 Computer-Assisted Design ...................................................................... 8-6
8.3.5 Evaluation of External Stability .............................................................. 8-8
8.4 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ...................................................................... 8-11
8.5 TREATMENT OF OUTWARD FACE............................................................. 8-15
8.5.1 Grass Type Vegetation........................................................................... 8-15
8.5.2 Soil Bioengineering (Woody Vegetation) ............................................. 8-16
8.5.3 Armored ................................................................................................. 8-19
8.6 DESIGN DETAILS ........................................................................................... 8-20
8.6.1 Guardrail and Traffic Barriers ............................................................... 8-20
8.6.2 Drainage Considerations........................................................................ 8-20
8.6.3 Obstructions ........................................................................................... 8-21
8.7 CASE HISTORIES............................................................................................ 8-21
8.7.1 The Dickey Lake Roadway Grade Improvement Project ...................... 8-21
8.7.2 Salmon-Lost Trail Roadway Widening Project..................................... 8-24
8.7.3 Cannon Creek Alternate Embankment Construction Project ................ 8-26
8.7.4 Pennsylvania SR 54 Roadway Repair Project ....................................... 8-27
8.7.5 Massachusetts Turnpike - Use of Soil Bioengineering.......................... 8-29
8.7.6 242-foot High 1H:1V Reinforced Soil Slope for Airport Runway
Extension................................................................................................ 8-32
8.8 STANDARD RSS DESIGNS............................................................................ 8-34
CHAPTER 9 DESIGN OF REINFORCED SOIL SLOPES ....................................................... 9-1

9.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 REINFORCED SLOPE DESIGN GUIDELINES............................................... 9-3
9.2.1 Step 1 - Establish the geometric, loading, and performance
requirements for design............................................................................ 9-3
9.2.2 Step 2 - Determine the engineering properties of the in-situ soils........... 9-3
9.2.3 Step 3 - Determine the properties of reinforced fill and, if different, the
retained fill ............................................................................................... 9-5
9.2.4 Step 4 - Evaluate design parameters for the reinforcement ..................... 9-5
9.2.5 Step 5 - Check unreinforced stability....................................................... 9-5
9.2.6 Step 6 - Design reinforcement to provide a stable slope ......................... 9-7
9.2.7 Step 7 - Check external stability ............................................................ 9-16
9.2.8 Step 8 - Seismic stability........................................................................ 9-18
9.2.9 Step 9 - Evaluate requirements for subsurface and surface water runoff
control .................................................................................................... 9-19

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II v November 2009
9.3 COMPUTER ASSISTED DESIGN .................................................................. 9-23
9.4 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................ 9-24
CHAPTER 10 CONTRACTING METHODS AND SPECIFICATIONS

FOR MSE WALLS AND SLOPES............................................................................... 10-1
10.1 POLICY DEVELOPMENT............................................................................... 10-2
10.2 SYSTEM OR COMPONENT APPROVALS ................................................... 10-2
10.3 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ................................................. 10-5
10.4 AGENCY OR SUPPLIER DESIGN ................................................................. 10-5
10.4.1 Plan and Elevation Sheets...................................................................... 10-6
10.4.2 Facing/Panel Details ............................................................................ 10-7
10.4.3 Drainage Facilities/Special Details ........................................................ 10-7
10.4.4 Design Computations............................................................................. 10-7
10.4.5 Geotechnical Report............................................................................... 10-7
10.4.6 Construction Specifications ................................................................... 10-8
10.5 END RESULT DESIGN APPROACH ............................................................. 10-8
10.5.1 Geometric Requirements ....................................................................... 10-9
10.5.2 Geotechnical Requirements ................................................................... 10-9
10.5.3 Structural and Design Requirements ..................................................... 10-9
10.5.4 Performance Requirements.................................................................. 10-10
10.6 STANDARD DESIGNS.................................................................................. 10-10
10.6.1 MSEW Standard Designs .................................................................... 10-10
10.6.2 RSS Standard Designs ......................................................................... 10-12
10.7 REVIEW AND APPROVALS ........................................................................ 10-13
MSEW AND RSS CONSTRUCTION............................................................ 10-14
10.9 EXAMPLE SPECIFICATION FOR MSE WALLS ....................................... 10-15
10.10 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR REINFORCED
SLOPE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 10-41
10.10.1 Specification Guidelines For RSS Construction (Agency Design) 10-42
10.10.2 Specification for Erosion Control Mat or Blanket......................... 10-46
10.10.3 Specification for Geosynthetic Drainage Composite..................... 10-48
10.10.4 Specification Guidelines for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
Slope Systems ................................................................................ 10-52
CHAPTER 11 FIELD INSPECTION AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING..................... 11-1

11.1 PRECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS................................................................... 11-1
11.1.1 Plans and Specifications ........................................................................ 11-3
11.1.2 Review of Site Conditions and Foundation Requirements .................... 11-3
11.2 PREFABRICATED MATERIALS INSPECTION......................................... 11-11
11.2.1 Precast Concrete Elements................................................................... 11-11
11.2.2 Reinforcing Elements........................................................................... 11-13
11.2.3 Facing Joint Materials.......................................................................... 11-15
11.2.4 Reinforced Backfill.............................................................................. 11-15
11.3 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL....................................................................... 11-16
11.3.1 Leveling Pad ........................................................................................ 11-16
11.3.2 Erection of Facing Elements................................................................ 11-16

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II vi November 2009
11.3.3 Reinforced Fill Placement, Compaction .............................................. 11-22
11.3.4 Placement of Reinforcing Elements..................................................... 11-25
11.3.5 Placement of Subsequent Facing Courses (Segmental Facings) ......... 11-26
11.4 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROGRAMS .......................................... 11-35
11.4.1 Purpose of Monitoring Program .......................................................... 11-35
11.4.2 Limited Monitoring Program............................................................... 11-36
11.4.3 Comprehensive Monitoring Program .................................................. 11-37
11.4.4 Program Implementation ..................................................................... 11-37
11.4.5 Data Interpretation ............................................................................... 11-40
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................R-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A LRFD LOAD COMBINATIONS AND LOAD FACTORS, AND LOAD

FACTOR FOR PERMANENT LOADS ....................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B DETERMINATION OF PULLOUT RESISTANCE FACTORS.................B-1

B.1 EMPIRICAL PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE F* AND α .......................B-1
B.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE F* AND α .............B-2
B.3 CONNECTION RESISTANCE AND STRENGTH OF PARTIAL AND
FULL FRICTION SEGMENTAL BLOCK/REINFORCEMENT FACING
CONNECTIONS ...........................................................................................B-5
B.4 CONNECTION RESISTANCE DEFINED WITH
SHORT-TERM TESTING .........................................................................B-12
B.5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................B-15
APPENDIX C TYPICAL DIMENSIONS OF STEEL REINFORCEMENTS .....................C-1
APPENDIX D DETERMINATION OF CREEP STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR ... D-1

D.1 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... D-1
RUPTURE DATA -- CONVENTIONAL METHOD.................................. D-5
RUPTURE DATA -- STEPPED ISOTHERMAL METHOD (SIM) ......... D-10
D.4 DETERMINATION OF RFCR .................................................................... D-13
D.5 USE OF CREEP DATA FROM "SIMILAR" PRODUCTS AND
EVALUATION OF PRODUCT LINES .................................................... D-14
D.6 CREEP EXTRAPOLATION EXAMPLES USING STRESS
RUPTURE DATA .......................................................................................E-16
D.6.1 Stress Rupture Extrapolation Example ............................................E-16
D.7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................E-20

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II vii November 2009
APPENDIX E EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
E.1 MBW Unit Faced MSE Wall with Broken Back Sloping Fill and Live
Load Surcharge, Reinforced with Geogrid .................................................E.1-1
E.2 Bearing Check for Sloping Toe Conditions, with and without Water........E.2-1
E.3 Segmental Precast Panel MSE Wall with Sloping Backfill Surcharge,
E.4 Segmental Precast Panel MSE Wall with Level Backfill and Live Load
Surcharge, Reinforced with Steel Bar Mats................................................E.4-1
E.5 True Bridge Abutment with Segmental Precast Panel MSE Wall,
E.6 Traffic Barrier Impact Loading on Top of an MSE Wall ...........................E.6-1
E.7 Seismic Loading . . . ., Psuedo-Static Analysis...........................................E.7-1
E.8 Reinforced Soil Slope Design -- Road Widening .......................................E.8-1
E.9 Reinforced Soil Slope Design -- High Slope for New Road Construction.E.9-1
E.10 Reinforced Soil Slope Design -- Facing Stability Calculation .................E.10-1
APPENDIX F OTHER DESIGN PROCEDURES AND ANALSIS MODELS

F.1 ASD Procedure and the Simplified Method .................................................. F-2
F.2 Coherent Gravity Method .............................................................................. F-3
F.3 National Concrete Masonry Association Procedure ...................................... F-5
F.4 GRS ...................................................................................................... F-5
F.5 FHWA Structural Stiffness Method............................................................... F-7
F.6 K-Stiffness Method........................................................................................ F-8
F.7 Deep Patch ................................................................................................... F-11

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II viii November 2009
LIST OF TABLES – Volume II
Table 8-1. RSS Slope Facing Options (after Collin, 1996)................................................. 8-14
Table 9-1. Estimated Project Costs. .................................................................................... 9-25
Table 11-1. Outline of MSE/RSS Field Inspection Checklist............................................... 11-2

Table 11-2. Checklist for Drawing Review........................................................................... 11-5
Table 11-3. Checklist for Specification Compliance. ........................................................... 11-7
Table 11-4. Out-of-Tolerance Conditions and Possible Causes.......................................... 11-30
Table 11-5. Checklist for Construction. .............................................................................. 11-32
Table 11-6. Possible Instruments for Monitoring Reinforced Soil Structures. ................... 11-38

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II ix November 2009
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II x November 2009
LIST OF FIGURES – Volume II
Figure 8-1. Failure modes for RSSs including internal failure within the reinforced soil
zone, external failure entirely outside the reinforced soil zone, and compound
failure starting behind and passing through the reinforced soil zone ………. .... 8-3
Figure 8-2. Modified limit equilibrium analysis for reinforced slope design......................... 8-5
Figure 8-3. External failure modes for reinforced soil slopes. ............................................... 8-9
Figure 8-4. Construction of reinforced soil slopes. .............................................................. 8-12
Figure 8-5. Welded wire mesh detail for temporary (during construction) or permanent
face support........................................................................................................ 8-15
Figure 8-6. Components of a vegetated reinforced slope (VRSS) system ........................... 8-17
Figure 8-7. Dickey Lake site. ............................................................................................... 8-23
Figure 8-8. Salmon Lost Trail site........................................................................................ 8-25
Figure 8-9. Cannon Creek project. ....................................................................................... 8-26
Figure 8-10. Pennsylvania SR54. ........................................................................................... 8-28
and after the second growing season. ................................................................ 8-31
West Virginia ..................................................................................................... 8-33
Figure 8-13. Example of standard RSS design....................................................................... 8-36
Figure 9-1. Flow chart of steps for reinforced soil slope design. ........................................... 9-2
Figure 9-2. Requirements for design of reinforced soil slopes............................................... 9-4
Figure 9-3. Critical zone defined by rotational and sliding surface that meet the required
safety factor.......................................................................................................... 9-6
Figure 9-4. Rotational shear approach to determine required strength of reinforcement....... 9-8
Figure 9-5. Chart solution for determining the reinforcement strength requirements.......... 9-10
Figure 9-6. Reinforcement spacing considerations for high slopes...................................... 9-11
Figure 9-7. Developing reinforcement lengths..................................................................... 9-14
Figure 9-8. Failure through the foundation........................................................................... 9-17
Figure 9-9. Seismic stability analysis. .................................................................................. 9-19
Figure 9-10. Subsurface drainage considerations................................................................... 9-20
Figure 11-1. Casting yard for precast facing elements. ........................................................ 11-12
including metallic strips, welded wire mesh, and geosynthetics and bottom
photo shows reinforcement length painted on geogrid reinforcement............. 11-14
Figure 11-3. Leveling pads: a) leveling the concrete, b) completed pad, and c) placing the
facing elements on the leveling pad................................................................. 11-17
Figure 11-4. Checking facing element batter and alignment................................................ 11-18
Figure 11-5. Full height facing panels require special alignment care................................. 11-19
Figure 11-6. Setting first row of precast facing elements..................................................... 11-21
Figure 11-7. Placement of reinforced fill. ............................................................................ 11-23
Figure 11-8. Compaction equipment showing: a) large equipment permitted away from
face; and b) lightweight equipment within 3 ft (1 m) of the face. ................... 11-24
Figure 11-9. Facing connection examples ............................................................................ 11-27
Figure 11-10. Geotextile joint cover and neoprene pads........................................................ 11-29

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xi November 2009
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xii November 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume I
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Scope ...................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Source Documents ................................................................................... 1-2
1.1.3 Terminology............................................................................................. 1-3
1.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 1-4
1.3 LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD) ............................... 1-12
CHAPTER 2 SYSTEMS AND PROJECT EVALUATION....................................................... 2-1

2.1 APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 MSE Walls ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Reinforced Soil Slopes............................................................................. 2-4
2.2 ADVANTAGES AND POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES............................... 2-6
2.2.1 Advantages of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls................... 2-6
2.2.2 Advantages of Reinforced Soil Slopes (RSS).......................................... 2-6
2.2.3 Potential Disadvantages ........................................................................... 2-7
2.3 RELATIVE COSTS............................................................................................. 2-7
2.4 DESCRIPTION OF MSE/RSS SYSTEMS ....................................................... 2-10
2.4.1 Systems Differentiation ......................................................................... 2-10
2.4.2 Types of Systems ................................................................................... 2-11
2.4.3 Facing Systems ...................................................................................... 2-12
2.4.4 Reinforcement Types ............................................................................. 2-16
2.4.5 Reinforced Fill Materials ....................................................................... 2-17
2.4.6 Appurtenant Materials of Construction ................................................. 2-18
2.5 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE....................................................................... 2-18
2.5.1 Construction of MSEW systems with precast facings........................... 2-18
2.5.2 Construction of MSE systems with Flexible Facings ............................ 2-24
2.5.3 RSS Construction................................................................................... 2-28
2.6 SITE EVALUATION ........................................................................................ 2-28
2.6.1 Site Exploration ..................................................................................... 2-28
2.6.2 Field Reconnaissance............................................................................. 2-30
2.6.3 Subsurface Exploration.......................................................................... 2-30
2.6.4 Laboratory Testing................................................................................. 2-32
2.6.5 Foundation Soils .................................................................................... 2-33
2.7 PROJECT EVALUATION................................................................................ 2-34
2.7.1 Structure Selection Factors .................................................................... 2-34
2.7.2 Geologic and Topographic Conditions .................................................. 2-35
2.7.3 Environmental Conditions ..................................................................... 2-36
2.7.4 Size and Nature of Structure .................................................................. 2-37
2.7.5 Aesthetics............................................................................................... 2-38
2.7.6 Questionable Applications ..................................................................... 2-38
2.8 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROJECT CRITERIA ............................................... 2-38
2.8.1 Alternates ............................................................................................... 2-39
2.8.2 Facing Considerations............................................................................ 2-39

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xiii November 2009
2.8.3 Performance Criteria.............................................................................. 2-40
2.8.4 Design Life............................................................................................. 2-46
2.9 PROPRIETARY ASPECTS .............................................................................. 2-46
2.10 CASE HISTORIES -- MSE WALLS ................................................................ 2-47
2.10.1 Mn/DOT Crosstown Project MSE Walls............................................... 2-47
2.10.2 Veterans Memorial Overpass True Abutment MSE Walls.................... 2-49
2.10.3 SEATAC Runway Extension Wall........................................................ 2-50
2.10.4 Guanella Pass Roadway Reconstruction................................................ 2-51
CHAPTER 3 SOIL REINFORCEMENT PRINCIPLES

AND SYSTEM DESIGN PROPERTIES........................................................................ 3-1
3.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 ESTABLISHMENT OF ENGINEERING PROPERTIES BASED ON SITE
EXPLORATION AND TESTING ...................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Reinforced Fill Soil.................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.2 Retained Backfill and Natural Retained Soil ........................................... 3-8
3.2.3 Electrochemical Properties ...................................................................... 3-9
3.3 REINFORCED SOIL CONCEPTS ................................................................... 3-10
3.3.1 Stress Transfer Mechanisms .................................................................. 3-10
3.3.2 Mode of Reinforcement Action ............................................................. 3-12
3.3.3 Geometric Characteristics...................................................................... 3-12
3.4 SOIL REINFORCEMENT INTERACTION USING NORMALIZED
CONCEPTS ....................................................................................................... 3-13
3.4.1 Evaluation of Pullout Performance........................................................ 3-13
3.4.2 Estimate of the Reinforcement Pullout Capacity in MSE Structures .... 3-16
3.4.3 Interface Shear ....................................................................................... 3-21
3.5 ESTABLISHMENT OF STRUCTURAL DESIGN PROPERTIES ................. 3-22
3.5.1 Strength Properties of Steel Reinforcements ......................................... 3-22
3.5.2 Strength Properties of Geosynthetic Reinforcement.............................. 3-28
3.5.2.a Ultimate Tensile Strength, Tult ................................................... 3-31
3.5.2.b Installation Damage Reduction Factor, RFID ............................. 3-31
3.5.2.c Creep Reduction Factor, RFCR ................................................... 3-32
3.5.2.d Durability Reduction Factor, RFD.............................................. 3-33
3.5.2.e Durability Reduction Factor, RFD, at Wall Face Unit ............... 3-38
3.5.2.f LRFD Geosynthetic Resistance Factor, .................................. 3-38
3.5.2.g Preliminary Design Reduction Factor, RF................................. 3-39
3.5.2.h Serviceability Limit State .......................................................... 3-40
3.6 FACING MATERIALS..................................................................................... 3-41
3.6.1 Precast Concrete Panels ......................................................................... 3-41
3.6.1.a Segmental Panels ....................................................................... 3-41
3.6.1.b Full-Height Panels ..................................................................... 3-42
3.6.2 Modular Block Wall (MBW) Units ....................................................... 3-43
3.6.3 Welded Wire Mesh Facing .................................................................... 3-46
3.6.4 Geosynthetic Wrap-Around Facing ....................................................... 3-47
3.6.5 Other Facings ......................................................................................... 3-47
3.6.6 Two-Stage Facings................................................................................. 3-50
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xiv November 2009
CHAPTER 4 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS .................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS METHODS ............................ 4-1
4.1.1 Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Platform ............................ 4-1
4.1.2 Analysis Methods..................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS........................................................... 4-3
4.3 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS USING LRFD METHODOLOGY ........................ 4-6
4.3.1 Design Steps............................................................................................. 4-7
4.4 MSE WALLS DESIGN GUIDELINES .............................................................. 4-9
4.4.1 Step 1 - Establish Project Requirements.................................................. 4-9
4.4.2 Step 2 - Establish Project Parameters ...................................................... 4-9
4.4.3 Step 3 - Estimate Wall Embedment Depth & Reinforcement Length ... 4-10
4.4.4 Step 4 - Define Nominal Loads ............................................................. 4-11
4.4.5 Step 5 - Summarize Load Combinations, Load Factors, and Resistance
Factors ................................................................................................... 4-17
4.4.6 Step 6 - Evaluate External Stability ....................................................... 4-18
4.4.6.a Evaluate Sliding Stability .......................................................... 4-19
4.4.6.b Evaluate Eccentricity ................................................................. 4-22
4.4.6.c Evaluate Bearing on Foundation................................................ 4-26
4.4.6.d Settlement Estimate ................................................................... 4-31
4.4.7 Step 7 - Evaluate Internal Stability ........................................................ 4-31
4.4.7.a Select Type of Reinforcement ................................................... 4-32
4.4.7.b Define Critical Slip Surface ....................................................... 4-33
4.4.7.c Define Unfactored Loads........................................................... 4-35
4.4.7.d Establish Vertical Layout of Soil Reinforcements..................... 4-38
4.4.7.e Calculate Factored Tensile Forces in Reinforcements............... 4-39
4.4.7.f Calculate Soil Reinforcement Resistance .................................. 4-47
4.4.7.g Select Grade of &/or Number of Elements at Each Level......... 4-49
4.4.7.h Internal Stability with Respect to Pullout Failure...................... 4-49
4.4.7.i Check Connection Strength ....................................................... 4-52
4.4.7.j Lateral Movements .................................................................... 4-57
4.4.7.k Vertical Movement and Bearing Pads ....................................... 4-57
4.4.8 Step 8 - Design of Facing Elements....................................................... 4-58
4.4.8.a Design of Concrete, Steel, and Timber Facings ........................ 4-58
4.4.8.b Design of Flexible Wall Facings................................................ 4-59
4.4.9 Step 9 - Assess Overall Stability............................................................ 4-59
4.4.10 Step 10 - Assess Compound Stability.................................................... 4-61
4.4.11 Step 11 - Wall Drainage Systems .......................................................... 4-65
4.11.a Surface Drainage........................................................................ 4-65
4.11.b Surface Water Runoff ................................................................ 4-65
4.11.c Scour .......................................................................................... 4-65
4.5 TEMPORARY WALLS .................................................................................... 4-66
4.6 DESIGN CHECKLIST...................................................................................... 4-66
4.7 COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN ........................................................................ 4-80
4.8 VENDOR........................................................................................................... 4-80
4.9 STANDARD MSEW DESIGNS....................................................................... 4-80

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xv November 2009
CHAPTER 5 MSE WALL DESIGN DETAILS ......................................................................... 5-1
5.1 TOP OF WALL ELEMENTS ............................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 Copings .................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Traffic Barriers......................................................................................... 5-4
5.1.3 Parapets .................................................................................................... 5-4
5.1.4 Post and Beam Barriers............................................................................ 5-4
5.1.5 Drainage Related to Top of Wall Elements ............................................. 5-6
5.2 BOTTOM OF WALL ELEMENTS .................................................................... 5-6
5.3 DRAINAGE......................................................................................................... 5-8
5.3.1 Internal Drainage Systems ....................................................................... 5-9
5.3.2 External Drainage .................................................................................. 5-17
5.3.3 Filtration and Drainage System Component Requirements................... 5-24
5.3.4 Maintenance of Drainage....................................................................... 5-34
5.4 INTERNAL DETAILS...................................................................................... 5-35
5.4.1 Contact Between Dissimilar Metals....................................................... 5-35
5.4.2 Vertical Obstructions in Reinforced Soil Mass ..................................... 5-35
5.4.3 Horizontal Obstructions in Reinforced Soil Mass ................................. 5-42
5.4.4 Wall Face Penetrations .......................................................................... 5-44
5.4.5 Slip Joints............................................................................................... 5-46
5.4.6 Wall Curves ........................................................................................... 5-47
5.4.7 Wall Corners .......................................................................................... 5-51
5.4.8 Two-Stage Facing .................................................................................. 5-52
5.5 WALL INITIATIONS AND TERMINATIONS .............................................. 5-54
5.6 AESTHETICS.................................................................................................... 5-56
CHAPTER 6 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS WITH COMPLEX GEOMETRICS ........................ 6-1

6.1 BRIDGE ABUTMENTS ..................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.1 MSEW Abutments on Spread Footings................................................... 6-3
6.1.2 MSEW Abutments on Stub Footings Supported by Deep Foundations
through Reinforced Wall Fill ................................................................... 6-6
6.1.3 Alternative Configuration of MSE Walls at Bridge Abutments............ 6-10
6.1.4 Protection of MSE Wall at Abutments .................................................. 6-11
6.2 SUPERIMPOSED (TIERED) MSE WALLS.................................................... 6-13
6.2.1 2-Tier Superimposed Wall..................................................................... 6-13
6.2.2 Superimposed Walls with More than 2-Tiers ........................................ 6-15
6.3 WALLS WITH UNEVEN REINFORCEMENT LENGTHS ........................... 6-16
6.4 BACK-TO-BACK (BBMSE) WALLS ............................................................. 6-17
6.5 SHORED MSE WALLS FOR STEEP TERRAINS AND LOW VOLUME
ROADS .............................................................................................................. 6-19
6.6 STABLE FEATURE MSE (SFMSE) WALLS ................................................. 6-26
CHAPTER 7 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS FOR EXTREME EVENTS...................................... 7-1

7.1 SEISMIC EVENTS ............................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1 External Stability ..................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.2 Internal Stability....................................................................................... 7-9
7.1.2.a Tensile Failure ........................................................................... 7-11
7.1.2.b Pullout Failure............................................................................ 7-12

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xvi November 2009
7.1.3 Facing Reinforcement Connections....................................................... 7-13
7.2 VEHICULAR IMPACT EVENTS .................................................................... 7-14
7.2.1 Traffic Barriers....................................................................................... 7-15
7.2.2 Post and Beam Railings ......................................................................... 7-17
7.3 FLOODS AND SCOUR .................................................................................... 7-18

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xvii November 2009
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xviii November 2009
LIST OF TABLES – Volume I
Table 1-1. Summary of Reinforcement and Face Details for MSE Wall Systems. .............. 1-7
Table 1-2. Representative List of Geogrid and Geotextile Reinforcement Manufacturers
and Suppliers...................................................................................................... 1-11
Table 2-1. Typical Minimum Length of Reinforcement..................................................... 2-43

Table 2-2. Minimum MSEW Embedment Depths.............................................................. 2-43
Settlements for MSE Precast Panels .................................................................. 2-46
Table 3-1. MSE Wall Select Granular Reinforced Fill Requirements .................................. 3-3
Table 3-2. RSS Granular Reinforced Fill Requirements....................................................... 3-6
Steel Reinforcement............................................................................................. 3-9
Geosynthetic Reinforcements ............................................................................ 3-10
Table 3-5. Basic Aspects of Reinforcement Pullout Performance in Granular
and Cohesive Soils of Low Plasticity ................................................................ 3-15
Table 3-6. Summary of Pullout Capacity Design Parameters............................................. 3-17
Table 3-7. Minimum Galvanization Thickness by Steel Thickness.................................... 3-26
Table 3-8. Steel Corrosion Rates for Mildly Corrosive Reinforced Fill ............................. 3-26
Table 3-9. Installation Damage Reduction Factors. ............................................................ 3-32
Table 3-10. Anticipated Resistance of Polymers to Specific Environments......................... 3-34
Table 3-11. Durability (Aging) Reduction Factors for PET. ................................................ 3-36
Table 3-12. Minimum Requirements for use of Default Durability Reduction Factors
(RFD) for Primary Geosynthetic Reinforcement................................................ 3-37
Table 3-13. Minimum Requirements for use of Preliminary Design Reduction Factor (RF)
for Primary Geosynthetic Reinforcement. ......................................................... 3-40
Table 3-14. Additional MBW Cold Weather Requirements Recommended by
Mn/DOT (2008). ................................................................................................ 3-45
Table 4-1. Typical MSE Wall Load Combinations and Load Factors (after Table 3.4.1-1,
AASHTO, 2007) ................................................................................................. 4-4
Table 4-2. Typical MSE Wall Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp (after Table 3.4.1-2,
AASHTO, 2007) ................................................................................................. 4-4
Table 4-3. Basic LRFD Design Steps for MSE Walls .......................................................... 4-8
Table 4-4. Equivalent Height of Soil, heq, for Traffic Loading on Abutments ...........................
Perpendicular to Traffic (Table 3.11.6.4-1, AASHTO {2007}) ....................... 4-17
Table 4-5. External Stability Resistance Factors for MSE Walls (Table 11.5.6-1,
AASHTO {2007}) ............................................................................................ 4-19
Table 4-6. Bearing Resistance Factors (Table 10.6.3.1.2a-1, AASHTO {2007}) ............. 4-29
Table 4-7. Resistance Factors for Tensile and Pullout Resistance for MSE Walls (after
Table 11.5.6-1, AASHTO (2007........................................................................ 4-48
Table 4-8. Example MBW Faced MSE Wall Standard Design (Minnesota DOT, 2008) .. 4-82

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xix November 2009
Table 5-1. Values of B for Various Cu Values for Soils with less than 50% Passing the
No. 200 Sieve ..................................................................................................... 5-27
Table 5-2. Values of B and AOS for Soils with more than 50% Passing the No. 200 Sieve
Based on Type of Geotextile............................................................................... 5-27
Table 5-3. Geotextile Survivability Requirements (AASHTO M 288, 2006) ................... 5-29
Survivability (after Koerner, 1998) ................................................................... 5-33

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xx November 2009
LIST OF FIGURES – Volume I
Figure 1-1. Generic cross section of an MSE structure. ......................................................... 1-4

Figure 1-2. Generic cross sections of reinforced soil slope structures, reinforcements used
to: (a) increase stability of a slope; and (b) provide improved compaction and
surficial stability at edge of a slopes. ................................................................... 1-5
Figure 2-1. Representative MSE applications (a) retaining wall; (b) access ramp; (c)
waterfront structure; and (d) bridge abutment. .................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2. MSE walls to support temporary bridge abutment roadway embankment.......... 2-3
phased construction.............................................................................................. 2-3
Figure 2-4. Application of reinforced soil slopes. .................................................................. 2-5
Figure 2-5. Cost evaluation of reinforced soil slopes. .......................................................... 2-10
Figure 2-6. Example MSE wall surface treatments. ............................................................. 2-13
Figure 2-7. Examples of commercially available MBW units (NCMA, 1997).................... 2-14
Figure 2-8. Erection of precast panels. ................................................................................. 2-21
Figure 2-9. Fill spreading and reinforcement connection..................................................... 2-22
Figure 2-10. Compaction of reinforced wall fill..................................................................... 2-23
Figure 2-11. Lift construction sequence for geosynthetic faced MSE walls.......................... 2-25
Figure 2-12. Typical geosynthetic face construction detail.................................................... 2-26
Figure 2-13. Types of geosynthetic reinforced soil wall facing (after Wu, 1994) ................. 2-27
erosion control mat placement; and (c) finished, vegetated 1:1 slope............... 2-29
Figure 2-15. Empirical curve for estimating probable anticipated lateral displacement
during construction for MSE walls (after FHWA 89-043 {Christopher et al.,
1990}) .............................................................................................................. 2-41
benched slope toe condition............................................................................... 2-44
Figure 2-17. MSE wall construction on Mn/DOT Crosstown Project, 2008. ........................ 2-48
Figure 2-18. Veterans Memorial Overpass............................................................................. 2-49
Figure 2-19. MSE true bridge abutment ................................................................................. 2-49
Figure 2-20. Typical cross section, VMO project .................................................................. 2-50
Figure 2-21. SeaTac Airport runway extension MSE wall..................................................... 2-51
Figure 2-22. Guanella Pass wire-faced wall ........................................................................... 2-52
Figure 2-23. Guanella Pass architectural concrete faced wall................................................ 2-52
Figure 3-1. Examples of reinforced fill zone extension beyond the reinforced zone............. 3-8
Figure 3-2. Stress transfer mechanisms for soil reinforcement. ........................................... 3-11
Figure 3-3. Coverage ratio.................................................................................................... 3-13
Figure 3-4. Definition of grid dimensions for calculating pullout capacity ......................... 3-18
Figure 3-5. Parameters for metal reinforcement strength calculations showing (a) steel
strips and (b) metallic grids and bar mats .......................................................... 3-24
Figure 3-6. Long-term geosynthetic reinforcement strength concepts................................. 3-29
Figure 3-7. Large, wet-cast concrete face unit with reinforcement placed between units. .. 3-48
Figure 3-8. Large, wet-cast concrete face unit with embedded reinforcement connectors. . 3-49
Figure 3-9. Geocell face unit with vegetation. ..................................................................... 3-49

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xxi November 2009
Figure 4-1. External stability load factors for simple walls.................................................... 4-5
surcharge (after AASHTO, 2007) ..................................................................... 4-12
2007). ................................................................................................................ 4-13
2007) ................................................................................................................ 4-14
than 100 (after AASHTO, 2007)..................................................................... 4-16
Figure 4-6. Potential external failure mechanisms for a MSE wall...................................... 4-18
backslope with traffic surcharge condition ........................................................ 4-24
backslope condition ........................................................................................... 4-25
(a) inextensible reinforcements and (b) extensible reinforcements ................... 4-34
Figure 4-10. Variation of the coefficient of lateral stress ratio (K/Ka) with depth in a MSE
wall (Elias and Christopher, 1997; AASHTO, 2002; after AASHTO, 2007) .. 4-37
stability............................................................................................................... 4-38
stability calculations........................................................................................... 4-44
Figure 4-13. Distribution of stresses from concentrated horizontal loads.............................. 4-45
Figure 4-14. Reinforcement load contributory height ............................................................ 4-46
beneath a sloping backfill .................................................................................. 4-50
Figure 4-16. Bodkin connection detail (looking at cross section of segmental panel face .... 4-53
(NMCA, 1997) .................................................................................................. 4-56
and water at toe of the slope .............................................................................. 4-64
Figure 4-19. Example of standard MSEW design. (Minnesota DOT, 2008) ....................... 4-83
Figure 5-1. Example copings for MSE walls.......................................................................... 5-2

on top of panels, (c) barrier on top of modular block units ................................. 5-5
(c) Step detail for modular block facing units ..................................................... 5-7
Figure 5-4. Potential sources and flowpaths of water........................................................... 5-10
Figure 5-5. Example layout of filter at joints between segmental precast facing units........ 5-11
(Collin et al., 2002) ............................................................................................ 5-12
Figure 5-7. Example layout of geotextile filter near the face for welded wire facing units. 5-13
Figure 5-8. Example drainage blanket detail behind the retained backfill ........................... 5-14
Figure 5-9. Example drainage detail using a geocomposite sheet drain............................... 5-15

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xxii November 2009
al., 2002) ............................................................................................................ 5-16
Figure 5-14. Example detail for wall that may experience inundation................................... 5-17
Figure 5-12. Example MSE wall overflow sill at top of wall................................................. 5-19
Figure 5-13. Example drainage swale near top of wall. ((b) Collin et al., 2002) ................... 5-20
penetration.......................................................................................................... 5-22
grades (Collin et al., 2002)................................................................................. 5-23
Figure 5-16. Example of surface flow erosion at the bottom of an MSE wall ....................... 5-24
reinforcements.................................................................................................... 5-37
Figure 5-18. Vertical obstructions in reinforced soil mass with segmental precast facing
units ................................................................................................................ 5-39
block face – note corner detail ........................................................................... 5-40
soil mass with modular block units.................................................................... 5-41
reinforcements.................................................................................................... 5-43
Figure 5-22. Navigating horizontal obstruction in MSE walls with extensible
reinforcement ..................................................................................................... 5-43
Figure 5-23. Example of backup panels for large horizontal obstructions............................. 5-44
Figure 5-24. Example pipe penetrations through segmental precast panel facing units ........ 5-45
Figure 5-25. Example pipe penetration through modular block facing units ......................... 5-46
Figure 5-26. Example slip joints for segmental precast panel facings ................................... 5-48
Figure 5-27. Example slip joint for modular block wall facings............................................ 5-49
Figure 5-28. Example layout of geogrid reinforcement for walls with curves....................... 5-50
Figure 5-29. Example corner details....................................................................................... 5-51
Figure 5-30. Conceptual connection details for a 2-stage facing system ............................... 5-53
structures ............................................................................................................ 5-55
Figure 5-32. Common joint between modular block facing units and CIP structures ........... 5-55
Figure 5-33. Example of MSE wall aesthetics ....................................................................... 5-58
Figure 5-34. Examples of cast-in-place abutment to MSE wall panel transitions.................. 5-59
Figure 6-1. Types of complex MSE structures....................................................................... 6-2

F* parameters for analysis of a MSEW abutment on spread footing ................. 6-4
Figure 6-3. Details of a typical pile supported MSE abutment .............................................. 6-7
Figure 6-4. Geometry definition and typical supplemental lateral pressure distribution
from deep foundation on MSE wall face ............................................................. 6-9
Figure 6-5. Example of use of a geosynthetic wrapped face wall behind an integral
abutment............................................................................................................. 6-12

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xxiii November 2009
Figure 6-6. Example abutment seat detail ............................................................................ 6-12
Figure 6-7. Design rules for a 2-tier superimposed MSE wall system................................. 6-14
Figure 6-8. Dimensioning of MSE wall with uneven reinforcement lengths....................... 6-17
Figure 6-9. Back–to–back MSE walls .................................................................................. 6-18
(Morrison et al., 2006) ....................................................................................... 6-19
Figure 6-11. Minimum recommended geometry of a shored MSE wall system in steep
terrains, (a) with extension of upper two rows of reinforcement, and (b) with
the upper two rows connected to the shoring wall (Morrison et al., 2006) ....... 6-21
Figure 6-12. Location of potential failure surface for internal stability design of shored
MSE walls (a) extensible reinforcements, (b) inextensible reinforcements
(Morrison et al., 2006) ....................................................................................... 6-23
stability calculations (Morrison et al., 2006) ..................................................... 6-23
Figure 6-14. Computation for TMAX and evaluation of pullout resistance (after Morrison et
al., 2006) ............................................................................................................ 6-25
Figure 6-15. Example global stability and compound failure surfaces (Morrison et al.,
2006) ................................................................................................................ 6-26
Figure 6-16. Minimum recommended geometry of a stable feature MSE (SFMSE) wall
system ................................................................................................................ 6-28
Figure 7-1. Definition of heights for seismic analyses..................................................................7-3

Figure 7-2. Use of a slope stability approach to compute seismic earth pressure........................7-6
Figure 7-3. Procedure for determination of ky (Anderson et al., 2008)........................................7-7
Figure 7-4. Boundary between WUS and CEUS (Anderson et al. 2008) ...................................7-8
Figure 7-5. Seismic internal stability of a MSE wall............................................................ 7-10
Figure 7-6. Comparison of static and dynamic impact force with 1-inch (25 mm)
maximum displacement (Bligh et al., 2009)...................................................... 7-15

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II xxiv November 2009
CHAPTER 8
REINFORCED SOIL SLOPES PROJECT EVALUATION
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Where right of way is available and the cost of a MSE wall is high, a steepened slope should
be considered. In this chapter the background and design requirements for evaluating a
reinforced soil slope (RSS) alternative are reviewed. Step-by-step design procedures are
presented in Chapter 9. Section 8.2 reviews the types of systems and the materials of
construction. Section 8.3 provides a discussion of the internal stability design approach for
use of reinforcement as compaction aids, steepening slopes and slope repair. Computer
assisted design programs are also reviewed. The section concludes with a discussion of
external stability requirements. Section 8.4 reviews the construction sequence. Section 8.5
covers treatment of the outward face of the slope to prevent erosion. Section 8.6 covers
design details of appurtenant features including traffic barrier and drainage considerations.
Finally, section 8.7 presents several case histories to demonstrate potential cost savings.
8.2 REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE SYSTEMS
8.2.1 Types of Systems
Reinforced soil systems consist of planar reinforcements arranged in nearly horizontal planes
in the reinforced fill to resist outward movement of the reinforced fill mass. Facing
treatments ranging from vegetation to flexible armor systems are applied to prevent
unraveling and sloughing of the face. These systems are generic in nature and can
incorporate any of a variety of reinforcements and facing systems. Design assistance is often
available through many of the reinforcement suppliers, which often have proprietary
computer programs.
This manual does not cover reinforcing the base section of an embankment for construction
over soft soils, which is a different type reinforcement application. The user is referred to the
FHWA Geosynthetics Design and Construction Guidelines (Holtz et al., 2008) for that
application. An extension of this application is to lengthen reinforcement at the base of the
embankment to improve the global stability of a reinforced soil slope. This application will
be covered; however, steepening a slope significantly increases the potential for bearing
capacity failure over soft soils and extensive geotechnical exploration along with rigorous
analysis is required.
FHWA NHI-10-025 8 – Reinforced Soil Slopes

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II 8–1 November 2009
An alternate slope reinforcement technique, the “Deep Patch” method, is used for stabilizing
and potentially repairing roadway fill slopes on secondary roads where removal and
replacement are not feasible (e.g., in mountainous terrain). In this method, reinforcements
(typically geogrids) are placed in the upper portion of the slope to essentially tie it back. An
empirical design approach has been developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Forest Service technology in partnership with FHWA Federal Lands Highway
(Musser and Denning, 2005). The method is not explicitly included in the design sections of
Chapters 8 and 9 as this approach is often considered as a temporary repair method to retard
the movement of a slope until a more permanent solution can be implemented; however, a
brief description of the method is included in Appendix F.
8.2.2 Construction Materials
Reinforcement types. Reinforced soil slopes can be constructed with any of the
reinforcements described in Chapter 2. While discrete strip type reinforcing elements can be
used, a majority of the systems are constructed with continuous sheets of geosynthetics (i.e.,
geotextiles or geogrids) or wire mesh. Small, discrete micro reinforcing elements such as
fibers, yarns, and microgrids located very close to each other have also been used. However,
the design is based on more conventional unreinforced designs with cohesion added by the
reinforcement (which is not covered in this manual).
Reinforced Fill Requirements. Reinforced fill requirements for reinforced soil slopes are
discussed in Chapter 3. Because a flexible facing (e.g. wrapped facing) is normally used,
minor face distortion that may occur due to reinforced fill settlement, freezing and thawing,
or wetting and drying can be tolerated. Thus, lower quality reinforced fill than recommended
for MSE walls can be used. The recommended reinforced fill is limited to low-plasticity,
granular material (i.e., PI ≤ 20 and ≤ 50 percent finer than a No. 200 US sieve {0.075 mm}).
However, with good drainage, careful evaluation of soil and soil-reinforcement interaction
characteristics, field construction control, and performance monitoring (see Chapter 11),
most indigenous soil can be considered.
8.3 DESIGN APPROACH
8.3.1 Application Considerations
As reviewed in Chapter 2, there are two main purposes for using reinforcement in slopes:
 Improved stability for steepened slopes and slope repair.
 Compaction aids, for support of construction equipment and improved face stability.

The design of reinforcement for safe, steep slopes requires a rigorous analysis. The design of
reinforcement for this application is critical, as failure of the reinforcement would result in
failure of the slope.
The overall design requirements for reinforced slopes are similar to those for unreinforced
slopes: A limit equilibrium, allowable stress approach is used and the factor of safety must
be adequate for both the short-term and long-term conditions and for all possible modes of
failure. LRFD methods have not been fully developed for either unreinforced or reinforced
slopes and are thus not included in this manual.
As illustrated in Figure 8-1, there are three failure modes for reinforced slopes:
 Internal, where the failure plane passes through the reinforcing elements.
 External, where the failure surface passes behind and underneath the reinforced zone.
 Compound, where the failure surface passes behind and through the reinforced soil
zone.
In some cases, the calculated stability safety factor can be approximately equal in two or all
three modes, if the reinforcement strengths, lengths and vertical spacings are optimized (Berg
et al., 1989).
Figure 8-1. Failure modes for reinforced soil slopes including internal failure within the
reinforced soil zone, external failure entirely outside the reinforced soil zone, and
compound failure starting behind and passing through the reinforced soil zone.
8.3.2 Design of Reinforcement for Compaction Aid
For the use of geosynthetics as compaction aids, the design is relatively simple. Assuming
the slope is safe without reinforcement, no reinforcement design is required. Place any
geotextile or geogrid that will survive construction at every lift or every other lift of
compacted soil in a continuous plane along the edge of the slope. Only narrow strips, about
4 to 6 ft (1.2 to 1.8 m) in width, at 8 to 18 in. (200 to 500 mm) vertical spacing are required.
Where the slope angle approaches the angle of repose of the soil, it is recommended that a
face stability analysis be performed using the method presented in the reinforcement design
section of Chapter 9. Where reinforcement is required by analysis, the narrow strip
reinforcement may be considered as secondary reinforcement used to improve compaction
and stabilize the slope face between primary reinforcing layers.
8.3.3 Design of Reinforcement for Steepening Slopes and Slope Repair
For steepened reinforced slopes (face inclination up to 70 degrees) and slope repair, design is
based on modified versions of the classical limit equilibrium slope stability methods as
shown in Figure 8-2:
 Circular or wedge-type potential failure surface is assumed.
 The relationship between driving and resisting forces or moments determines the slope
factor of safety.
 Reinforcement layers intersecting the potential failure surface are assumed to increase
the resisting force or moment based on their tensile capacity and orientation. (Usually,
the shear and bending strengths of stiff reinforcements are not taken into account.)
 The tensile capacity of a reinforcement layer is taken as the minimum of its allowable
pullout resistance behind (or in front of) the potential failure surface and its long-term
allowable design strength, Tal.
As shown in Figure 8-1, a wide variety of potential failure surfaces must be considered,
including deep-seated surfaces through or behind the reinforced zone. For the internal
analysis, the critical slope stability factor of safety is taken from the internal unreinforced
failure surface requiring the maximum reinforcement. This is the failure surface with the
largest unbalanced driving moment to resisting moment and not the surface with the
minimum calculated unreinforced factor of safety. This failure surface is equivalent to the
critical reinforced failure surface with the lowest factor of safety. Detailed design of
reinforced zone is performed by determining the factor of safety with successively modified
reinforcement layouts until the target factor of safety is achieved. External and compound
stability of the reinforced zone are then evaluated.

Figure 8-2. Modified limit equilibrium analysis for reinforced slope design.
For slope repair applications, it is also very important to identify the cause of the original
failure to make sure that the new reinforced soil slope will not have the same problems. If a
water table or erratic water flows exist, particular attention has to be paid to drainage. In
natural soils, it is also necessary to identify any weak seams that might affect stability.
The method presented in this manual uses any conventional slope stability computer program
and the steps necessary to manually calculate the reinforcement requirements for almost any
condition. Figure 8-2 shows the conventional rotational slip surface method used in the
analysis. Fairly complex conditions can be accommodated depending on the analytical
method used (e.g., Modified Bishop, Spencer). The computer program ReSSA (ADAMA,
2001) was developed by the FHWA to specifically perform this analysis.
The rotational slip surface approach is used for slopes up to 70 degrees, although technically
it is a valid method for evaluating even steeper slopes. Slopes steeper than 70 degrees are
defined as walls and lateral earth pressure procedures in Chapter 4 apply.

The assumed orientation of the reinforcement tensile force influences the calculated slope
safety factor. In a conservative approach, the deformability of the reinforcements is not
taken into account, and thus, the tensile forces per unit width of reinforcement Tr are assumed
to always be in the horizontal direction of the reinforcements. When close to failure,
however, the reinforcements may elongate along the failure surface, and an inclination from
the horizontal can be considered.
The above reinforcement orientations represent a simplifying assumption considering the

reinforcement is not incorporated directly into the analysis of the slope. If a more rigorous
evaluation is performed in which the vertical and horizontal components of the tension forces
are included in the equations of equilibrium, then it can be shown that an increase in normal
stress will occur for reinforcements with an orientation other than tangential to the failure
surface (Wright and Duncan, 1990). In effect, this increase in normal stress will result in
practically the same reinforcement influence on the safety factor whether it is assumed to act
tangentially or horizontally. Although these equilibrium considerations may indicate that the
horizontal assumption is conservative for discontinuous strip reinforcements, it should be
recognized that the stress distribution near the point of intersection of the reinforcement and
the failure surface is complicated. The conclusion concerning an increase in normal stress
should only be considered for continuous and closely spaced reinforcements: it is
questionable and should not be applied to reinforced slopes with widely spaced and/or
discrete, strip type reinforcements.
Tensile force direction is, therefore, dependent on the extensibility and continuity of the
reinforcements used, and the following inclination is suggested:
 Discrete, strip reinforcements: T parallel to the reinforcements.
 Continuous, sheet reinforcements: T tangent to the sliding surface.
8.3.4 Computer-Assisted Design
The ideal method for reinforced slope design is to use a conventional slope stability computer
program that has been modified to account for the stabilizing effect of reinforcement. Such
programs should account for reinforcement strength and pullout capacity, compute reinforced
and unreinforced safety factors automatically, and have some searching routine to help locate
critical surfaces. The method may also include the confinement effects of the reinforcement
on the shear strength of the soil in the vicinity of the reinforcement.

A number of reinforced slope programs are commercially available, several of which follow
the design approach detailed in Chapter 9 of this manual. As previously indicated the
development of program ReSSA was initially sponsored by the FHWA. ReSSA implicitly
contains the design approach in this manual, noted as the FHWA Bishop Method in the
program’s rotational stability analysis section, and contains the previous version of this
manual in the help screens. ReSSA also provides alternate methods of analysis and the help
screens describe those methods in detail including a theoretical discussion of the approaches.
FHWA does not exclude the use of other methods of analysis, especially those which are
more comprehensive. However, the user must have a fundamental understanding of which
design method(s) are being used and how the algorithms incorporate the reinforcement into
the stability analysis, with some programs using simplifying assumptions, while others apply
comprehensive formulation and correspondingly complicated computations. Appropriate
factors of safety must then be applied to account for uncertainties of the analytical method
and the geotechnical and reinforcement materials.
Some of the less sophisticated programs do not design the reinforcement but allow for an
evaluation of a given reinforcement layout. An iterative approach then follows to optimize
either the reinforcement strength or layout. Many of these programs are limited to simple
soil profiles and, in some cases, simple reinforcement layouts. Also, external stability
evaluation may be limited to specific soil and reinforcement conditions and a single mode of
failure. In some cases, these programs are reinforcement-specific.
With computerized analyses, the actual factor of safety value (FS) is dependent upon how the
specific program accounts for the reinforcement tension in the moment equilibrium equation.
The method of analysis in Chapter 9 and in FHWA Bishop method in ReSSa, as well as
many others, assume the reinforcement force as contributing to the resisting moment, i.e.:
M R  TS R
FS R  (8-1)
MD
where, FSR = the required stability factor of safety

MR = resisting moment provided by the strength of the soil
MD = driving moment about the center of the failure circle
TS = sum of tensile force per unit width of reinforcement (considering
rupture and pullout) in all reinforcement layers intersecting the
failure surface
R = the moment arm of TS about the center of failure circle as shown
in Figure 8-2

With this assumption, FSR is applied to both the soil and the reinforcement as part of the
analysis. As a result, the stability with respect to breakage of the reinforcement requires that
the allowable reinforcement strength Tal from Chapter 3, equation 3-12 must be greater than
or equal to the required maximum design tension Tmax for each reinforcement layer.
Some computer programs use an assumption that the reinforcement force is a negative
driving component, thus the FS is computed as:
MR
FS  (8-2)
M D  TS R
With this assumption, the stability factor of safety is not applied to TS. Therefore, the
allowable design strength Tal should be computed as the ultimate tensile strength TULT
divided by the required safety factor (i.e., target stability factor of safety) along with the
appropriate reduction factors RF in equation 8-12; i.e., Tal = TULT / (FSR RF). This provides
an equivalent factor of safety to equation 8-1, which is appropriate to account for uncertainty
in material strengths and reduction factors. The method used to develop design charts should
likewise be carefully evaluated to determine FS used to obtain the allowable reinforcement
strength.
8.3.5 Evaluation of External Stability
The external stability of reinforced soil slopes depends on the ability of the reinforced zone
to act as a stable block and withstand all external loads without failure. Failure possibilities
as shown in Figure 8-3 include wedge and block type sliding, deep-seated overall instability,
local bearing capacity failure at the toe (lateral squeeze type failure), as well as excessive
settlement from both short- and long-term conditions.
The reinforced zone must be sufficiently wide at any level to resist wedge and block type
sliding. To evaluate sliding stability, a wedge type failure surface defined by the limits of the
reinforcement can be analyzed using the conventional sliding block method of analysis as
detailed in the FHWA Soils and Foundations Workshop Reference Manual, (Samtani and
Nowatzki, 2006). The computer program ReSSA incorporates wedge analysis of the
reinforced system, using force equilibrium to analyze sliding both beyond and through the
reinforced section.
Conventional soil mechanics stability methods should also be used to evaluate the global
stability of the reinforced soil zone. Both rotational and wedge type failure surfaces
extending behind and below the structure should be considered. Care should be taken to

identify any weak soil layers in the retained fill and natural soils behind and/or foundation
soil below the reinforced soil zone. Evaluation of potential seepage forces is especially
critical for global stability analysis. Compound failure surfaces initiating externally and
passing through or between reinforcement sections should also be evaluated, especially for
complex slope or soil conditions. Extending the lengths of lower level reinforcements may
improve the overall global stability, however, special considerations for the orientation of the
reinforcement in the analysis must be considered based on the foundation conditions, as
detailed in Chapter 9.
Figure 8-3. External failure modes for reinforced soil slopes.

Evaluation of deep-seated failure does not automatically check for bearing capacity of the
foundation or failure at the toe of the slope. High lateral stress in a confined soft stratum
beneath the embankment could lead to a lateral squeeze type failure. The shear forces
developed under the embankment should be compared to the corresponding shear strength of
the soil. Approaches discussed by Jurgenson (1934), Silvestri (1983), and Bonaparte et al.
(1987), and Holtz et al. (2008) are appropriate. The approach by Silvestri is demonstrated in
example problem E.10 in Appendix E.
Settlement should be evaluated for both total and differential movement. While settlement of
the reinforced slope is not of concern, adjacent structures or structures supported by the slope
may not tolerate such movements. Differential movements can also affect decisions on
facing elements as discussed in Section 8.4.
In areas subject to potential seismic activity, a simple pseudo-static type analysis should be
performed using a seismic coefficient obtained from Division 1A of the AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges (AASHTO, 2002), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications (AASHTO, 2007) or using local practice. Reinforced slopes are flexible
systems and, unless used for bridge abutments, they are not laterally restrained. For free
standing abutments that can tolerate lateral displacement of up to 10A in., Division 1A –
Seismic Design, Article 6.4.3 Abutments (AASHTO, 2002) and Appendix A11.1.1.2
(AASHTO, 2007) both imply that a seismic design acceleration Am = A/2 and a
corresponding horizontal seismic coefficient Kh =A/2 can be used for seismic design.
Appropriately a seismic design acceleration of A/2 is recommended for reinforced soil
slopes, unless the slope supports structures that cannot tolerate such movements.
If any of the external stability safety factors are less than the required factor of safety, the
following foundation improvement options could be considered:
 Excavate and replace soft soil.
 Flatten the slope.
 Construct a berm at the toe of the slope to provide an equivalent flattened slope. The
berm could be placed as a surcharge at the toe and removed after consolidation of the
soil has occurred.
 Stage construct the slope to allow time for consolidation of the foundation soils.
 Embed the slope below grade (> 3 ft), or construct a shear key at the toe of the slope
(evaluate based on active-passive resistance).
 Use ground improvement techniques (e.g., wick drains, stone columns, etc.)
Additional information on ground improvement techniques can be found in the FHWA
Ground Improvement Methods reference manuals NHI-06-019 and NHI-06-020 (Elias et al.,
2006).

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II 8 – 10 November 2009
8.4 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
As the reinforcement layers are easily incorporated between the compacted lifts of fill,
construction of reinforced slopes is very similar to normal slope construction. The elements
of construction consist of simply:
1. Placing the soil
2. Placing the reinforcement
3. Constructing the face
The following is the usual construction sequence as shown in Figure 8-4:
 Site Preparation
- Clear and grub site.
- Remove all slide debris (for slope reinstatement projects).
- Prepare a level subgrade for placement of the first level of reinforcement.
- Proof-roll subgrade at the base of the slope with a roller or rubber-tired
vehicle.
- Observe and approve foundation prior to fill placement.
- Place drainage features (e.g., basedrain and/or backdrain) as required.
 Reinforcing Layer Placement

- Reinforcement should be placed with the principal strength direction
perpendicular to the face of the slope.
- Secure reinforcement with retaining pins to prevent movement during fill
placement.
- A minimum overlap of 6 in. (150 mm) is recommended along the edges
perpendicular to the slope for wrapped face structures. Alternatively with grid
reinforcement, the edges may be clipped or tied together. When
reinforcements are not required for face support, no overlap is required and
edges should be butted.
 Reinforced fill Placement

- Place fill to the required lift thickness on the reinforcement using a front end
loader or dozer operating on previously placed fill or natural ground.
- Maintain a minimum of 6 in. (150 mm) of fill between the reinforcement and
the wheels or tracks of construction equipment.

Figure 8-4. Construction of reinforced soil slopes.

- Compact with a vibratory roller or plate type compactor for granular materials
or a rubber-tired or smooth drum roller for cohesive materials.
- When placing and compacting the reinforced fill material, care should be
taken to avoid any deformation or movement of the reinforcement.
- Use lightweight compaction equipment near the slope face with welded wire
mesh systems to help maintain face alignment.
 Compaction Control
- Provide close control on the water content and density of the reinforced fill. It
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard AASHTO T99
maximum density within 2 percent of optimum moisture.
- If the reinforced fill is a coarse aggregate, then a relative density or a method
type compaction specification should be used.
 Face Construction
- Slope facing requirements will depend on soil type, slope angle and the
reinforcement spacing as shown in Table 8-1.
If slope facing is required to prevent sloughing (i.e., slope angle β is greater than soil)
or erosion, several options are available. Sufficient reinforcement lengths could be
provided for wrapped faced structures. A face wrap may not be required for slopes
up to about 1H:1V as indicated in Figure 8-4. In this case, the reinforcements
(primary and secondary) can be simply extended to the face. For this option, a facing
treatment as detailed under Section 8.5 Treatment of Outward Face, should be applied
at sufficient intervals during construction to prevent face erosion. For wrapped or no
wrap construction, the reinforcement should be maintained at close spacing (i.e.,
every lift or every other lift but no greater than 16 in. {400 mm}). For armored, hard
faced systems the maximum spacing should be no greater than 32 in. (800 mm). A
positive frictional or mechanical connection should be provided between the
reinforcement and armored type facing systems.
The following procedures are recommended for wrapping the face.

- Turn up reinforcement at the face of the slope and return the reinforcement a
minimum of 3 ft (1 m) into the embankment below the next reinforcement
layer (see Figure 8-4).
- For steep slopes, formwork may be required to support the face during
construction, improving compaction at the face and providing a smoother face
finish. Welded wire mesh is often used as a face form (see Figure 8-5). The

welded wire face is left in place with ungalvanized used for temporary support
and galvanized wire used for permanent support.
- For grid reinforcements, a fine mesh screen or geotextile may be required at
the face to retain reinforced fill materials.
Slopes steeper than approximately 1:1 typically require facing support during
construction. Exact slope angles will vary with soil types, i.e., amount of cohesion.
Removable facing supports (e.g., wooden forms) or left-in-place welded wire mesh
forms are typically used. Facing support may also serve as permanent or temporary
erosion protection, depending on the requirements of the slope.
 Additional Reinforcing Materials and Retained Backfill Placement

If drainage layers are required, they should be constructed directly behind or on the
sides of the reinforced section.
Table 8-1. RSS slope facing options (after Collin, 1996).

Type of Facing
Slope Face Angle and When Geosynthetic is not Wrapped at Face When Geosynthetic is Wrapped at Face
Soil Type
Vegetated Face1 Hard Facing2 Vegetated Face1 Hard Facing2
o
> 50 Not Recommended Gabions Sod, Wire Baskets,3
(> ~0.9H:1V) Permanent Erosion Stone,
All Soil Types Blanket w/ seed Shotcrete
35o to 50o Not Recommended Gabions, Sod, Wire Baskets,3
(~ 1.4H:1V to 0.9H:1V) Soil-Cement Permanent Erosion Stone,
Clean Sands (SP)4 Blanket w/ seed Shotcrete
Rounded Gravel (GP)
35o to 50o Soil Bio reinforcement, Gabions, Sod, Wire Baskets,3
(~ 1.4H:1V to 0.9H:1V) Drainage Soil-Cement, Permanent Erosion Stone,
Silts (ML) Composites5 Stone Veneer Blanket w/ seed Shotcrete
Sandy Silts (ML)
35o to 50o Temporary Hard Facing, Geosynthetic Geosynthetic
(~ 1.4H:1V to 0.9H:1V) Erosion Blanket Not Needed Wrap Not Wrap Not
Silty Sands (SM) w/ Seed or Sod, Needed Needed
Clayey Sands (SC) Permanent
Well graded sands and Erosion Mat
gravels (SW & GW) w/ Seed or Sod
25o to 35o Temporary Hard Facing Geosynthetic Geosynthetic
(~ 2H:1V to 1.4H:1V) Erosion Blanket Not Needed Wrap Not Wrap Not
All Soil Types w/ Seed or Sod, Needed Needed
Permanent Erosion Mat
w/ Seed or Sod
Notes: 1. Vertical spacing of reinforcement (primary/secondary) shall be no greater than 16 in. (400 mm) with
primary reinforcements spaced no greater than 32 in. (800 mm) when secondary reinforcement is used.
2. Vertical spacing of primary reinforcement shall be no greater than 32 in. (800 mm).
3. 18 in. (450 mm) high wire baskets are recommended.
4. Unified Soil Classification
5. Geosynthetic or natural horizontal drainage layers to intercept and drain the saturated soil at the face of
the slope.

SEEDED TOPSOIL
A)
AASHTO M288 Class 2

Geotextile Filter
Reinforcement
B)
Figure 8-5. Example of welded wire mesh detail for temporary (during construction) or
permanent face support showing a) smooth inclined face, and b) stepped face.
8.5 TREATMENT OF OUTWARD FACE
8.5.1 Grass Type Vegetation

Stability of a slope can be threatened by erosion due to surface water runoff. Erosion control
and revegetation measures must, therefore, be an integral part of all reinforced slope system
designs and specifications. If not otherwise protected, reinforced slopes should be vegetated
after construction to prevent or minimize erosion due to rainfall and runoff on the face.
Vegetation requirements will vary by geographic and climatic conditions and are, therefore,
project specific.
For the unwrapped face (the soil surface exposed), erosion control measures are necessary to
prevent raveling and sloughing of the face. A wrapped face helps reduce erosion problems;
however, treatments are still required on the face to shade geosynthetic soil reinforcement
and prevent ultraviolet light exposure that will degrade the geosynthetic over time. In either
case, conventional vegetated facing treatments generally rely on low growth, grass type

vegetation with more costly flexible armor occasionally used where vegetation cannot be
established. Due to the steep grades that can be achieved with reinforced soil slopes, it can
be difficult to establish and maintain grass type vegetative cover. The steepness of the grade
limits the amount of water absorbed by the soil before runoff occurs. Although root
penetration should not affect the reinforcement, the reinforcement may restrict root growth,
depending on the reinforcement type. This can have an adverse influence on the growth of
some plants. Grass is also frequently ineffective where slopes are impacted by waterways.
A synthetic (permanent) erosion control mat is normally used to improve the performance of
grass cover. This mat must also be stabilized against ultra-violet light and should be inert to
naturally occurring soil-born chemicals and bacteria. The erosion control mat serves to: 1)
protect the bare soil face against erosion until the vegetation is established; 2) assist in
reducing runoff velocity for increased water absorption by the soil, thus promoting long-term
survival of the vegetative cover; and 3) reinforce the surficial root system of the vegetative
cover.
Once vegetation is established on the face, it must be protected to ensure long-term survival.
Maintenance issues, such as mowing (if applicable), must also be carefully considered. The
shorter, weaker root structure of most grasses may not provide adequate reinforcement and
erosion protection. Grass is highly susceptible to fire, which can also destroy the synthetic
erosion control mat. Downdrag from snow loads or upland slides may also strip matting and
vegetation off the slope face. The low erosion tolerance combined with other factors
previously mentioned creates a need to evaluate revegetation measures as an integral part of
the design. Slope face protection should not be left to the construction contractor or vendor's
discretion. Guidance should be obtained from maintenance and regional landscaping groups
in the selection of the most appropriate low maintenance vegetation.
8.5.2 Soil Bioengineering (Woody Vegetation)

An alternative to low growth, grass type vegetation is the use of soil bioengineering methods
to establish hardier, woody type vegetation in the face of the slope (Sotir and Christopher,
2000). Soil bioengineering uses living vegetation purposely arranged and imbedded in the
ground to prevent shallow mass movement and surficial erosion. However, the use of soil
bioengineering in itself is limited to stable slope masses. Combining this highly erosive
system with geosynthetic reinforcement produces a very durable, low maintenance structure
with exceptional aesthetic and environmental qualities.
Appropriately applied, soil bioengineering offers a cost-effective and attractive approach for
stabilizing slopes against erosion and shallow mass movement, capitalizing on the benefits
and advantages that vegetation offers. The value of vegetation in civil engineering and the

role woody vegetation plays in the stabilization of slopes has gained considerable recognition
in recent years (Gray and Sotir, 1995). Woody vegetation improves the hydrology and
mechanical stability of slopes through root reinforcement and surface protection. The use of
deeply-installed and rooted woody plant materials, purposely arranged and imbedded during
slope construction offers:
 Immediate erosion control for slopes; stream, and shoreline.
 Improved face stability through mechanical reinforcement by roots.
 Reduced maintenance costs, with less need to return to revegetate or cut grass.
 Modification of soil moisture regimes through improved drainage and depletion of
soil moisture and increase of soil suction by root uptake and transpiration.
 Enhanced wildlife habitat and ecological diversity.
 Improved aesthetic quality and naturalization.
The biological and mechanical elements must be analyzed and designed to work together in
an integrated and complementary manner to achieve the required project goals. In addition
to using engineering principles to analyze and design the slope stabilization systems, plant
science and horticulture are needed to select and establish the appropriate vegetation for root
reinforcement, erosion control, aesthetics and the environment. Numerous areas of expertise
must integrate to provide the knowledge and awareness required for success. RSS systems
require knowledge of the mechanisms involving mass and surficial stability of slopes.
Likewise when the vegetative aspects are appropriate to serve as reinforcements and drains,
an understanding of the hydraulic and mechanical effects of slope vegetation is necessary.
Figure 8-6 shows a cross section of the components of a vegetated reinforced slope (VRSS)
system. The design details for face construction include vegetation selection, placement, and
development as well as several agronomic and geotechnical design issues (Sotir and
Christopher, 2000).
Figure 8-6. Components of a

vegetated reinforced slope
(VRSS) system.

 Vegetation Selection
The vegetation used in the VRSS system is typically in the form of live woody branch
cuttings from species that root adventitiously or from bare root and/or container
plants. Plant materials may be selected for a variety of tolerances including: drought,
salt, flooding, fire, deposition, and shade. They may be chosen for their
environmental wildlife value, water cleansing capabilities, flower, branch and leaf
color or fruits. Other interests for selection may include size, form, rate of growth
rooting characteristics and ease of propagation. Time of year for construction of a
VRSS system also plays a critical roll in plant selection.
 Vegetation Placement
The decision to use native, naturalized or ornamental species is also an important
consideration. The plant materials are placed on the frontal section of the formed
terraces. Typically 6 to 12 in. (150 to 300 mm) protrude beyond the constructed
terrace edge or finished face, and 1.5 to 10 ft (0.5 to 3 m) of the live branch cuttings
(when used) are embedded in the reinforced fill behind, or as in the case of rooted
plants, are placed 1 to 3 ft (0.3 to 1 m) into the reinforced fill. The process of plant
installation is best and least expensive when it occurs simultaneously with the
conventional construction activities, but may be incorporated later if necessary.
 Vegetation Development
Typically soil bioengineering VRSS systems offer immediate results from the surface
erosion control structural/mechanical and hydraulic perspectives. Over time,
(generally within the first year) they develop substantial top and root growth further
enhancing those benefits, as well as providing aesthetic and environmental values.
 Design Issues
There are several agronomic and geotechnical design issues that must be considered,
especially in relation to selection of geosynthetic reinforcement and type of
vegetation. Considerations include root and top growth potential. The root growth
potential consideration is important when face reinforcement enhancement is
required. This will require a review of the vertical spacing based on the anticipated
root growth for the specific type of plant. In addition to spacing, the type of
reinforcements is also important. Open-mesh geogrid-type reinforcements, for
example, are excellent as the roots will grow through the grid and further "knit" the
system together. On the other hand, geocomposites, providing both reinforcement and
lateral drainage, offer enhanced water and oxygen opportunities for the healthy
development of the woody vegetation. Dependent upon the species selected, aspect,

climatic conditions, soils, etc., dense woody vegetation can provide ultraviolet light
protection within the first growing season and maintain the cover thereafter.
In arid regions, geosynthetics that will promote moisture movement into the slope
such as non-woven geotextiles or geocomposites may be preferred. Likewise, the
need for water and nutrients in the slope to sustain and promote vegetative growth
must be balanced against the desire to remove water so as to reduce hydrostatic
pressures. Plants can be installed to promote drainage toward geosynthetic drainage
net composites placed at the back of the reinforced soil section.
Organic matter is not required; however, a medium that provides nourishment for
plant growth and development is necessary. As mentioned earlier, the agronomic
needs must be balanced with the geotechnical requirements, but these are typically
compatible. For both, a well-drained reinforced fill is needed. The plants also
require sufficient fines to provide moisture and nutrients. While this may be a
limitation, under most circumstances, some slight modifications in the specifications
to allow for some non-plastic fines in the reinforced fill in the selected frontal zone
offers a simple solution to this problem.
While many plants can be installed throughout the year, the most cost effective,
highest rate of survival and best overall performance and function occurs when
construction is planned around the dormant season for the plants, or just prior to the
rainy season. This may require some specific construction coordination in relation to
the placement of fill, and in some cases could preclude the use of a VRSS structure.
8.5.3 Armored
A permanent facing such as gunite or emulsified asphalt may be applied to a geosynthetic

reinforcement RSS slope face to provide long-term ultra-violet protection, if the geosynthetic
UV resistance is not adequate for the life of the structure. Galvanized welded wire mesh
reinforcement or facing or gabions may also be used to facilitate face construction and
provide permanent facing systems.
 Other armored facing elements may include riprap, stone veneer, articulating modular
units, or fabric-formed concrete.
 Structural elements.
Structural facing elements (see MSE walls) may also be used, especially if discrete
reinforcing elements such as metallic strips are used. These facing elements may include
prefabricated concrete slabs, modular precast blocks, or precast slabs.

8.6 DESIGN DETAILS
As with MSE wall projects, certain design details must often be considered that are not
directly connected with internal or external stability evaluation. These important details
include:
 Guardrail and traffic barriers.
 Drainage considerations.
 Obstructions.
8.6.1 Guardrail and Traffic Barriers
Guardrails are usually necessary for steeper highway embankment slopes. Guardrail posts
usually can be installed in their standard manner (i.e. drilling or driving) through
geosynthetic reinforcements. Special wedge shaped shoes can be used to facilitate
installation. This does not significantly impair the overall strength of the geosynthetic and no
adjustments in the design are required. Alternatively, post or concrete form tubes at post
locations can be installed during construction. Either this procedure or cantilever type
guardrail systems are generally used for metallic reinforcement.
Impact traffic load on barriers constructed at the face of a reinforced soil slope is designed on
the same basis as an unreinforced slope. The traffic barrier may be designed to resist the
overturning moment in accordance with Article 2.7 in Division I of AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges (AASHTO, 2002), Section 13 of AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications (AASHTO, 2007) or as addressed in the 2006 AASHTO
Roadside Design Guide, and will be covered in detail in Chapter 9.
8.6.2 Drainage Considerations
Uncontrolled subsurface water seepage can decrease stability of slopes and could ultimately
result in slope failure.
 Hydrostatic forces on the back of the reinforced zone will decrease stability against
sliding failure.

 Uncontrolled seepage into the reinforced zone will increase the weight of the
reinforced mass and may decrease the shear strength of the soil, thus decreasing
stability.
 Seepage through the reinforced zone can reduce pullout capacity of the reinforcement
at the face and increase soil weight, creating erosion and sloughing problems.
As a precaution, drainage features should be included unless detailed analysis proves that
drainage is not required. Drains are typically placed at the rear of the reinforced soil zone to
control subsurface water seepage as detailed in Chapter 9. Surface runoff should also be
diverted at the top of the slope to prevent it from flowing over the face.
8.6.3 Obstructions
If encountered in a design, guidance provided in Chapters 5 should be considered.
8.7 CASE HISTORIES
The following case histories are presented to provide representative examples of cost-
effective, successful reinforced slope projects. In several cases, instrumentation was used to
confirm the performance of the structure. All project information was obtained from the
indicated references which, in most cases, contain additional details.
8.7.1 The Dickey Lake Roadway Grade Improvement Project

(Yarger and Barnes,1993)
Dickey Lake is located in northern Montana approximately 25 miles (40 km) south of the
Canadian border. Reconstruction of a portion of U.S. 93 around the shore of Dickey Lake
required the use of an earth-retention system to maintain grade and alignment. The fill soils
available in the area consist primarily of glacial till. Groundwater is active in the area. A
slope stability factor of safety criteria of 1.5 was established for the embankments. A global
stability analysis of reinforced concrete retaining walls to support the proposed embankment
indicated a safety factor that was less than required. Analysis of a reinforced soil wall or
slope indicated higher factors of safety. Based on an evaluation of several reinforcement
systems, a decision was made to use a reinforced slope for construction of the embankment.
The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) decided that the embankment would not
be designed “in-house,” due to their limited experience with this type of structure.

Proposals were solicited from a variety of suppliers, who were required to design the
embankment. An outside consultant, experienced in geosynthetic reinforcement design, was
retained to review all submittals. Plans and specifications for the geosynthetic reinforced
embankments(s) were developed by MDT, with the plans indicating the desired finished
geometry. The slopes generally ranged from 30 to 60 ft (9 to 18.3 m) in height. Face angles
varied from 1.5H:1V to 0.84H:1V with the typical angle being 1H:1V. The chosen supplier
provided a design that utilized both uniaxially and biaxially oriented geogrids. The resulting
design called for primary reinforcing geogrids 15 to 60 ft (4.6 to 18.3 m) long and spaced 2
to 4 ft (0.6 to 1.2 m) vertically throughout the reinforced embankment. The ultimate strength
of the primary reinforcement was on the order of 6850 lb/ft (100 kN/m). The length of
primary reinforcement was partially dictated by global stability concerns. In addition,
intermediate reinforcement consisting of lower strength, biaxial geogrids was provided in
lengths of 5 ft (1.5 m) with a vertical spacing of 1 ft (0.3 m) at the face of slopes 1H:1V or
flatter. Erosion protection on the 1H:1V or flatter sections was accomplished by using an
organic erosion blanket. Steeper sections (maximum 0.84H:1V) used L-shaped, welded wire
forms with a biaxial grid wrap behind the wire. A design evaluation of this project is
presented in Chapter 9.
The design also incorporated subsurface drainage. This drainage was judged to be
particularly important due to springs or seeps present along the backslope of the
embankment. The design incorporated geocomposite prefabricated drains placed along the
backslope, draining into a French drain at the toe of the backslope. Laterals extending under
the embankment were used to "daylight" the French drain.
The project was constructed in 1989 at a cost of approximately $17/ft2 ($180/m2) of vertical
face and has been periodically monitored by visual inspection and slope inclinometers.
Project photos are shown in Figure 8-7. To date, the embankment performance has been
satisfactory with no major problems observed. Some minor problems have been reported
with respect to the erosion control measures and some minor differential movement in one of
the lower sections of the embankment.

Figure 8-7. Dickey Lake site.

8.7.2 Salmon-Lost Trail Roadway Widening Project
(Zornberg et al., 1995)
As part of a highway widening project in Idaho, the FHWA Western Federal Lands Highway
Division designed and supervised the construction of a 565 ft long, 50 ft high (172 m long,
15.3 m high) permanent geosynthetic-reinforced slope to compare its performance with
retaining structures along the same alignment. Widening of the original road was achieved by
turning the original 2H:1V unreinforced slope into a 1H:1V reinforced slope. Aesthetics was
an important consideration in the selection of the retaining structures along scenic Highway 93,
which has been recognized by articles in National Geographic. A vegetated facing was,
therefore, used for the reinforced slope section. On-site soil consisting of decomposed granite
was used as the reinforced fill. An important factor in the design was to deal with water
seepage from existing slope. Geotextile reinforcements with an in-plane transmissivity were
selected to evaluate the potential of modifying the seepage regime in the slope.
The geotextile-reinforced slope was designed in accordance with the guidelines presented in
Chapters 8 and 9 of this manual. The final design consisted of two reinforced zones with a
constant reinforcing spacing of 1 ft (0.3 m). The reinforcement in the lower zone had an
ultimate tensile strength of 6,850 lb/ft (100 kN/m), and the reinforcement in the upper zone had
a reinforcement strength of 1,370 lb/ft (20 kN/m). The reinforcement strength was reduced
based on partial reduction factors which are reviewed in Chapter 3. Field tests were used to
reduce the reduction factor for construction damage from the assumed value of 2.0 to the test
value of 1.1 at a substantial savings to the project (40 percent reduction in reinforcement).
The construction was completed in 1993 (see Figure 8-8 for project photos). The structure was
constructed as an experimental features project and was instrumented with inclinometers
within the reinforced zone, extensometers on the reinforcement, and piezometers within and at
the back of the reinforced section. Survey monitoring was also performed during construction.
Total lateral displacements recorded during construction were on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 percent
of the height of the slope, with maximum strains in the reinforcement measured at only 0.2
percent. Post construction movement has not been observed within the accuracy of the
instruments. These measurements indicate the excellent performance of the structure as well
as the conservative nature of the design. Long-term monitoring is continuing.
The steepened slope was constructed at a faster rate and proved more economical than the
other retaining structures constructed along the same alignment. The constructed cost of the
reinforced slope section was on the order of $15/ft2 ($160/m2) of vertical face. Metallic grid
reinforced MSE wall costs in other areas of the site were on the order of $22/ft2 ($240/m2) of
vertical face for similar or lower heights.

Figure 8-8. Salmon Lost Trail site.

8.7.3 Cannon Creek Alternate Embankment Construction Project
(Hayden et al., 1991)
A large embankment was planned to carry Arkansas State Highway 16 over Cannon Creek.
The proposed 100,000 yd3 (77,000 m3) embankment had a maximum height of 75 ft (23 m)
and was to be constructed with on-site clay soils and 2H:1V side slopes (with questionable
stability). A cast-in-place concrete box culvert was first constructed to carry the creek under
the embankment. Embankment construction commenced but was halted quickly when
several small slope failures occurred. It then became apparent that the embankment fill could
not be safely constructed at 2H:1V.
With the box culvert in place, there were two options for continuation of embankment
construction. A gravelly soil could be used for embankment fill, or the on-site soil could be
used with geosynthetic reinforcement. Both options were bid as alternatives and the
geosynthetic option was selected for construction (see Figure 8-9). The reinforcement used
was a high-density polyethylene geogrid with a reported wide-width strength of 6850 lb/ft
(100 kN/m). The geogrid reinforcement option was estimated to be $200,000 less expensive
than the gravelly soil fill option.
Figure 8-9. Cannon Creek project.

8.7.4 Pennsylvania SR 54 Roadway Repair Project
(Wayne and Wilcosky, 1995)
During the winter of 1993 - 1994, a sinkhole formed in a section of State Route 54 in
Pennsylvania. Further investigation revealed that an abandoned railroad tunnel had
collapsed. The traditional repair would have involved the removal and replacement of the 50
ft (15 m) high embankment. The native soil, a sandy clay, was deemed an unsuitable
reinforced fill due to its wet nature and potential stability and settlement problems with the
embankment. Imported granular fill to replace the native soil was estimated to be $21/yd3
($16/m3). Due to the high cost of replacement materials, the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation decided to use geosynthetics to provide drainage of the native soil and
reinforce the side slopes. A polypropylene needlepunched nonwoven geotextile was selected
to allow for pore pressure dissipation of the native soil during compaction, thus accelerating
consolidation settlement and improving its strength. Field tests were used to confirm pore
pressure response.
With the geotextile placed at a compacted lift spacing of 1 ft (0.3 m), full pore pressure
dissipation was achieved within approximately 4 days as compared with a minimum
dissipation (approximately 25 percent) without the geosynthetic during the same time period.
By placing the geotextile at 1 ft (0.3 m) lift intervals, the effective drainage path was reduced
from the full height of the slope of 50 ft (15 m) to 0.5 ft (0.15 m) or by a factor of over 100.
This meant that consolidation of the embankment would essentially be completed by the end
of construction as opposed to waiting almost a year for completion of the settlement without
the geosynthetic.
The geotextile, with an ultimate strength of 1100 lb/ft (16 kN/m) and placed at every lift 12
in. (0.3 m), also provided sufficient reinforcement to safely construct 1.5H:1V side slopes.
Piezometers at the base and middle of the slope during construction confirmed the test pad
results. Deformations of the geotextile in the side slope were also monitored and found to be
less than the precision of the gages (± 1 percent strain). Project photos are shown in Figure
8-10 along with the measurements of pore pressure dissipation during construction.
The contractor was paid on a time and material basis with the geotextile purchased by the
agency and provided to the contractor for installation. The cost of the geotextile was
2
approximately $1/yd2 ($1.2/m ). In-place costs of the geotextile, along with the on-site fill
3 3
averaged just over $3/yd ($4/m ) for a total cost of $70,000, resulting in a savings of
approximately $200,000 over the select-fill alternative. Additional savings resulted from not
having to remove the on-site soils from the project site.

Figure 8-10. Pennsylvania SR54.

PORE PRESSURE READINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION
80
70
60
Pore Pressure (kPa)

50
40
30
20
10
-10
0 20 40 60 80
T im e (d ays )
1 kPa = 0.145 lb/ft2, 1 m = 3.28 ft
Figure 8-10. Pennsylvania SR54 continued.
8.7.5 Massachusetts Turnpike - Use of Soil Bioengineering (Sotir et al., 1998; Sotir and
Stulgis,1999)
The Massachusetts Turnpike in Charlton, Massachusetts is an example where a vegetated

reinforced slope (VRSS) system was used to construct 1H:4V slopes to replace unstable
1.5H:1V slopes along a 500 ft (150 m) section of the Turnpike. This slope eroded for a
number of years. The erosion was widening and threatening to move back into private
property beyond the right-of-way. Eventually, the increased maintenance to clean up the
sloughed material, the visual scar on the landscape and the threat of private property loss
prompted the Turnpike Authority to seek a solution. The combined soil bioengineering and
geosynthetic reinforcement approach was adopted to meet the narrow right-of-way
requirement, assist in controlling internal drainage, and reconstruct an aesthetically pleasing
and environmentally sound system that would blend into the natural landscape. The 10 to 60
ft (3 to 18 m) high 1H:4V slope was stabilized with layers of primary and secondary
geogrids, erosion control blankets, brushlayers in the frontal geogrid wrapped portion of the
face, and additional soil bioengineering treatments above the constructed slope.

The design was essentially the same as the soil bioengineering cross section shown in Figure
8-6. The primary geogrid was designed to provide global, internal and compound stability to
the slope. This grid extends approximately 20 ft (6.1 m) from the face to the back of the
slope. The vertical spacing of the primary geogrid is 2 ft (0.6 m) and 4 ft (1.2 m),
respectively, over the lower and upper halves of the slope. The face wrap extends
approximately 3 ft (0.9 m) into the slope at the bottom of each vertical lift and 5 ft (1.5 m) at
the top to form 3 ft (0.9 m) thick earthen terraces. Brushlayers consisting of 8 to 10 ft (2.4 m
to 3 m) long willow (Salix sp.) and dogwood (Cornus sp.) live cut branches were placed on
each constructed wrapped section at a vertical spacing of 1 ft (0.9 m), extending back to
approximately the mid point of the slope. The branches and geogrids were sloped back to
promote drainage to backdrains placed in the slopes while providing moisture for the plants.
Live fascine bundles (see Figure 8-11) were installed above the reinforced slope in a 3H:1V
cut section to prevent surface erosion and assist in revegetating that portion of the slope.
The backdrain system consisted of 3.3 ft (1 m) wide geocomposite panels spaced 15 ft (4.6
m) on center. Design of the panels and spacing was based on the anticipated groundwater
flow and surface infiltration conditions. The panels connect into a 1 ft (0.3 m) thick crushed-
stone drainage layer at the base of the slope, which extends the full length and width of the
slope. The reinforced fill soils consisted of granular borrow, ordinary borrow, 50/50 mix of
ordinary granular fill and specified fill. The first three materials constitute the structurally
competent core while the specified fill was placed at the face to provide a media amenable to
plant growth. The specified fill consisted of fertilizers and a blend of four parts ordinary
borrow to one part organic loam by volume and was used in the front 10 ft (3 m) of each lift
for the installed brushlayers to optimize the growing conditions. This was a modification
from the normal geotechnical specification to accommodate the soil bioengineering.
The VRSS slope was constructed in the winter/spring of 1995/96 at a cost of US $25/ft2
($270/m2) of vertical face. After the fourth growing season, the vegetated slope face was
evaluated and found to perform as intended, initially protecting the surface from erosion
while providing a pleasing aesthetic look (see Figure 8-11). Natural invasion from the
surrounding plant community occurred, causing the system to blend into the naturally
wooded scenic setting of the area and meeting the long-term aesthetic and ecological goals.
Lessons Learned: In the future on similar projects, the use of more rooted plants rather than
all live cut branches is recommended to provide greater diversity and to improve construction
efficiency. Reducing the height of the wrapped earth terraces would allow for the vegetation
to be more evenly distributed with less densities, and possibly using a preformed wire form
in the front. These items would all reduce construction costs by improving efficiency.

and the after the second growing season.

8.7.6 242 ft (74 m) High 1H:1V Reinforced Soil Slope for Airport Runway Extension
(Lostumbo, 2009)
The tallest reinforced soil slope in North America as of this writing was constructed to
extend the runway at Yeager Airport in Charleston, WV. Yeager Airport was constructed in
the 1940’s atop mountainous terrain. Due to the mountainous conditions, the ground surface
around the airport slopes down steeply over 300 ft (91 m) to the surrounding Elk and
Kanawha Rivers, roadways, churches, houses and other structures. In order to meet recent
FAA Safety Standards, updates to the airport runways required extending Runway 5
approximately 500 ft (150 m) to create an emergency stopping apron for airplanes.
Construction options for extending the runway past the existing hillside included evaluation
of bridge structures, retaining walls and reinforced slopes. Engineering evaluation indicated
the reinforced slope provided the most cost effective and easiest constructed option. In
addition, the vegetated facing of the completed slope will provide a structure that will blend
into the surrounding green hills of Charleston, WV. The final design was a 242 ft (74 m)
high, 1H:1V reinforced steepened slope (RSS).
The design utilized polyester woven geogrid reinforcements with long term design strengths
Tal of 2,970 lb/ft (43.4 kN/m), 3720 lb/ft (54.4 kN/m) and 3860 lb/ft (56.4 kN/m) as the
primary reinforcement. The vertical spacing of the primary reinforcement was 1.5 ft (460
mm) in the lower portion of the slope and 3 ft (900 m) in the upper portion. The design
embedment length of the primary reinforcement in the taller section of the slope ranged from
175 feet (53 m) at the bottom to 145 ft (44 m) at the top. The design also incorporated a
geosynthetic drainage composite for drainage behind the reinforced zone along the back of
the excavation to intercept and drain seepage water from the existing mountain side away
from the reinforced zone. A geosynthetic erosion control mat was installed on the face of the
slope at 2 ft (0.6 m) vertical intervals, with 3 foot (0.9 m)embedded into the slope face and
2.5 ft (0.76 m) down the face for facial stability and erosion protection. An open mesh
biaxial geosynthetic specifically designed as a face wrap material was also used in the slope
face.
The RSS allowed for an economical solution and less complicated construction than the
other, traditional methods that were considered. The reinforced slope was successfully
completed and is performing as expected. The structure allowed the airport to meet recent
FAA Safety Standards while creating an engineered structure that blends into the scenic
green hills of Charleston, WV.

a) Early construction at the bottom of the slope. b) Slope face during construction.
c) Aerial photo of slope during construction, approximately d) Slope shortly after completion with early vegetation growth
80% complete.
West Virginia.

8.8 STANDARD RSS DESIGNS
RSS structures are customarily designed on a project-specific basis. Most agencies use a
line-and-grade contracting approach, thus the contractor selected RSS vendor provides the
detailed design after contract bid and award. This approach works well. However, in
addition to agencies performing project specific designs, standard designs can be developed
and implemented by an agency for RSS structures.
Use of standard designs for RSS structures offers the following advantages over a line-and-
grade approach:
C Agency is more responsible for design details and integrating slope design with other
components.
C Pre-evaluation and approval of materials and material combinations, as opposed to
evaluating contractor submittal post bid.
C Economy of agency design versus vendor design/stamping of small reinforced slopes.
C Agency makes design decisions versus vendors making design decisions.
C More equitable bid environment as agency is responsible for design details, and vendors
are not making varying assumptions.
C Filters out substandard work, systems and designs with associated approved product lists.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) developed and implemented (in-

house) standardized RSS designs (Berg, 2000). The use of these standard designs are limited
by geometric, subsurface and economic constraints. Structures outside of these constraints
should be designed on a project-specific basis. The general approach used in developing
these standards could be followed by other agencies to develop their own, agency-specific
standard designs.
Standardized designs require generic designs and generic materials. Generic designs require
definition of slope geometry and surcharge loads, soil reinforcement strength, structure
height limit, and slope facing treatment. As an example, the Mn/DOT standard designs
address two geometric and surcharge loadings, two reinforced soil fills, and can be used for
slopes up to 26.2 ft (8 m) in height. Three reinforcement long-term strengths, Tal, of 700,
1050 and 1400 lb/ft (10, 15 and 20 kN/m) are used in the standard designs, although a
structure must use the same reinforcement throughout its height and length.
Generic material properties used definitions of shear strength and unit weight of the
reinforced fill, retained backfill and foundation soils applicable to the agency’s specifications
and regional geology. Definition of generic material properties requires the development of
approved product lists for soil reinforcements and face erosion control materials. A standard

face treatment is provided, however, it is footnoted with Develop site specific
recommendations for highly shaded areas, highly visible urban applications, or in sensitive
areas.
An example design cross section and reinforcement layout table from the Mn/DOT standard
designs is presented in Figure 8-13. Note that the Mn/DOT standard designs are not directly
applicable to, nor should they be used by, other agencies.

Figure 8-13. Example of standard RSS design (Mn/DOT, 2008).

CHAPTER 9
DESIGN OF REINFORCED SOIL SLOPES
9.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides step-by-step procedures for the design of reinforced soil slopes. Design
and analysis of existing design using a computer program is also presented. The design
approach principally assumes that the slope is to be constructed on a stable foundation.
Recommendations for deep seated failure analysis are included. The user is referred to
standard soil mechanics texts and FHWA Geosynthetics Design and Construction Guidelines
(Holtz et al., 2008) in cases where the stability of the foundation is at issue.
As indicated in Chapter 8, there are several approaches to the design of reinforced steepened
slopes. The method presented in this chapter uses the classic rotational, limit equilibrium slope
stability method as shown in Figure 8-2. As for the unreinforced case, a circular arc failure
surface (not location) is assumed for the reinforced slope. This geometry provides a simple
means of directly increasing the resistance to failure from the inclusion of reinforcement, is
directly adaptable to most available conventional slope stability computer programs, and
agrees well with experimental results.
The reinforcement is represented by a concentrated force within the soil mass that intersects
the potential failure surface. By adding the failure resistance provided by this force to the
resistance already provided by the soil, a factor of safety equal to the rotational stability safety
factor is inherently applied to the reinforcement. The tensile capacity of a reinforcement layer
is taken as the minimum of its allowable pullout resistance behind the potential failure surface
or its long-term allowable design strength. The slope stability factor of safety is taken from the
critical surface requiring the maximum amount of reinforcement. Final design is performed by
distributing the reinforcement over the height of the slope and evaluating the external stability
of the reinforced section.
The suitability of this design approach has been verified through extensive experimental
evaluation by the FHWA including numerical analysis, centrifuge models, and full scale
instrumented structures and found to be somewhat conservative. A chart solution developed
for simplistic structures is provided as a check for the results. The method for evaluating a
given reinforced soil profile is also presented. The flow chart in Figure 9-1 shows the steps
required for design of reinforced soil slopes.
FHWA NHI-10-025 9 – Design of Reinforced Soil Slopes

Establish the geometric, loading, and performance requirements for design
Determine engineering properties of the in-situ soils
Determine properties of available fill
Evaluate design parameters for the reinforcement

 allowable reinforcement strength
 durability criteria
 soil-reinforcement interaction
Check unreinforced stability of the slope
Design reinforcement to provide stable slope

 strength
 spacing
 length
Extensible Inextensible
Check external stability
Deep Seated Local Bearing

Sliding Settlement Seismic
Global Capacity
Evaluate requirements for subsurface and surface water control
Develop specifications and contract documents
Figure 9-1. Flow chart of steps for reinforced soil slope design.

9.2 REINFORCED SLOPE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The design steps outlined in the flow chart are as follows:
9.2.1 Step 1. Establish the geometric, loading, and performance requirements for design.
a. Geometric and loading requirements (see Figure 9-2).

 Slope height, H
 Slope angle, θ
 External (surcharge) loads:
- Surcharge load, q
- Temporary live load, ∆q
- Design seismic acceleration, Am (See Division 1A, AASHTO Standard
Specifications for Highway Bridges {AASHTO, 2002} or AASHTO LRFD Bridge
Design Specifications {AASHTO, 2007}).
 Traffic Barrier
- See article 2.7 of AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges
(AASHTO, 2002), Section 13 of AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications
(AASHTO, 2007), and AASHTO Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO, 2006).
b. Performance requirements.
 External stability and settlement
- Sliding: F.S. ≥ 1.3
- Deep seated (overall stability): F.S. ≥ 1.3
- Local bearing failure (lateral squeeze): F.S. ≥ 1.3
- Dynamic loading: F.S. ≥ 1.1
- Settlement-post construction magnitude and time rate based on project requirements
 Compound failure: F.S. ≥ 1.3
 Internal slope stability: F.S. ≥ 1.3
9.2.2 Step 2. Determine the engineering properties of the in-situ soils.

(see recommendations in Chapter 2, Section 2.6 and Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2)
 The foundation and retained soil (i.e., soil beneath and behind reinforced zone) profiles.
 Strength parameters cu and u, or c´ and ´ for each soil layer.
 Unit weights γwet and γdry.
 Consolidation parameters (Cc, Cr, cv and σ´p).
 Location of the groundwater table dw, and piezometric surfaces.
 For failure repair, identify location of previous failure surface and cause of failure.

Notations:
H = slope height
 = slope angle
Tal = allowable strength of reinforcement
L = length of reinforcement
Sv = vertical spacing of reinforcement
q = surcharge load
q = temporary live load
Ao = ground acceleration coefficient
Am = design seismic acceleration
dw = depth to ground water table in slope
dwf = depth to ground water table in foundation
cu and u or cand  = strength parameters for each soil layer
wet and dry = unit weights for each soil layer
Cc, Cr, cv and p = consolidation parameters for each soil layer
Figure 9-2. Requirements for design of reinforced soil slopes.

9.2.3 Step 3. Determine the properties of reinforced fill and, if different, the retained
backfill. (see recommendations in Chapter 3, Section 3.2)
 Gradation and plasticity index

 Compaction characteristics based on 95% AASHTO T-99, γd and ±2% of optimum
moisture, wopt
 Compacted lift thickness
 Shear strength parameters, cu, u or c´, and ´
 Electro chemical properties of reinforced fill
- For geosynthetic reinforcement: pH
- For steel reinforcement: pH, resistivity, chlorides, sulfates, and organic content
9.2.4 Step 4. Evaluate design parameters for the reinforcement. (see recommendations
in Chapter 3, Section 3.5.)
 Allowable geosynthetic strength (Eq. 3-12), Tal = ultimate strength (TULT) ÷ reduction
factor (RF) for creep, installation damage and durability:
For granular reinforced fill meeting the recommended gradation in Chapter 3, and
electrochemical properties in Chapter 3, RF = 7 may be conservatively used for
preliminary design and for routine, noncritical structures where the minimum test
requirements outlined in Table 3-12 are satisfied. Remember, there is a significant
cost advantage in obtaining lower RF from test data supplied by the manufacture
and/or from agency evaluation!
 Allowable steel strength (Eq. 3-11), Tal = Fy Ac / b, where Ac is the area of the steel
adjusted for corrosion. Note: Soils with higher fines are often more corrosive and
Table 3-3 property requirements must be carefully checked for the reinforced fill.
 Pullout Resistance: (See recommendations in Chapter 3 and Appendix B)

- Use F.S. = 1.5 for granular soils
- Use F.S. = 2 for cohesive soils
- Minimum anchorage length, Le, = 3 ft (1 m)
9.2.5 Step 5. Check unreinforced stability.

(see discussion in Chapter 8)
a. Evaluate unreinforced stability to determine: if reinforcement is required; critical nature

of the design (i.e., unreinforced F.S. ≤ or ≥ 1); potential deep-seated failure problems;

and the extent of the reinforced zone. Perform a stability analysis using conventional
stability methods (see FHWA Soils and Foundations Workshop Reference Manual
{Samtani and Nowatzki, 2006}) to determine safety factors and driving moments for
potential failure surfaces.
 Use both circular-arc and sliding-wedge methods, and consider failure through the
toe, through the face (at several elevations), and deep-seated below the toe.
(A number of stability analysis computer programs are available for rapid evaluation,
e.g., FHWA sponsored programs including ReSSA and the STABL family of programs
developed at Purdue University including the current version, STABL4M. In all cases,
a few calculations should be made by hand to be sure the computer program is giving
reasonable results.)
b. Determine the size of the critical zone to be reinforced.

 Examine the full range of potential failure surfaces found to have:
Unreinforced safety factor, FSU ≤ Required safety factor, FSR.
 Plot all of these surfaces on the cross-section of the slope.
 The surfaces that just meet the required safety factor roughly envelope the limits of
the critical zone to be reinforced as shown in Figure 9-3.
Figure 9-3. Critical zone defined by rotational and sliding surfaces that meets the required
safety factor.

c. Critical failure surfaces extending below the toe of the slope are indications of deep
foundation and edge bearing capacity problems that must be addressed prior to
completing the design. Where foundation problems are indicated, a more extensive
foundation analysis is warranted, and foundation improvement measures should be
considered as discussed in Chapter 8.
9.2.6 Step 6. Design reinforcement to provide a stable slope.

(see Figure 9-4, and discussion in Chapter 8.)
a. Calculate the total reinforcement tension per unit width of slope TS required to obtain
the required factor of safety FSR for each potential failure surface inside the critical
zone in step 5 that extends through or below the toe of the slope using the following:
MD
TS  FSR  FSU  (9-1)
D
where:
TS = the sum of the required tensile force per unit width of reinforcement
(considering rupture and pullout) in all reinforcement layers
intersecting the failure surface
MD = driving moment about the center of the failure circle
D = the moment arm of TS about the center of failure circle
= radius of circle R for continuous, sheet type extensible
reinforcement (i.e., assumed to act tangentially to the circle)
= radius of circle R for continuous, sheet type inextensible
reinforcement (e.g., wire mesh reinforcement) to account for normal
stress increase on adjacent soil
= vertical distance, Y, to the centroid of TS for discrete element, strip
type reinforcement. Assume H/3 above slope base for preliminary
calculations (i.e. assumed to act in a horizontal plane intersecting the
failure surface at H/3 above the slope base)
FSU = unreinforced slope safety factor
FSR = target minimum slope factor of safety which is applied to both the soil
and reinforcement
TS-MAX = the largest TS calculated and establishes the total design tension
 Note: the minimum unreinforced safety factor usually does not control the
location of TS-MAX; the most critical surface is the surface requiring the
greatest amount of reinforcement strength.

Figure 9-4. Rotational shear approach to determine required strength of reinforcement.

b. Determine the total design tension per unit width of slope, TS-MAX, using the charts in
Figure 9-5 and compare with TS-MAX from step 6a. If significantly different, check the
validity of the charts based on the limiting assumptions listed in the figure and recheck
calculations in steps 5 and equation 9-1.
 Figure 9-5 is provided for a quick check of computer-generated results. The figure
presents a simplified method based on a two-part wedge type failure surface and is
limited by the assumptions noted on the figure.
Note that Figure 9-5 is not intended to be a single design tool. Other design charts
available from the literature could also be used (e.g., Ruegger, 1986; Leshchinsky
and Boedeker, 1989; Jewell, 1990). As indicated in Chapter 8, several computer
programs are also available for analyzing a slope with given reinforcement and can
be used as a check. Judgment in selection of other appropriate design methods (i.e.,
most conservative or experience) is required.
c. Determine the distribution of reinforcement:
 For low slopes (H ≤ 20 ft {6 m}) assume a uniform reinforcement distribution and

use TS-MAX to determine spacing or the required tension TMAX requirements for each
reinforcement layer.
 For high slopes (H > 20 ft {6 m}), either a uniform reinforcement distribution may
be used (preferable) or the slope may be divided into two (top and bottom) or three
(top, middle, and bottom) reinforcement zones of equal height using a factored
TS-MAX in each zone for spacing or design tension requirements (see Figure 9-6).
The total required tension in each zone is found from:
For 1 zone:
Use TS-MAX
For 2 zones:
TBottom = 3/4 TS-MAX (9-2)
TTop = 1/4 TS-MAX (9-3)
For 3 zones:
TBottom = 1/2 TS-MAX (9-4)
TMiddle = 1/3 TS-MAX (9-5)
TTop = 1/6 TS-MAX (9-6)
The force is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the entire zone.

CHART PROCEDURE:
1) Determine force coefficient K from figure above, where r = friction angle of reinforced fill:
 tan  r 
 f  tan 1  
 FR R 
2) Determine:
TS-MAX = 0.5 K γr (H’)2
where: H' = H + q/γr
q = a uniform load
3) Determine the required reinforcement length at the top LT and bottom LB of the slope from the
figure above.
LIMITING ASSUMPTIONS
● Extensible reinforcement
● Slopes constructed with uniform, cohesionless soil, c = 0)
● No pore pressures within slope
● Competent, level foundation soils
● No seismic forces
● Uniform surcharge not greater than 0.2 γr H
● Relatively high soil/reinforcement interface friction angle, sg = 0.9 r (may not be appropriate for some
geosynthetics)
Figure 9-5. Chart solution for determining the reinforcement strength requirements
(after Schmertmann et. al., 1987). NOTE: Charts © The Tensar Corporation

4 ft (1,2 m)
16 in. (400 mm)

4 ft (1,2 m)
32 in. (800 mm)
Figure 9-6. Reinforcement spacing considerations for high slopes.

d. Determine reinforcement vertical spacing Sv or the maximum design tension TMAX
requirements for each reinforcement layer.
 For each zone, calculate TMAX for each reinforcing layer in that zone based on an
assumed Sv or, if the allowable reinforcement strength is known, calculate the
minimum vertical spacing and number of reinforcing layers N required for each
zone based on:
Tzone S v T
Tmax   zone  Tal R c (9-7)
H zone N
where:
Rc = coverage ratio of the reinforcement which equals the width of

the reinforcement b divided by the horizontal spacing Sh
Sv = vertical spacing of reinforcement in meters; multiples of
compacted layer thickness for ease of construction
Tzone = maximum reinforcement tension required for each zone
= TS-MAX for low slopes (H< 6m)
Tal = Tult /RF (see Chapter 3 and equation 3-12)
Hzone = height of zone
= Ttop, Tmiddle, and TBottom for high slopes (H > 20 ft {6 m})
N = number of reinforcement layers
 Use short 4 to 6.5 ft (1.2 to 2 m) lengths of intermediate reinforcement layers to

maintain a maximum vertical spacing of 16 in. (400 mm) or less for face stability
and compaction quality (see Figure 9-6b).
- For slopes flatter than 1H:1V, closer spaced reinforcements (i.e., every lift or
every other lift, but no greater than 16 in. {400 mm}) preclude having to wrap
the face in well graded soils (e.g., sandy gravel and silty and clayey sands).
Wrapped faces are required for steeper slopes and uniformly graded soils to
prevent face sloughing. Alternative vertical spacings could be used to prevent
face sloughing, but in these cases a face stability analysis should be performed
either using the method presented in this chapter or by evaluating the face as an
infinite slope using (Collin, 1996):

F.S. 
  
c' H  γ g  γ w H z cos 2 β tan φ'  Fg cosβ sinβ  sin 2 β tanφ  
(9-8)
γ g H z cosβ sinβ
where: c = effective cohesion

 = effective friction angle
γg = saturated unit weight of soil
γw = unit weight of water
z = vertical depth to failure plane defined by the depth of saturation
H = vertical slope height
β = slope angle
Fg = summation of geosynthetic resisting force
- Intermediate reinforcement should be placed in continuous layers and needs not

be as strong as the primary reinforcement, but it must be strong enough to
survive construction (e.g. minimum survivability requirements for geotextiles in
road stabilization applications in AASHTO M-288, 2006) and provide localized
tensile reinforcement to the surficial soils.
- If the interface friction angle of the intermediate reinforcement ρsr (from ASTM
D 5321 or estimated as discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3) is less than that of
the primary reinforcement ρr, then ρsr should be used in the analysis for the
portion of the failure surface intersecting the reinforced soil zone.
e. To ensure that the rule-of-thumb reinforcement force distribution is adequate for critical
or complex structures, recalculate TS using equation 9-1 to determine potential failure
above each layer of primary reinforcement.
f. Determine the reinforcement lengths required:

 The embedment length Le of each reinforcement layer beyond the most critical
sliding surface (i.e., circle found for TS-MAX) must be sufficient to provide adequate
pullout resistance based on:
Tmax FS
Le  (9-9)
F * α σ' v R c C
where F*, α , Rc, C and σ́v are defined in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.

 Minimum value of Le is 3 ft (1 m). For cohesive soils, check Le for both short- and
long-term pullout conditions, when using the semi empirical equations in Chapter 3
to obtain F*.
For long-term design, use r with cr = 0
For short-term evaluation, conservatively use r with cr = 0 from consolidated

undrained triaxial or direct shear tests or run pullout tests
 Plot the reinforcement lengths as obtained from the pullout evaluation on a slope
cross section containing the rough limits of the critical zone determined in step 5
(see Figure 9-7).
- The length required for sliding stability at the base will generally control the
length of the lower reinforcement levels.
- Lower layer lengths must extend at least to the limits of the critical zone as
shown in Figure 9-7. Longer reinforcements may be required to resolve deep
seated failure problems (see step 7).
- Upper levels of reinforcement may not be required to extend to the limits of the
critical zone, provided sufficient reinforcement exists in the lower levels to
provide the FSR for all circles within the critical zone as shown in Figure 9-7.
 Check that the sum of the reinforcement forces passing through each failure surface
is greater than Ts required for that surface.
- Only count reinforcement that extends 3 ft (1 m) beyond the surface to account

for pullout resistance.
- If the available reinforcement force is not sufficient, increase the length of

reinforcement not passing through the surface or increase the strength of lower-
level reinforcement.
 Simplify the layout by lengthening some reinforcement layers to create two or three
sections of equal reinforcement length for ease of construction and inspection.
 Reinforcement layers do not generally need to extend to the limits of the critical
zone, except for the lowest levels of each reinforcement section.

 Check the length obtained using chart b in Figure 9-5. Note: Le is already included
in the total length, Lt and LB from chart B.
g. Check design lengths of complex designs.
 When checking a design that has zones of different reinforcement length, lower
zones may be over reinforced to provide reduced lengths of upper reinforcement
levels.
 In evaluating the length requirements for such cases, the pullout stability for the
reinforcement must be carefully checked in each zone for the critical surfaces
exiting at the base of each length zone.
Le from pullout  4 ft (1.2 m)
Figure 9-7. Developing reinforcement lengths.

9.2.7 Step 7. Check external stability. (see discussion in Chapter 8.)
 Sliding resistance (Figure 9-8)
- Evaluate the width of the reinforced soil zone at any level to resist sliding along
the reinforcement. Use a two-part wedge type failure surface defined by the
limits of the reinforcement (the length of the reinforcement at the depth of
evaluation defined in step 5). The analysis can best be performed using a
computerized method which takes into account all soil strata and interface
friction values. If the computer program does not account for the presents of
reinforcement, the back of the failure surface should be angled at 45 + /2 or
parallel to the back of the reinforced zone, whichever is flatter (i.e., the wedge
should not pass through layers of reinforcement to avoid an overly conservative
analysis). The frictional resistance provided by the weakest layer, either the
reinforced soil, the foundation soil or the soil-reinforcement interface, should be
used in the analysis.
A simple analysis using Figure 9-5b can be performed as a quick check, but
should not be used for the primary analysis due to the limiting assumptions
noted on the figure. The method also assumes that the reinforcement layers are
truncated along a plane parallel to the slope face, which may or may not be the
case. The analysis was based on a two-part wedge model to predict LB
assuming that the reinforcement interface is the weakest plane. A reduction is
applied to the interface friction angle, sg = 0.9 r, which may not be appropriate
for some geosynthetics. The frictional resistance provided by the weakest layer
in contact with the geosynthetic, either the reinforced soil or the foundation soil,
should be used in the analysis.
 Deep seated global stability (Figure 9-8a).
- Evaluate potential deep-seated failure surfaces behind the reinforced soil zone
to provide:
M
F.S.  R  1.3 minimum (9-14)
MD
Note: F.S.  1.3 is recommended as a minimum and that value should be

increased based on the criticality of the slope (e.g., slopes beneath bridge
abutments and major roadways) and/or confidence in geotechnical conditions
(e.g., soil properties and location of groundwater).
The analysis performed in step 5 should provide the factor of safety for failure
surfaces behind the reinforced soil zone. However, as a check, classical
rotational slope stability methods such as simplified Bishop, Morgenstern and
Price, Spencer, or others may be used (see FHWA’s Ground Improvement
Manuals, FHWA NHI-06-019 and FHWA NHI-06-020 {Elias et al., 2006}).
Appropriate computer programs also may be used.
Figure 9-8. Failure through the foundation.

 Local bearing failure at the toe (lateral squeeze) (Figure 9-8b).
- If a weak soil layer exists beneath the embankment to a limited depth DS which
is less than the width of the slope b', the factor of safety against failure by
squeezing may be calculated from (Silvestri, 1983):
2 cu 4.14 c u
FS squeezing    1.3 (9-15)
γ D s tanθ Hγ
where:
θ = angle of slope
γ = unit weight of soil in slope
Ds = depth of soft soil beneath slope base of the embankment
H = height of slope
cu = undrained shear strength of soft soil beneath slope
Caution is advised and rigorous analysis (e.g., numerical modeling) should be

performed when FS < 2. This approach is somewhat conservative as it does not
provide any influence from the reinforcement. When the depth of the soft layer, DS,
is greater than the slope base width, b', general slope stability will govern design.
 Foundation settlement.
- Determine the magnitude and rate of total and differential foundation

settlements using classical geotechnical engineering procedures (see FHWA
Soils and Foundations Workshop Reference Manual, {Samtani and Nowatzki,
2006}).
9.2.8 Step 8. Seismic stability.
 Dynamic stability (Figure 9-9).

- Perform a pseudo-static type analysis using a seismic ground coefficient A,
obtained from local building code and a design seismic acceleration Am equal to
Am = A/2. Reinforced soil slopes are clearly yielding type structures, more so
than walls. As such, Am can be taken as A/2 as allowed by AASHTO in
Division 1A-Seismic Design, 6.4.3 Abutments (AASHTO, 2002) and Appendix
A11.1.1.2 (AASHTO, 2007)
F.S. dynamic ≥ 1.1

In the pseudo-static method, seismic stability is determined by adding a horizontal
and/or vertical force at the centroid of each slice to the moment equilibrium
equation (see Figure 9-9). The additional force is equal to the seismic coefficient
times the total weight of the sliding mass. It is assumed that this force has no
influence on the normal force and resisting moment, so that only the driving
moment is affected. The liquefaction potential of the foundation soil should also be
evaluated.
9.2.9 Step 9. Evaluate requirements for subsurface and surface water runoff control.
 Subsurface water control.
- Design of subsurface water drainage features should address flow rate,

filtration, placement, and outlet details.
- Drains are typically placed at the rear of the reinforced zone as shown in Figure
9-10. Geocomposite drainage systems or conventional granular blanket and
trench drains could be used (see Chapter 5).
Figure 9-9. Seismic stability analysis.

0.2 ft (0.6 m) TYP
0.2 ft (0.6 m) TYP
Figure 9-10. Subsurface drainage considerations.

- Lateral spacing of outlets is dictated by site geometry, estimated flow, and
existing agency standards. Outlet design should address long-term performance
and maintenance requirements.
- Geosynthetic drainage composites can be used in subsurface water drainage

design. Drainage composites should be designed with consideration of:
o Geotextile filtration/clogging
o Long-term compressive strength of polymeric core
o Reduction of flow capacity due to intrusion of geotextile into the core
o Long-term inflow/outflow capacity
Procedures for checking geotextile permeability and filtration/clogging criteria

were presented in FHWA Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines
(Holtz et al., 2008). Long-term compressive stress and eccentric loadings on the
core of a geocomposite should be considered during design and selection.
Though not yet addressed in standardized test methods or standards of practice,
the following criteria are suggested for addressing core compression. The
design pressure on a geocomposite core should be limited to either:
o the maximum pressure sustained on the core in a test of 10,000 hours

minimum duration
o the crushing pressure of a core, as defined with a quick loading test,
divided by a factor of safety of 5
Note that crushing pressure can only be defined for some core types. For cases
where a crushing pressure cannot be defined, suitability should be based on the
maximum load resulting in a residual thickness of the core adequate to provide
the required flow after 10,000 hours, or the maximum load resulting in a
residual thickness of the core adequate to provide the required flow as defined
with the quick loading test divided by a factor of safety of 5.
Intrusion of the geotextiles into the core and long-term outflow capacity should
be measured with a sustained transmissivity test. The ASTM D4716 test
procedure Constant Head Hydraulic Transmissivity of Geotextiles and
Geotextile Related Products, should be followed. The test procedure should be
modified for sustained testing and for use of sand sub-stratum and super-stratum

in lieu of closed cell foam rubber. Load should be maintained for 100 hours or
until equilibrium is reached, whichever is greater.
- Slope stability analyses should account for interface shear strength along a
geocomposite drain. The geocomposite/soil interface will most likely have a
friction value that is lower than that of the soil. Thus, a potential failure surface
may be induced along the interface.
- Geotextile reinforcements (primary and intermediate layers) must be more

permeable than the reinforced fill material to prevent a hydraulic build up above
the geotextile layers during precipitation.
Special emphasis on the design and construction of subsurface drainage

features is recommended for structures where drainage is critical for
maintaining slope stability. Redundancy in the drainage system is also
recommended for these cases.
 Surface water runoff.
- Surface water runoff should be collected above the reinforced slope and
channeled or piped below the base of the slope. Standard Agency drainage
details should be utilized.
- Wrapped faces and/or intermediate layers of secondary reinforcement may be

required at the face of reinforced slopes to prevent local sloughing. Guidance is
provided in Chapter 8 and Table 8-1. Intermediate layers of reinforcement help
achieve compaction at the face, thus increasing soil shear strength and erosion
resistance. These layers also act as reinforcement against shallow or sloughing
types of slope failures. Intermediate reinforcement is typically placed on each
or every other soil lift, except at lifts where primary structural reinforcement is
placed. Intermediate reinforcement also is placed horizontally, adjacent to
primary reinforcement, and at the same elevation as the primary reinforcement
when primary reinforcement is placed at less than 100 percent coverage in plan
view. The intermediate reinforcement should extend 4 to 6.5 ft (1.2 to 2 m)
back into the fill from the face.
- Select a long-term facing system to prevent or minimize erosion due to rainfall

and runoff on the face.

- Calculate flow-induced tractive shear stress on the face of the reinforced slope
by:
λ = d · γW · s (9-16)
where:
λ = tractive shear stress, psf (kPa)
d = depth of water flow, ft (m)
γw = unit weight of water, lbs/ft3 (kN/m3)
s = the vertical to horizontal angle of slope face, ft/ft (m/m)
For λ < 2 psf (100 Pa), consider vegetation with temporary or permanent
erosion control mat
For λ > 2 psf (100 Pa), consider vegetation with permanent erosion control mat
or other armor type systems (e.g., riprap, gunite, prefab modular units, fabric-
formed concrete, etc.)
- Select vegetation based on local horticultural and agronomic considerations and

maintenance.
- Select a synthetic (permanent) erosion control mat that is stabilized against

ultra-violet light and is inert to naturally occurring soil-born chemicals and
bacteria. Erosion control mats and blankets vary widely in type, cost, and, more
importantly, applicability to project conditions. Slope protection should not
be left to the construction contractor or vendor's discretion. Guideline
material specifications for synthetic permanent erosion control mats are
provided in Chapter 10.
9.3 COMPUTER ASSISTED DESIGN
An alternative to reinforcement design (step 6 in the previous section) is to develop a trial

layout of reinforcement and analyze the reinforced slope with a computer program such as the
FHWA ReSSA program. Layout includes number, length, design strength, and vertical
distribution of the geosynthetic reinforcement. The charts presented in Figure 9-5 provide a
method for generating a preliminary layout. Note that these charts were developed with the
specific assumptions noted on the figure.

Analyze the reinforced soil slope with the trial geosynthetic reinforcement layouts. The most
economical reinforcement layout must provide the minimum required stability safety
factors for internal, external, and compound failure planes. A contour plot of lowest safety
factor values about the trial failure circle centroids is recommended to map and locate the
minimum safety factor values for the three modes of failure.
The method of analysis in section 9.2 assumes that the reinforcing force contributed to the
resisting moment and thus inherently applies the required factor of safety to the reinforcement.
However, some computer programs (and design charts) are based on the assumption that the
reinforcement force reduces the driving moment with the stability factor of safety FS
calculated as:
MR
FS  (9-17)
M D  Ts D
With this assumption, the stability factory of safety is not applied to the reinforcement. For
such computations and any other methods not applying a factor of safety to the reinforcement,
the allowable strength of the reinforcement Tal must be divided by a required minimum factor
of safety FSR = 1.3 to provide an equivalent material uncertainty.
External stability analysis as was previously shown in step 7 will include an evaluation of local
bearing capacity, foundation settlement, and dynamic stability.
9.4 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Cost estimates for reinforced slope systems are generally per square foot of vertical face.
Table 9-1 can be used to develop a cost estimate. As an example, the following provides a cost
estimate for the 6.5 ft (5 m) high reinforced slope design Example E.8. Considering the 12
layers of reinforcement at a length of 16 ft (4.9 m), the reinforced section would require a total
reinforcement of 192 ft2 per ft (60 m2 per meter) length of embankment or 12 ft2 per vertical ft
of height (12 m2 per vertical meter of height). Adding 10 to 15 percent for overlaps and
overages results in an anticipated reinforcement quantity of 13.5 ft2 per ft (13.5 m2 per meter
embankment height). Based on the cost information from suppliers, reinforcement with an
allowable strength Ta ≥ 280 lb/ft (4.14 kN/m) would cost on the order of $0.10 to 0.15/ft2
($1.00 to $1.50/m2). Assuming $0.05 ft2 ($0.50 m2) for handling and placement, the in-place
cost of reinforcement would be approximately $2.50/ft2 ($25/m2) of vertical embankment face.
Approximately 24.6 yd3 (18.8 m3) of additional fill would be required for the reinforced
section per foot (per meter) of embankment length. Using a typical in-place cost for locally

available fill with some hauling of $6 yd3 ($8/m3) (about $4 per 1000 kg), $2.80/ft2 ($30/m2)
will be added to the cost. In addition, overexcavation and backfill of existing embankment
material will be required to allow for placement of the reinforcement. Assuming $1.50/yd3
($2/m3) for overexcavation and replacement will add approximately $0.40/ft2 ($4/m2) of
vertical face. The erosion protection for the face would also add a cost of $0.50 ft2 ($5/m2) of
vertical face plus seeding and mulching. Thus, the total estimated cost for this option would be
on the order of $6/ft2 ($64/m2) of vertical embankment face. Alternative facing systems such
as soil bioengineered treatment and/or the use of wire baskets for face would each add
approximately $2 to $3/ft2 ($20 to $30/m2) to the construction costs, but reduction in long-term
maintenance will most likely offset these costs.
Table 9-1. Estimated Project Costs.
Item Total Volume Unit Cost Extension per Vertical

square foot (meter)
Reinforced fill yd3 (m3)
(in place)
Overexcavation yd3 (m3
Reinforcement yd2 (m2)
(in place)
Facing system
Support
Vegetation yd2 (m2)
Permanent
erosion control mat
yd2 (m2)
Alternate facing
systems ft2 (m2)
Groundwater control
system ft2 (m2)
Guardrail ft (m)
Total ------- ---------
Unit cost per vertical
ft2 (m2)
Note Slope Dimensions: Height H =
Length L =
Face Surface Area, A
Reinforcement Area = Lreinforcement * Number of Layers

CHAPTER 10
CONTRACTING METHODS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR MSE WALLS AND SLOPES
From its introduction in the early 1970s, it is estimated that the total construction value of
MSE walls is in excess of $2 billion. This estimate does not include reinforced slope
construction, for which estimates are not available.
Since the early 1980s, hundreds of millions of dollars have been saved on our Nation's
highways by bidding alternates for selection of earth retaining structures. During that time,
the number of available MSE systems or components have increased, and some design and
construction problem areas that have been identified. These include misapplication of wall
technology; poor specifications; lack of specification enforcement; inequitable bidding
procedures; poor construction techniques; inadequate inspection; and inconsistent selection,
review, and acceptance practices on the part of public agencies. Although the actual causes
of each particular problem are unique, Agency procedures that address the design and
construction of earth retaining systems Can, when well formulated and enforced, minimize
such problems; or when not well formulated or enforced, can contribute to such problems.
MSE wall and RSS systems are contracted using two different approaches:
C Agency or material supplier designs with system components, drainage details, erosion
measures, and construction execution explicitly specified in the contracting documents;
or
C Performance or end-result approach using approved or generic systems or components,
with lines and grades noted on the drawings and geometric and design criteria specified.
In this case, a project-specific design review and detail plan submittal occurs in
conjunction with working drawing submittal.
Some user agencies prefer one approach to the other or a mixed use of approaches developed
based upon criticality of a particular structure. Both contracting approaches are valid if
properly implemented. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages.
This chapter will outline the necessary elements of each contracting procedure, the approval
process, and current material and construction specifications.
While this chapter specifically addresses the need for formal policy and procedures for
MSE and RSS structures, the recommendations and need for uniformity of practice
applies to all types of retaining structures.
FHWA NHI-10-025 10 – Contracting Methods

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II 10 - 1 November 2009
10.1 POLICY DEVELOPMENT
It is desirable that each Agency develop a formal policy with respect to design and
contracting of MSE wall and RSS systems.
The general objectives of such a policy are to:

C Obtain uniformity within the Agency.
C Establish standard policies and procedures for design technical review and acceptance of
MSEW and RSS systems or components.
C Establish a policy for the review/acceptance of new retaining wall and reinforced slope
systems and or components.
C Delineate responsibility in house for the preparation of plans, design review and
construction control.
C Delineate design responsibility for plans prepared by consultants and material suppliers.
C Develop design and performance criteria standards to be used on all projects.
C Develop and or update material and construction specifications to be used on all projects.
C Establish contracting procedures by weighing the advantages/disadvantages of
prescriptive or end-result methods.
10.2 SYSTEM OR COMPONENT APPROVALS
The recent expiration of most process or material patents associated with MSE systems has
led to introduction by numerous suppliers of a variety of complete systems or components
that are applicable for use. Alternatively, it opens the possibility of Agency-generic designs
that may incorporate proprietary and generic elements.
Approval of systems or components is a highly desirable feature of any policy for reinforced
soil systems prior to their inclusion during the design phase, or as part of a value engineering
alternate.
For the purpose of prior approval, it is desirable that the supplier submit data that
satisfactorily addresses the following items as a minimum:
C System development or component and year it was commercialized.
C Systems or component supplier organizational structure, specifically engineering and
construction support staff.
C Limitations and disadvantages of system or component.
C Prior list of users including contact persons, addresses and telephone numbers.

C Sample material and construction control specifications showing material type, quality,
certifications, field testing, acceptance and rejection criteria and placement procedures.
C A documented field construction manual describing in detail, with illustrations as
necessary, the step-by-step construction sequence and the contractor’s quality control
plan.
C Detailed design calculations for typical applications in conformance with current practice
or AASHTO, whenever applicable.
C Typical unit costs, supported by data from actual projects.
C Independent performance evaluations of a typical project by a professional engineer.
The development, submittal, and approval of such a technical package provides a complete
bench-mark for comparison with systems that have been in successful use and a standard
when checking project-specific designs.
Some vendor wall systems have been reviewed, and others are currently being reviewed,
under the HITEC program (see Section 1.2). The HITEC program is still available within
the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) organization. Wall system suppliers are
encouraged to conduct an independent review of newly developed components and/or
systems related to materials, design, construction, performance, and quality assurance for use
be DOTs in their system approval process.
For the purpose of review and approval of geosynthetics (systems or components) used for
reinforcement applications, the manufacturer/supplier submittal must satisfactorily address
the following items that are related to the establishment of a long-term allowable tensile
strength used in design:
C Laboratory test results documenting creep performance over a range of load levels for
minimum duration of 10,000 hr. in accordance with ASTM D5262.
C Laboratory test results and methodology for extrapolation of creep data for 75- and 100-
year design life as described in Appendix D.
C Laboratory test results documenting ultimate strength in accordance with ASTM D4595
for geotextiles or ASTM D6637 for geogrids. Tests to be conducted at a strain rate of 10
percent per minute.
C Laboratory test results and extrapolation techniques, documenting the hydrolysis
resistance of polyester (PET), oxidative resistance of polypropylene (PP) and high
density polyethylene (HDPE), and stress cracking resistance of HDPE for all components
of geosynthetic and values for partial factor of safety for aging degradation calculated for
a 75- and 100-year design life. Recommended methods are outlined in FHWA RD 97-
144 (Elias et al., 1999).

C Field and laboratory test results along with literature review documenting reduction
factor values for installation damage as a function of backfill gradation.
C For projects where a potential for biological degradation exists, laboratory test results and
extrapolation techniques, documenting biological resistance of all material components of
the geosynthetic and values for a reduction factor for biological degradation.
C Laboratory test results documenting joint (seams and connections) strength (ASTM
D4884 and GRI:GG2).
C Laboratory tests documenting pullout interaction coefficients for various soil types or
site-specific soils in accordance with ASTM D6706.
C Laboratory tests documenting direct sliding coefficients for various soil types or project
specific soils in accordance with ASTM D5321.
C Manufacturing quality control program and data indicating minimum test requirements,
test methods, test frequency, and lot size for each product. Further minimum
conformance requirements as proscribed by the manufacturer shall be indicated. The
following is a minimum list of conformance criteria required for approval:
Minimum Conformance
Test Test Procedure
Requirement
Wide Width Tensile (geotextiles) ASTM D4595 To be provided by
Specific Gravity (HDPE only) ASTM D1505 material supplier or
Melt Flow index (PP & HDPE) ASTM D1238 specialty company
Intrinsic Viscosity (PET only) ASTM D4603
Carboxyl End Group (PET only) ASTM D2455
Single Rib Tensile (geogrids) ASTM D6637
C The primary resin used in manufacturing shall be identified as to its ASTM type, class,
grade, and category.
For HDPE resin type, class, grade and category in accordance with ASTM D1248 shall
be identified. For example type III, class A, grade E5, category 5.
For PP resins, group, class and grade in accordance with ASTM D4101 shall be
identified. For example group 1, class 1, grade 4.
For PET resins minimum production intrinsic viscosity (ASTM4603) and maximum
carboxyl end groups (ASTM D2455) shall be identified.

For all products the minimum UV resistance as measured by ASTM D4355 shall be
identified.
Prior approval should be based on Agency evaluations with respect on the following:
C The conformance of the design method and construction specifications to current Agency
requirements for MSE walls and RSS slopes and any deviations to current engineering
practice. For reinforced slope systems, conformance to current geotechnical practice.
C Past experience in construction and performance of the proposed system.
C The adequacy of the data in support of nominal long-term strength (Tal) for geosynthetic
reinforcements.
C The adequacy of the QA/QC plan for the manufacture of geosynthetic reinforcements.
10.3 DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
It is highly desirable that each Agency formalize its design and performance criteria as part
of a design manual that may be incorporated in the Bridge Design Manual under Retaining
Structures for MSE walls and/or a Highway Design Manual for reinforced slope structures.
This would ensure that all designs whether Agency/Consultant or Supplier prepared, are
based on equal, sound principles.
The design manual may adopt current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2007)
Section 11.10 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls, or methods outlined in this manual as a
primary basis for design and performance criteria and list under appropriate sections any
deviations, additions and clarification to this practice that are relevant to each particular
Agency, based on its experience. Construction material specifications for MSE walls may be
modeled on Section 7 of current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications (2004),
Earth Retaining Systems, or the complete specifications contained in this chapter.
With respect to reinforced slope design, the performance criteria should be developed based
on data outlined in Chapter 9. Material and construction specifications for RSS are provided
in this chapter as well as for drainage and erosion control materials usually required for such
construction.
10.4 AGENCY OR SUPPLIER DESIGN
This contracting approach includes the development of a detailed set of MSE wall or RSS
slope plans and material specifications in the bidding documents.

The advantage of this approach is that the complete design, details, and material
specifications can be developed and reviewed over a much longer design period. This
approach further empowers Agency engineers to examine more options during design but
requires an engineering staff trained in MSE and RSS technology. This trained staff is also a
valuable asset during construction, when questions arise or design modifications are required.
The disadvantage is that for alternate bids, additional sets of designs and plans must be
processed, although only one will be constructed. A further disadvantage is that newer
systems or components may not be considered during the design stage.
The fully detailed plans shall include but not be limited to, the following items:
10.4.1 Plan and Elevation Sheets
C Plan view to reflect the horizontal alignment and offset from the horizontal control line to
the face of wall or slope. Beginning and end stations for the reinforced soil construction
and transition areas, and all utilities, signs, lights, etc. that affect the construction should
be shown.
C For MBW unit faced walls, the plan view should show alignment baseline, limits of
bottom of wall alignment and limits of top of wall alignment, as alignments vary with the
batter of MBW system actually supplied.
C Elevation views indicating elevations at top and bottom of walls or slopes, beginning and
end stations, horizontal and vertical break points, location and elevation of copings and
barriers, and whole station points. Location and elevation of final ground line shall be
indicated.
C Length, size, and type of soil reinforcement and where changes in length or type occur
shall be shown.
C Panel and MBW unit layout and the designation of the type or module, the elevation of
the top of leveling pad and footings, the distance along the face of the wall to all steps in
the footings and leveling pads.
C Internal drainage alignment, elevation, and method of passing reinforcements around
such structures.
C Any general notes required for construction.
C Cross sections showing limits of construction, fill requirements, and excavation limits.
Mean high water level, design high water level, and drawdown conditions shall be shown
where applicable.
C Limits and extent of reinforced soil volume.

C All construction constraints, such as staged construction, vertical clearance, right-of-way
limits, etc.
C Payment limits and quantities.
10.4.2 Facing/Panel Details
C Facing details for erosion control for reinforced slopes and all details for facing modules,
showing all dimensions necessary to construct the element, reinforcing steel, and the
location of reinforcing attachment devices embedded in the panels.
C All details of the architectural treatment or surface finishes.
10.4.3 Drainage Facilities/Special Details
C All details for construction around drainage facilities, overhead sign footings, and
abutments.
C All details for connection to traffic barriers, copings, parapets, noise walls, and attached
lighting.
C All details for temporary support including slope face support where warranted.
C All details for wall initiation and termination, and any transitions.
10.4.4 Design Computations
The plans shall be supported by detailed computations for internal and external stability and
life expectancy for the reinforcement.
For plans prepared by material suppliers, the Owner and/or their consultant normally
determine deep seated global stability. The Owner must define responsibility for compound
stability analysis, when applicable.
10.4.5 Geotechnical Report
The plans shall be prepared based on a geotechnical report that details the following:
C Engineering properties of the foundation soils including shear strength and consolidation
parameters used to establish settlement and stability potential for the proposed
construction. Maximum bearing pressures must be established for MSE wall
construction.
C Engineering properties of the reinforced soil including shear strength parameters (φ, c)
compaction criteria, gradation, and electrochemical limits.

C Engineering properties of the fill or in-situ soil behind the reinforced soil mass, including
shear strength parameters (φ, c) and compaction criteria.
C Groundwater or free water conditions and required drainage schemes if required.
10.4.6 Construction Specifications
Construction and material specifications for the applicable system or component as detailed
later in this chapter, which include testing requirements for all materials used.
10.5 END RESULT DESIGN APPROACH
Under this approach, often referred as "line and grade" or "two line drawing," the Agency
prepares drawings of the geometric requirements for the structure or reinforced slope and
material specifications for the components or systems that may be used. The components or
systems that are permitted are specified or are from a pre-approved list maintained by the
Agency, from its prequalification process.
The end-result approach, with sound specifications and prequalification of suppliers and
materials, offers several benefits. Trained and experienced staff performs design of the MSE
structure. The prequalified material components (facing, reinforcement, and miscellaneous)
have been successfully and routinely used together, which may not be the case for in-house
design with generic specifications for components. Also, the system specification approach
lessens engineering costs and manpower for an Agency and transfers some of the project's
design cost to construction.
The disadvantage is that Agency engineers may not fully understand the technology at first
and, therefore may not be fully qualified to review and approve construction modifications.
Newer systems may not be considered due to the lack of confidence of Agency personnel to
review and accept these systems. In addition, complex phasing and special details are not
addressed until after the contract has been awarded.
The bid quantities are obtained from specified pay limits denoted on the "line and grade"
drawings and can be bid on a lump-sum or unit-price basis. The basis for detailed designs to
be submitted after contract award are contained either as complete special provisions or by
reference to AASHTO or Agency manuals, as a special provision.
Plans, furnished as part of the contract documents, contain the geometric, geotechnical and
design-specific information listed below.

10.5.1 Geometric Requirements
C Plan and elevation of the areas to be retained, including beginning and end stations.
C For MBW unit faced walls, the plan view should show alignment baseline, limits of
bottom of wall alignment and limits of top of wall alignment, as alignments vary with the
batter of MBW system actually supplied.
C Typical cross section that indicates face batter, pay limits, drainage requirements,
excavation limits, etc.
C Elevation view of each structure showing original ground line, minimum foundation
level, finished grade at ground surface, and top of wall or slope line.
C Location of utilities, signs, etc., and the loads imposed by each such appurtenance, if any.
C Construction constraints such as staged construction, right-of-way, construction
easements, etc.
C Mean high water level, design high water level, and drawdown conditions where
applicable.
10.5.2 Geotechnical Requirements
They are the same as in Section 8.4 except that the design responsibility is clearly delineated
as to areas of contractor/supplier and Agency responsibility.
Typically, the Agency would assume design responsibility for developing global stability,
bearing resistance and settlement analyses, as they would be the same regardless of the
system used. The contractor/supplier would assume responsibility for both internal and local
external stability for the designed structures.
10.5.3 Structural and Design Requirements
C Reference to specific governing sections of the Agency design manual (materials,

structural, hydraulic and geotechnical), construction specifications and special provisions.
If none is available for MSE walls, refer to current AASHTO, both Division I, Design
and Division II, Specifications.
C Magnitude, location, and direction of external loads due to bridges, overhead signs and
lights, and traffic surcharges.
C Limits and requirements of drainage features beneath, behind, above, or through the
reinforced soil structure.
C Slope erosion protection requirements for reinforced slopes.
C Size and architectural treatment of concrete panels for MSE walls.

10.5.4 Performance Requirements
C Tolerable movement of the structure both horizontal and vertical.

C Tolerable face panel movement.
C Monitoring and measurement requirements.
10.6 STANDARD DESIGNS
The development and use of standard MSEW and RSS designs are discussed in Sections 4.8
and 8.8, respectively. With standard design, the Agency has certain responsibilities in
preparation of the project plans and the vendor has certain responsibilities. For the example
standard designs (Berg, 2000), the following Agency responsibilities are noted on the
standard plans.
10.6.1 MSEW Standard Designs
Agency Responsibilities:
In addition to the standard sheets, plan and front elevation views of the modular block
retaining walls shall be included in the plans. The plan view must show alignment baseline,
limits of bottom of wall alignment, and limits of top of wall alignment as alignments vary
with batter of wall system supplied. The front elevation must identify bottom and top of wall
elevations, existing grades, and finished grades.
If the wall is curved, show the radius at the bottom and the top of each wall segment and the
P.C. and P.T. station points off of baseline and limits of bottom and top of wall alignment.
Reference adjacent pavement elevations (including superelevations, as applicable).
Reference standard plates and provide details for traffic barriers, curb and gutter, handrails
and fencing as required by project conditions. See AASHTO and Agency design manuals,
standard plates and details for requirements.
Surface drainage patterns shall be shown in the plan view. Provide dimensions for width and
depth of the drainage swale as well as the type of impervious liner material. Surface water
runoff should be collected above and diverted around wall face.
Detail lines and grades of the internal drainage collection pipe. Detail or note the destination
of internal wall drains as well as the method of termination (daylight end of pipe or
connection into hydraulic structure).

Soft soils and/or high water conditions may not be suitable for application of standard
designs and may require a project specific design.
Standard design charts are not applicable to:

C Project/sites where foundation soils shear strength and/or bearing capacity do not meet or
exceed values used in the development of standard design charts.
C Projects with a large (Agency defined) quantity of face area where project specific
designs are recommended.
C Where slopes in front of wall are steeper than 1:3.
C Where maximum wall height exceeds 32 ft (7.0 m).
C Where walls are tiered.
C Walls with soundwalls.
Contractor Responsibilities:
Approved combinations of modular block unit and soil reinforcement products list with
MBW reinforcement class noted are held and maintained by the Agency. Only approved
product combinations may be used in standard designs.
Provide detailed drawings for construction containing:

C Elevation view with reinforcement placement requirements, wall facing layout, and
geometric information. Top of wall may extend up to 4 inches (100 mm) above plan top
of wall elevation.
C Plan view with bottom and top of wall alignment, and plan limits of wall alignment.
C Cross sections detailing batter, reinforcement, vertical spacing. Reinforcement lengths.
Subsurface drainage, surface drainage, and water runoff collection above wall.
C Reinforcement layouts reinforcement shall be placed at 100% coverage ratio.
Reinforcement elevations shall be consistent across length of wall structure.
C Note block, reinforcement, and fill placement methods and requirements.
C Detail all wall fill penetrations and wall face penetrations. Detail reinforcement and/or
wall facing unit placement around penetrations.
C Details that are specific to vendor products and their interaction with other project
components.
C List information on approved combination of MBW unit and geosynthetic reinforcement,
including Agency classification code, nominal block width, properties for field
identification, and installation instructions.
C Details of cap units and installation/fastening instructions for the caps. Cap units shall be
set in a bed of adhesive designed to withstand moisture and temperature extremes, remain
flexible, and shall be specifically formulated for bonding masonry to masonry.

C Certification by professional engineer that the construction layout meets the requirements
of plans and Agency MSEW standards. Deviation from standard design tables by value
engineering submittal only.
10.6.2 RSS Standard Designs
Review by Turf and Erosion Prevention Unit and the Office of Environmental Services (or
similar), shall be performed for all RSS applications. Turf establishment and maintenance
items, hydroseeding over erosion control blanket, use of turf reinforcement mat in
channelized flow areas, modification of seed mix, turf maintenance contract items, in
addition to the details contained on these drawings, should be evaluated on a project basis.
In addition to the standard sheets, typical cross sections of the soil slopes shall be included in
the plans as well as including soil slopes on the project cross sections.
Detail transition of RSS to adjacent slopes or structures.
Reference standard plates and provide details for traffic barriers, curb and cutter, handrails
and fencing as required by project conditions. See AASHTO and Agency design manuals,
standard plates, and details for requirements.
Detail lines and grades of the internal drainage collection pipe. Detail or note the destination
of internal drains as well as the method of termination (daylight end of pipe or connection
into adjacent hydraulic structure).
Surface drainage patterns shall be shown in the plan view. Surface water runoff should be
collected above and diverted around slope face.
Define reinforced soil slope angle and define construction limits on the plan view based on
this angle. Standard slope angles are 45 and 70 degrees.
Soft soils and/or high water conditions (defined as groundwater within a depth equal to the
slope height H) may not be suitable for application of standard designs and requires special
consideration by the Agency.
Standard designs are not applicable for projects with large quantity (Agency defined) of
vertical face area where project specific designs are recommended.

Designs based on level backfill, zero toe slope and traffic surcharge. Slopes above or below
the oversteepened reinforced slope are not suitable for application of standard designs and
require special consideration by the Agency.
Refer to Case 1A and 1B for soil slopes between l:2 (26.5°) and 45° maximum. Use Case 2
for soil slopes greater than 45° and up to 70° maximum.
Geotechnical investigation shall be performed for all RSS applications.
Approved soil reinforcement products list, with type noted, and approved erosion control
products list, are held and maintained by the Agency. Only approved products may be used
in standard designs.
Provide detailed drawings for construction, containing:

C Elevation view with reinforcement placement requirements, soil slope layout and
geometric information.
C Cross sections detailing slope face angle, reinforcement vertical spacing, reinforcement
lengths, subsurface drainage, surface drainage, and slope face erosion protection.
C Detail all reinforced fill penetrations and face penetrations. Detail reinforcement and
erosion protection placement around penetrations.
C List information on approved geosynthetic reinforcement, including Agency
classification code, properties for field identification and installation directions. List
product and installation information on welded wire mesh facing forms if utilized.
C Certification by Professional Engineer that construction layout meets the requirements of
plans and Agency RSS standards. Deviation from standard design tables by value
engineering submittal only.
10.7 REVIEW AND APPROVALS
Where Agency design is based on a supplier’s plans, it should be approved for incorporation
in the contract documents following a rigorous evaluation by Agency structural and
geotechnical engineers. The following is a checklist of items requiring review:
C Conformance to the project line and grade.
C Conformance of the design calculations to Agency standards or codes such as current
AASHTO with respect to design methods, allowable bearing capacity, allowable tensile
strength, connection design, pullout parameters, surcharge loads, and factors of safety.

C Development of design details at obstructions such as drainage structures or other
appurtenances, traffic barriers, cast-in-place junctions, etc.
C Facing details and architectural treatment.
For end result contracting methods, the special provisions should contain a requirement that
complete design drawings and calculations be submitted within 60 days of contract award for
Agency review.
The review process should be similar to the supplier design outlined above and be conducted
by the Agency's structural and geotechnical engineers.

MSE WALL AND RSS CONSTRUCTION
A successful reinforced soil project will require sound, well-prepared material and
construction specifications to communicate project requirements as well as construction
guidance to both the contractor and inspection personnel. Poorly prepared specifications
often result in disputes between the contractor and owner representatives.
A frequently occurring problem with MSE systems is the application of different or unequal
construction specifications for similar MSE systems. Users are encouraged to utilize a single
unified specification that applies to all systems, regardless of the contracting method used.
The construction and material requirements for MSE systems are sufficiently well developed
and understood to allow for unified material specifications and common construction
methods.
Guide construction and material specifications are presented in this chapter for the following
types of construction:
C Section 10.9 – Example specification for MSE walls with segmental precast concrete,
WWM, or MBW facings and steel (grid or strip) or geosynthetic reinforcements.
C Section 10.10 – Example specifications for RSS systems.
These guide specifications should serve as the technical basis for Agency developed standard
specifications for these items. Local experience and practice should be incorporated as
applicable. EDIT NOTE: Some key items that may be edited based upon local experience
and/or practice are noted with a text box insert and discussion. The contractor should be
required to submit a quality control plan detailing measurements and documentation that will

be maintained during construction to assure consistency in meeting specification
requirement.
10.9 EXAMPLE SPECIFICATION FOR MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH

(MSE) WALLS
The following specification addresses MSE walls reinforced with galvanized steel or
geosynthetics, and faced with precast segmental panels, welded wire mesh (WWM), or
masonry modular block wall (MBW) units. This example specification has been modified
from the Arizona DOT (2009) LRFD MSE Wall specification. It is consistent with the
design checklist in Chapter 4 and with recommendations with in this manual, but in some
cases may extend beyond these recommendations. Sections to be filled in are shown as:
________ or with an example value noted, e.g. 30 days.
MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALLS
1 Description:
1.01 General:
The work under this section consists of designing, furnishing all materials and constructing
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls in accordance with these specifications and in
compliance with the lines and grades, dimensions and details shown on the project plans and as
directed by the Engineer.
The contractor shall provide the MSE wall designer with a complete set of project plans and
specifications and shall ensure that the wall design is compatible with all other project features that
can impact the design and construction of the wall. The following terms are used in this specification
for identification of various entities for which the contractor shall be fully responsible:
Term Entity
Wall Manufacturer The entity contractually retained by the contractor to provide materials and
construction services for an accepted MSE wall system as identified in
Subsection 1.03.
Wall Designer The entity contractually retained by the contractor to provide design of an
accepted MSE wall system as identified in Subsection 1.03. The wall
designer may be a representative of the wall manufacturer.
1.02 Certifications:
(A) Certification of Design Parameters:
See Subsection 2.01 herein specified.
(B) Certification of Materials:
See Subsections 3.04, 3.07 and 3.10 herein specified.

1.03 Accepted Systems:
The contractor shall select one of the appropriate __DOT pre-approved earth retaining systems to be
constructed for the MSE walls designated on the plans.
Pre-approved systems are listed under category “Proprietary Retaining Walls” in the Approved
Products List (APL). Copies of the most current version of the APL are available on the Internet at
____________________.
The features of the system furnished, including design and configuration of precast elements,
fasteners, connections, soil reinforcements, joint fillers, geotextile filter, and other necessary
components, shall be those that have been pre-approved.
Heights and lengths of earth retaining walls may vary from, but shall not be less than, those shown on
the plans. The height and length to be used for any system shall be the minimum for that system that
will effectively retain the earth behind the wall for the loading conditions and the contours, profile, or
slope lines shown on the plans, or on the approved working drawings, and in accordance with all
relevant internal and external stability design criteria, but not more than the pre-approved height for
the particular MSE wall system selected.
1.04 Manufacturer’s Field Representative:
The manufacturer’s field representative performing the work described in this specification shall
have, in the past three years, successfully installed at least four MSE retaining walls of heights,
lengths and complexity similar to those shown on the plans and meeting the tolerances specified
herein. The manufacturer’s field representative may make field changes subject to the approval of the
Engineer. Any such changes shall be documented in writing within 24 hours of the approved
changes. This written document shall be sealed by the manufacturer’s design engineer, who is
registered as a Civil Engineer in the State .
1.05 MSE Pre-Activity Meeting:
A pre-activity meeting will be scheduled prior to commencement of MSE wall construction activity.
As a minimum, this meeting shall be attended by the Engineer, contractor (including wall
construction crew chiefs), the MSE wall sub-contractor, MSE wall manufacturer’s and MSE Wall
designer’s representatives. No wall construction activity shall be performed until the contractor’s
final submittals have been approved as having satisfactorily resolved all review comments and the
pre-activity meeting has been held.
1.06 Wall Aesthetics:
Wall aesthetics shall be as specified in the project plans and special provisions.
2 Submittals (Working Drawings and Design):
2.01 Submittals:
The submittals required shall include working drawings, construction procedures, supporting design
calculations, verification of experience, and a transmittal letter. The transmittal letter shall only list

the documents included in the submittal. No technical information shall be included in the
transmittal letter.
Working drawings and calculations shall be sealed by an engineer, who is registered as a Civil
Engineer in the State. The MSE wall designer/supplier shall document on the working drawings all
assumptions made in the design. The following statement shall be included near the P.E. seal on the
first sheet of the working drawings: “All design assumptions are validated through notes or details on
these drawings.”
Six complete sets of working drawings, design calculations and MSE supplier’s construction
procedures modified as necessary by the contractor and Wall Designer for site-specific conditions
shall be submitted to the Engineer for review. The Engineer shall have 30 calendar days after
receiving the six complete sets to finish a review. The revised package shall be resubmitted to the
Engineer for review. The Engineer shall have 15 calendar days to complete this review. This review
process shall be repeated until the entire submittal is accepted by the Engineer.
The Department assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the working drawings.
Acceptance of the final working drawings submitted by the contractor shall not relieve the contractor
of any responsibility under the contract for the successful completion of the work.
Construction of the wall shall not commence until the contractor receives a written Notification To
Proceed (NTP) from the Engineer. The NTP will be issued once the complete wall package
(drawings, calculations and construction procedures) is approved. Fabrication of any of the wall
components before the NTP shall be at the sole risk of the contractor.
2.02 Working Drawings:
The contractor shall submit complete working drawings and specifications for each installation of the
system in accordance with the requirements of Subsection _____ as modified herein.
Working drawings shall include the following at a minimum:
(1) Layout of the wall including plan and elevation views;
(2) All design parameters and assumptions including design life;
(3) Existing ground elevations and utilities impacted by the wall, and those that should be field
verified by the contractor, for each location;
(4) Complete details of all elements and component parts required for the proper construction of
the system at each location and any required accommodations for drainage systems,
foundation subgrades or other facilities shown on the contract documents;
(5) The working drawing submittal shall clearly detail any special design requirements. These
special design requirements may include, but are not limited to; structural frames to place
reinforcements around obstructions such as deep foundations and storm drain crossings,
drainage systems, placement sequence of drainage and unit core fill with respect to reinforced
(structure) fill behind a wall face using modular block facing units, guardrail post installation,
scour protection, foundation subgrade modification, all corner details (acute, obtuse and 90
degrees), slip joints, joint details of MSE walls with other cast-in-place structures, wedges,

shims and other devices such as clamps and bracing to establish and maintain vertical and
horizontal wall facing alignments;
(6) A complete listing of components and materials specifications; and
(7) Other site-specific or project specific information required by the contract.
2.03 MSE Wall Design:
(A) General:
The working drawings shall be supplemented with all design calculations for the particular
installation as required herein. Installations that deviate from the pre-approved design shall be
accompanied by supporting stability (internal; external; and global/overall and/or compound if
required in the project documents) calculations of the proposed structure as well as supporting
calculations for all special details not contained in the pre-approved design. The MSE wall
designer/supplier shall note all deviations of the proposed wall design from the pre-approved design.
The proposed design shall satisfy the design parameters shown on the project plans and listed in these
specifications, and comply with the design requirements of the following document:
 FHWA NHI-10-024 Vol I and NHI-10-025 Vol II, “Design of MSE Walls and Reinforced
Slopes,” (Berg et al., 2009).
 AASHTO (2007),”AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” 4th Edition, including 2008
and 2009 Interims.
All references to AASHTO (2007) shall mean to include the latest interims.
Maximum reinforcement loads shall be calculated using the “Simplified Method” as presented in
AASHTO (2007) and as per the requirements specified herein. No other design method will be
allowed. EDIT NOTE: The 2008 Interims states that the Simplified Method or the Coherent Gravity
Method may be used. Agencies should specify what method(s) are acceptable and not leave as a
contractor option.
Sample analyses and hand-calculations shall be submitted to verify the output from software used by
the MSE wall designer. Sample analyses and hand-calculations shall be required for complex walls
having geometries and loading conditions that are not readily amenable to computer analysis. Failure
modes, including circular, non-circular, and multi-part wedge, shall be analyzed for deep-seated
global stability and compound stability to verify the most critical failure case. EDIT NOTE: Agency
must specify who – the Agency or the contractor/wall vendor – is responsible for global and for
compound stability analyses. If the contractor/wall supplier is responsible, subsurface data in
sufficient detail to perform the analyses must be provided by the Agency to the contractor/wall
supplier. See Chapter 4 for additional discussion.
Unless otherwise specified in the contract, all structures shall be designed to conform to the
requirements shown in Table 1 and other requirements specified herein.

TABLE 1
DESIGN PARAMETERS
Description Limit State Value Note*
1. Design Life All limit states 75 Years
2. Effective (Drained) Friction Angle
a. Retained Backfill All limit states 32o min
b. Reinforced Backfill All limit states 34 to max 40o
o
1
0.7H min or 8-ft
3. Length of soil reinforcement, B All limit states 2
whichever is more
Strength (all) B/4 (soil), 3/8B (rock)
4. Limiting eccentricity
Service I B/6 (soil), B/4 (rock)
5. Coefficient of Sliding Friction Strength (all) tan[min(r, f, i)] 3
6. Resistance factors
a. Sliding Strength (all) 1.0 4
b. Bearing Strength (all) 0.65 5
c. Overall (slope) stability
I. Deep Seated Stability Service I 0.65 6
II. Compound Stability Service I 0.65 6
d. Pullout resistance
I. Static Strength (all) 0.90 7
II. Combined static/earthquake Strength (all) 1.20 7
e. Tensile resistance of metallic
reinforcements and connectors
I. Static
- Strip reinforcement Strength (all) 0.75 8
- Grid reinforcement Strength (all) 0.65 8,9
II. Combined static/earthquake
- Strip reinforcement Strength (all) 1.00 8
- Grid reinforcement Strength (all) 0.85 8,9
f. Tensile resistance of geosynthetic
reinforcements and connectors
I. Static Strength (all) 0.90
II. Combined static/earthquake Strength (all) 1.20
* Refer to Table 1.1 for notes.

TABLE 1.1
NOTES FOR TABLE 1
# Note
1 A minimum friction angle of 34 degrees shall be substantiated by laboratory tests discussed in
Subsection 3.05(D). If the measured friction angle in laboratory tests as per Subsection
3.05(D) is greater than 40-degrees then the friction angle in the analysis shall be limited to 40-
degrees.
2 H is the design height of the wall and is defined as the difference in elevation between from
the finished grade at the tope of wall and the top of leveling pad. The top of the leveling pad
shall always be below the minimum embedment reference line as indicated on the plans for
that location. The length of the soil reinforcement, B, is measured from the backface of the
wall facing unit. In case of grid type reinforcements the length of the soil reinforcement is
measured from the backface of the wall to the last full transverse member. For modular block
facing units, the total length of the reinforcement, BT, as measured from the front face of the
wall is the length B as defined above plus the width of the modular block unit (the horizontal
dimension of the block unit measured perpendicular to the wall face).
3 r= friction angle of reinforced wall fill; f = friction angle of foundation soil; i = friction
angle of the interface between reinforcement and soil for cases of sheet reinforcement such as
geotextiles. All friction angles are effective (drained) friction angles. Refer to Geotechnical
Report for friction angle of foundation soil.
4 Passive resistance shall not be considered in evaluation of sliding resistance.
5 For all limit states, the design loading for the MSE retaining wall system shall not exceed the
factored general and local bearing resistances specified in the Geotechnical Report(s).
6 For earthquake loading condition, a resistance factor of 0.90 shall be used.
7 Live load due to vehicular traffic shall be included in the computations to determine the
maximum tensile forces in reinforcement layers, but shall be neglected in the computations for
pullout resistance. EDIT NOTE: Agency should specify whether or not to include live load
in tensile force calculations for pullout check, see Chapter 4 for discussion. Intensity of live
load shall be considered as a uniform surcharge using the equivalent height of soil in
accordance with Section Article 3.11.6.4 of AASHTO (2007).
8 Apply to gross cross-section less sacrificial area. For sections with holes, reduce gross area in
accordance with Article 6.8.3 of AASHTO (2007) and apply to net section less sacrificial
area.
9 Applies to grid reinforcements connected to a rigid facing element, e.g., a concrete panel or
block. For grid reinforcements connected to a flexible facing mat or which are continuous
with the facing mat, use the resistance factor for strip reinforcements.
10 Unless otherwise specified, all resistance factors shall be taken as 1.0 when investigating an
extreme event limit state.
(B) Subsurface Drainage Systems:
Walls shall be provided with subsurface drainage measures as shown on the project plans and
specifications. As a minimum, an underdrain system shall be provided for leading subsurface and
surface water away from the backfill and outside the limits of the wall. Geocomposite drains, if used
for subsurface drainage, shall be in accordance with Subsection ____ and _____ of the specifications.

(C) Obstructions in Backfill:
(1) General:
Where obstructions, such as deep foundations or storm drains crossings, are located in the
reinforced backfill zone, cutting of reinforcements to avoid obstructions shall not be permitted. A
minimum offset of one diameter but not less than three (3) feet shall be maintained between the
face of any pipe crossings and the back face of retaining wall panels. A minimum clearance of
three (3) feet shall be maintained between the face of any other obstruction and the back face of
retaining wall panels.
(2) Horizontal Deflection of Reinforcements:
In the horizontal plane at a reinforcing level, a deviation up to fifteen (15) degrees from the
normal to the face of the wall may be allowed for strip reinforcement and bolted connection. This
deviation is herein referred to as the splay angle. Grid reinforcements may not be splayed, unless
connection has been specifically fabricated to accommodate a splay and connection detail has
been approved by the Agency. If used, the splay in grid reinforcement is limited to fifteen (15)
degrees. For obstructions that cannot be accommodated with splayed reinforcement, structural
frames and connections shall be required, and shall be designed in accordance with Section 10
(“Steel Structures”) of AASHTO (2007) for the maximum tension in the reinforcements. The
structural frame design shall be such that bending moments are not generated in the soil
reinforcement or the connection at the wall face. The design, along with supporting calculations,
shall be included in the working drawings.
(3) Vertical Deflection of Reinforcements:
Vertical deflection of the reinforcement to avoid obstructions such as utilities along the wall face
shall be limited to a maximum of 15 degrees from normal to face of wall. Bends in the
reinforcement shall be smooth and gradual to ensure that galvanization remains intact.
(D) Hydrostatic Pressures:
As determined by the Engineer and/or as noted on the plans, for walls potentially subject to
inundation, such as those located adjacent to rivers, canals, detention basins or retention basins, a
minimum hydrostatic pressure equal to three (3) feet shall be applied at the high-water level for the
design flood event. Effective unit weights shall be used in the calculations for internal and external
stability beginning at levels just below the equivalent surface of the pressure head line. Where the
wall is influenced by water fluctuations, the wall shall be designed for rapid drawdown conditions
which could result in differential hydrostatic pressure greater than three (3) feet. As an alternative to
designing for rapid drawdown conditions, Size 57 coarse aggregate, as specified in AASHTO M 43,
shall be provided as reinforced wall fill for the full length of the wall and to the maximum height of
submergence of the wall. Separation geotextile, as specified in Subsection ____, shall be provided at
the interface of the Size 57 coarse aggregate and reinforced wall fill above it, and at the interface of
the retained backfill behind it. Adjoining sections of separation geotextile shall be overlapped by a
minimum of 12 inches.

(E) Acute Angle Corners:
Wall corners with an included angle of less than 70 degrees shall be designed for bin-type lateral
pressures for the extent of the wall where the full length of the reinforcement cannot be installed
without encountering a wall face. Acute angle corner structures shall not be stand-alone separate
structures. Computations shall be provided that demonstrate deformation compatibility between the
acute angle corner structure and the rest of the MSE wall. Full-height vertical slip joints shall be
provided at the acute angle corner and after the last column of panels where full length of the
reinforcements can be placed. The soil reinforcement attached to the slip joints shall be oriented
perpendicular to the slip joint panels and shall be the full design length. Special connection and
compaction details shall be provided on the working drawings.
(F) Spacing of Metallic Reinforcement for Flexible Face Wall Systems:
For permanent walls, vertical and horizontal spacing of metallic reinforcements for flexible face
(welded wire or similar) wall systems shall not exceed 18 inches. The stiffness of the facing and
spacing of reinforcements shall be such that the maximum local deformation between soil
reinforcement layers shall be limited to less than 1½ inches. EDIT NOTE: Recommended limitation
range, see Chapter 3, is 1 to 2 inches. Agency should specify specific value. Facing elements shall
not yield in bending and tension.
For temporary walls, i.e., walls with up to 36 months service life, the contractor may adjust the
stiffness of the facing and spacing of the reinforcements such that the local deformation between the
reinforcement is within the elastic range in bending and tension, and the overall geometry meets the
line and grade requirements for the temporary walls.
(G) Soil Reinforcement for Modular Block Wall Systems:
The soil reinforcement lengths and percent coverage at a given reinforcement level shall be in
accordance with the plans. All soil reinforcement shall be positively connected to the modular block
facing units that is capable of resisting 100% of the maximum tension in the soil reinforcements at
any level within the wall. Detailed documentation for connection strength shall be submitted as noted
in Subsection 3.10. The vertical spacing of the soil reinforcement for walls with modular block
facing units shall be as follows:
1. The first (bottom) layer of soil reinforcement shall be no further than 16 inches above the top
of the leveling pad.
2. The last (top) layer of soil reinforcement shall be no further than 20 inches on the average
below the top of the uppermost MBW unit.
3. The maximum vertical spacing between layers of adjacent soil reinforcement shall not exceed
32 inches. For walls deriving any part of their connection capacity by friction the maximum
vertical spacing of the reinforcement should be limited to two times the block depth (front
face to back face) to assure construction and long-term stability. The top row of
reinforcement should be one-half the vertical spacing.
(H) Initial Batter of Wall:
The initial batter of the wall, both during construction and upon completion, shall be within the
vertical and horizontal alignment tolerances included in this specification. The initial batter of the
wall at the start of construction and the means and methods necessary to achieve the batter shall be
provided on the working drawings. Subject to Engineer’s approval, the initial batter may be modified

at the start of construction by the manufacturer’s field representative based on the evaluation of the
backfill material selected by the contractor. Any such changes shall be documented in writing within
24 hours of the approved changes. This written document shall be sealed by the manufacturer’s
design engineer who is registered as a Civil Engineer in the state. Details of the wedges or shims or
other devices, such as clamps and external bracing used to achieve or maintain the wall batter, shall
be as shown on the working drawings and/or accompanying construction manual. Permanent shims
shall comply with the design life criteria, and shall maintain the design stress levels required for the
walls.
3 Material Requirements:
3.01 Precast Concrete Elements:
Precast concrete elements shall conform to the requirements for precast minor structures in Sections
___ and ____. The concrete shall be Class __ with minimum design strength of 4,000 pounds per
square inch. The mix design shall conform to the requirements of Subsection 3.02.
Prior to casting, all embedded components shall be set in place to the dimensions and tolerances
designated in the plans and specifications. Rustication for wall aesthetics shall be in accordance with
project plans, special provisions, and applicable requirements of Sections ___, ___, ___ and ___.
(A) Concrete Testing and Inspection:
Precast concrete elements shall be subjected to compressive strength testing in accordance with
Subsection ___, and inspected for dimensional tolerances and surface conditions in accordance with
Subsections ____ and ____ respectively. Panels delivered to the site without the Agency acceptance
stamp will be rejected.
(B) Casting:
Precast concrete face panels shall be cast on a horizontal surface with the front face of the panel at the
bottom of the form. Connection hardware shall be set in the rear face. The concrete in each precast
concrete panel shall be placed without interruption and shall be consolidated by deploying an
approved vibrator, supplemented by such hand tamping as may be necessary to force the concrete into
the corner of the forms, and to eliminate the formation of stone pockets or cleavage planes. Form
release agents as specified in Subsection _____ shall be used on all form faces for all casting
operations.
The contractor shall advise the Engineer of the starting date for concrete panel casting at least 14
calendar days prior to beginning the operation if the casting operation is within the State, or 21
calendar days if the casting operation is outside the State.
(C) Finish:
(1) Non-Exposed Surfaces:
Rear faces of precast concrete panels shall receive a Class 1 finish in accordance with Subsection
____.

(2) Exposed Surfaces:
The type of finish required on exposed surfaces shall be as shown in the plans.
(a) Exposed Aggregate Finish:
(1) Prior to placing concrete, a set retardant shall be applied to the casting forms in
accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
(2) After removal from the forms and after the concrete has set sufficiently to prevent its
dislodging, the aggregate shall be exposed by a combination of brushing and washing
with clear water. The depth of exposure shall be between ⅜ inch and ½ inch.
(3) An acrylic resin sealer consisting of 80 percent thinner and 20 percent acrylic solids
by weight shall be applied to the exposed aggregate surface at a rate of one (1) gallon
per 250 square feet.
(b) Concrete Panel Finish:
Concrete panel finish shall be in accordance with Subsection ____.
(D) Tolerances:
Precast concrete elements shall comply with Subsection ____ and ____. Connection device
placement shall be within ± 1 inch of the dimensions shown on the drawings. Panel squareness as
determined by the difference between the two diagonals shall not exceed ½ inch.
(E) Identification and Markings:
The date of manufacture, the production lot number, and the piece mark shall be inscribed on a non-
exposed surface of each element.
(F) Handling, Storage and Shipping:
All panels shall be handled, stored, and shipped in such a manner to eliminate the dangers of
chipping, discoloration, cracks, fractures, and excessive bending stresses. Panels in storage shall be
supported in firm blocking to protect panel connection devices and the exposed exterior finish.
Storing and shipping shall be in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
(G) Compressive Strength:
Precast concrete elements shall not be shipped or placed in the wall until a compressive strength of
3,400 pounds per square inch has been attained. The facing elements shall be cast on a flat and level
area and shall be fully supported until a compressive strength of 1,000 pounds per square inch has
been attained.

(H) Precast Concrete Panel Joints:
(1) General:
Where the wall wraps around an inside corner, a corner block panel shall be provided with flange
extensions that will allow for differential movement without exposing the panel joints. The back
face of vertical and horizontal joints shall be covered with geotextile filter. Joint filler, bearing
pads, and geotextile filter shall be as recommended by the wall manufacturer and shall meet the
requirements shown on the approved working drawings.
If required, as indicated on the plans, flexible open-cell polyurethane foam strips shall be used for
filler for vertical joints between panels, and in horizontal joints where pads are used.
All joints between panels on the back side of the wall shall be covered with a geotextile meeting
the requirements for filtration applications as specified by AASHTO M 288. The minimum
width shall be one (1) foot.
(2) Bearing Pads:
All horizontal and diagonal joints between panels shall include bearing pads. Bearing pads shall
meet or exceed the following material requirements:
 Preformed EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) rubber pads conforming to

ASTM D 2000 Grade 2, Type A, Class A with a Durometer Hardness of 70.
 Preformed HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) pads with a minimum density of 0.946
grams per cubic centimeter in accordance with ASTM D 1505.
The stiffness (axial and lateral), size, and number of bearing pads shall be determined such that
the final joint opening shall be ¾+1/8 inch unless otherwise shown on the plans. The MSE wall
designer shall submit substantiating calculations verifying the stiffness (axial and lateral), size,
and number of bearing pads assuming, as a minimum, a vertical loading at a given joint equal to 2
times the weight of facing panels directly above that level. As part of the substantiating
calculations, the MSE wall designer shall submit results of certified laboratory tests in the form of
vertical load-vertical strain and vertical load-lateral strain curves for the specific bearing pads
proposed by the MSE wall designer. The vertical load-vertical strain curve should extend beyond
the first yield point of the proposed bearing pad.
3.02 Steel Components:
Steel components shall conform to the applicable requirements of Sections ___ and ___.
(A) Galvanization:
Soil reinforcement steel shall be hot-dip galvanized in accordance with AASHTO M 111 (ASTM
A123). Connection hardware steel can be galvanized by hot-dipping or other means, provided the
method satisfies the requirements of AASHTO M 111 (ASTM A123). A minimum galvanization
coating of 2.0 oz/ft2 (605 g/m2) or 3.4 mils (85 μm) thickness is required. Soil reinforcement steel
shall be adequately supported while lifting and placing such that the galvanization remains intact.

Steel members with damaged (peeled) galvanization shall be repaired according to ASTM A780 and
as specified in approved working drawings, at no additional cost to the Agency.
(B) Metallic Reinforcing Strips and Tie Strips:
Reinforcing strips shall be hot-rolled from bars to the required shape and dimensions. The strips’
physical and mechanical properties shall conform to the requirements of ASTM A572, Grade 65
minimum.
Tie strips shall be shop fabricated of hot-rolled steel conforming to the requirements of ASTM
A1101, Grade 50 minimum. The minimum bending radius of the tie strips shall be ⅜ inch.
Galvanization shall be applied after the strips are fabricated, inclusive of punch holes for bolts as
shown on approved drawings.
(C) Metallic Reinforcing Mesh:
Reinforcing mesh shall be shop fabricated of cold-drawn steel wire conforming to the requirements of
AASHTO M 32, and shall be welded into the finished mesh fabric in accordance with AASHTO M
55. Galvanization shall be applied after the mesh is fabricated. A minimum galvanization coating of
2.0 oz/ft2 (605 g/m2) or 3.4 mils (85 μm) thickness is required.
(D) Connector Pins:
Connector pins and mat bars shall be fabricated and connected to the soil reinforcement mats as
shown in the approved working drawings. Connector bars shall be fabricated of cold drawn steel wire
conforming to the requirements of AASHTO M 32.
(E) Welded Wire Fabric:
All welded wire fabric shall conform to the requirements of AASHTO M 32, AASHTO M 55, and the
approved working drawings. Welded wire fabric shall be galvanized in conformance with the
requirements of ASTM A123.
(F) Fasteners:
Connection hardware shall conform to the requirements shown in the approved working drawings.
Connection hardware shall be cast in the precast concrete panels such that all connectors are in
alignment and able to transfer full and even load to the soil reinforcement. Once the reinforcement is
connected to the panel, the amount of slack shall not exceed ⅛ inch between the connector and the
reinforcement during field installation. Fasteners shall be galvanized and conform to the
requirements of AASHTO M 164 or equivalent.
3.03 Geosynthetic Reinforcement:
Geosynthetic soil reinforcement shall be limited to geogrids listed on the Agency’s Approved
Products List (APL). The geogrid shall be a regular network of integrally connected polymer tensile
elements, with aperture geometry sufficient to permit significant mechanical interlock with the
surrounding soil. Geogrid structure shall be dimensionally stable and able to retain its geometry
under manufacture, transport and installation.

The nominal long-term tensile design strength (Tal) of specific geosynthetic material shall meet or
exceed the Agency’s APL.
3.04 Certificate of Analysis for Soil Reinforcements:
The contractor shall furnish the Engineer with a Certificate of Analysis conforming to the
requirements of Subsection ____ for all materials.
For geosynthetics, the Certificate of Analysis shall verify that the supplied geosynthetic is the type
approved by the Engineer and as measured in full accordance with all test methods and standards
specified herein. The manufacturer’s certificate shall state that the furnished geosynthetic meets the
requirements of the specifications, as evaluated by the manufacturer’s quality control program. In
case of dispute over validity of values, the Engineer can require the contractor to supply test data
from an Agency-approved laboratory to support the certified values submitted, at no additional cost to
the Department.
For metallic wall reinforcement, a mill test report containing the ultimate tensile strength for the soil
reinforcement shall be included in the certification. For metallic wall reinforcement, a mill test report
containing the galvanization coverage shall be included in the certification. For metallic mesh wall
reinforcement, a mill test report containing the ultimate weld strength for the soil reinforcement shall
be included in the certification.
3.05 Reinforced Wall Fill Material:
(A) General:
Reinforced wall fill material shall be free of shale, organic matter, mica, gypsum, smectite,
montmorillonite, or other soft poor durability particles. No salvaged material, such as asphaltic
concrete millings or Portland Cement Concrete rubble, etc., will be allowed.
(B) Soundness:
The reinforced backfill material shall have a soundness loss of 30 percent or less when tested in
accordance with AASHTO T 104 using a magnesium sulfate solution with a test duration of four
cycles. Alternatively, the material shall have a soundness loss of 15 percent or less when tested in
accordance with AASHTO T 104 using a sodium sulfate solution with a test duration of five cycles.
(C) Gradation and Plasticity Index:
Gradations will be determined per AASTHO T 27 and shall be in accordance with Table 2, unless
otherwise specified. The reinforced backfill shall be well-graded in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) in ASTM D2487. Furthermore, the reinforced wall fill shall not be
gap-graded.
Plasticity Index (PI), as determined in accordance with AASHTO T 90, shall not exceed six.

Table 2
BACKFILL GRADATION REQUIREMENTS
Sieve Size Percent Passing
4 inch (Note 1) 100
No. 40 0-60
No. 200 0-15
Note 1: Maximum particle size shall be limited to ¾ inch for geosynthetics and epoxy- or PVC-
coated reinforcements unless the contractor provides tests, acceptable to the Engineer, that have
evaluated the extent of construction damage anticipated for the specific fill material and
reinforcement combination. Construction damage testing shall be performed in accordance with the
requirements of Chapter 5 of Publication No. FHWA NHI-09-087, dated 2009
(“Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes.”)
(D) Internal Friction Angle Requirement:
The reinforced wall fill material shall exhibit an effective (drained) angle of internal friction of not
less than 34 degrees, as determined in accordance with AASHTO T 236.
The test shall be run on the portion finer than the No. 10 sieve. The sample shall be compacted at
optimum moisture content to 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance
with the requirements of AASHTO T 99. The sample shall be tested at the compacted condition
without addition of water. No direct shear testing will be required when 80 percent or more of the
material is larger than ¾ inch.
(E) Electrochemical Requirements:
The reinforced backfill material shall meet the electrochemical requirements of Table 3 when metallic
soil reinforcement is used and Table 4 when geosynthetic soil reinforcement is used. For all soil
reinforcements, the organic content of backfill shall be less than one (1) percent, determined in
accordance with AASHTO T-267.
Table 3
ELECTROCHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR METALLIC REINFORCEMENTS
Characteristic Requirement Test Method
pH 5.0 to 10.0 AASHTO T-289
Resistivity, min. 3,000 ohm-cm AASHTO T-288
Chlorides, max. 100 ppm ASTM D4327
Sulfates, max. 200 ppm ASTM D4327
* If the resistivity is greater or equal to 5,000 ohm-cm, the chloride and sulfate requirements may be
waived.
Table4
ELECTROCHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENTS
Base Polymer Property Requirement Test Method
Polyolefin (PP and HDPE)* pH >3 AASHTO T-289
Polyester pH > 3 and < 9 AASHTO T-289
* PP: Polypropylene and HDPE: High Density Polyethylene.

(F) Rock Reinforced Wall Fill:
Material that is composed primarily of rock fragments (material having less than 25 percent passing a
¾-inch sieve) shall be considered to be a rock fill. The maximum particle size shall not exceed the
limits listed in Table 2. Such material shall meet all the other requirements of Subsection 3.05(B) and
Subsection 3.05(E). When such material is used, a very high survivability separation geotexitle,
meeting the minimum requirements for filtration applications specified in AASHTO M 288 and
Subsection ____, shall encapsulate the rock backfill to within three (3) feet below the wall coping.
Adjoining sections of separation fabric shall be overlapped by a minimum of 12 inches. Additionally,
the upper three (3) feet of backfill shall contain no stones greater than three (3) inches in their greatest
dimension, and shall be composed of material not considered to be rock backfill, as defined herein.
(G) Limits of Reinforced Wall Fill:
For all walls, except back-to-back walls, the reinforced backfill shall extend to at least one (1) foot
beyond the free end of the reinforcement. EDIT to Agency practice/requirements. For back-to-back
walls wherein the free ends of the reinforcement of the two walls are spaced apart less than or equal
to one-half the design height of the taller wall, reinforced wall fill shall be used for the space between
the free ends of the reinforcements as well. The design height of the wall is defined as the difference
in elevation between finished grade at top of wall and the top of leveling pad. The top of the leveling
pad shall always be below the minimum embedment reference line as indicated on the plans for the
location under consideration.
3.06 Retained Backfill Material:
(A) General:
Backfill behind the limits of the reinforced backfill shall be considered as retained backfill for a
distance equal to 50 percent of the design height of the MSE wall or as shown on the plans, except for
back-to-back MSE walls as described in Subsection 3.05(G) above. The retained backfill shall be
free of shale, mica, gypsum, smectite, montmorillonite or other soft particles of poor durability. The
retained backfill shall meet the soundness criteria as described in Subsection 3.05(B).
The percent fines (the fraction passing No. 200 sieve) shall be less than 50 as determined in
accordance with ____ Test Method, and the Liquid Limit (LL) and the Plasticity Index (PI) shall be
less than 40 and 20, respectively, as determined in accordance with AASHTO T-90.
Material that is composed primarily of rock fragments (material having less than 25 percent passing a
¾-inch sieve), shall be considered to be a rock backfill and the requirements of Subsection 3.05(F)
shall apply.
(B) Internal Friction Angle Requirement:
Unless otherwise noted on the plans, the retained backfill material shall exhibit an effective (drained)
angle of internal friction of not less than degrees as determined by AASHTO T 236. EDIT insert
Agency value consistent with material specification.
The test shall be run on the portion finer than the No. 10 sieve. The sample shall be compacted at
optimum moisture content and to 95 percent of maximum dry density, as determined in accordance
with AASHTO T 99 (Proctor) test OR AASHTO T 180 (Modified Proctor) test. EDIT NOTE:

Specify test method consistent with compaction specification. The sample shall be tested at the
compacted condition without addition of water.
No direct shear testing will be required when 80 percent or more of the material is larger than ¾ inch.
3.07 Certificate of Analysis for Reinforced Wall Fill and Retained Backfill Materials
At least three weeks prior to construction of the MSE wall, the contractor shall furnish the Engineer
with an 80-pound representative sample of each of the backfill material and a Certificate of Analysis
conforming to the requirements of Subsection 106.05 certifying that the backfill materials comply
with the requirements specified herein. During construction the reinforced and retained backfill shall
be sampled and tested by the Contractor for acceptance and quality control testing in accordance with
the requirements stated in Table 929-5 and Table 929-6, respectively. A new sample and Certificate
of Analysis shall be provided any time the reinforced and retained backfill material changes as noted
in Table 929-5 and 929-6, respectively.
Table 5
Sampling Frequency for Reinforced Backfill Material
Test Frequency
Gradation (AASHTO T 26), One per 2,000 CY
Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90) At job site
Resistivity, pH, Organic Content, Chlorides, Sulfates (Table 929-3) One per 2,000 CY
At job site
Internal friction angle (AASHTO T 236)
One per material
Proctor density and Optimum Moisture by AASHTO T 99 OR AASHTO T
change and change
180 EDIT NOTE: Specify one, consistent with compaction specification.
in source*
Test pad section (Subsection 4.06(B))
* The gradation and plasticity tests performed at the frequency noted in Table 5 shall be used to
determine the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) designation as per ASTM D 2487. New
tests shall be required with each change in USCS designation including change in dual symbol
designations (example: SW-SM, SW-SC, etc.). All requirements of Subsection 3.05 shall be
satisfied. New tests shall also be required for each new source regardless of whether the USCS
designation changes or not.
Table 6
Sampling Frequency for Retained Backfill Material
Test Frequency
Gradation (AASHTO T 27), One per 5,000 CY
Plasticity Index (AASHTO T 90) At job site
Internal friction angle (AASHTO T 236) One per material
Proctor density and Optimum Moisture by AASHTO T 99 OR AASHTO T change and change
180 EDIT NOTE: Specify one, consistent with compaction specification. in source*
* The gradation and plasticity tests performed at the frequency noted in Table 6 shall be used to
determine the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) designation as per ASTM D2487. New
tests shall be required with each change in USCS designation including change in dual symbol
designations (example: SW-SM, SW-SC, etc.). All requirements of Subsection 3.06 shall be
satisfied. New tests shall also be required for each new source regardless of whether the USCS
designation changes or not.

3.08 Cast-in-Place Concrete:
Cast-in-place concrete shall conform to the requirements of Sections ___ and ___. Unless otherwise
approved, all cast-in-place concrete shall be Class __ with a minimum compressive strength of 4,000
pounds per square inch.
3.09 Modular Block (Segmental) Facing Units:
This section covers dry-cast hollow and solid concrete masonry structural retaining wall units,
machine made from Portland cement, water, and suitable mineral aggregates. The units are intended
for use as facing units in the construction of mortarless, modular block walls (MBW) also known as
segmental retaining walls (SRW). Metallic or geosynthetic reinforcement specified in Section 3.02 and
3.03, respectively, may be used as soil reinforcement in the reinforced (structure) wall fill zone.
(A) Casting:
Cementitious material in the modular block facing unit shall be Portland cement conforming to the
requirements of ASTM C 150. If fly ash is used it shall not exceed 20% by weight of the total cement
content and shall conform to ASTM C 618. Aggregates used in concrete blocks shall conform to
ASTM C 33 for normal weight concrete aggregate. Efflorescence control agent shall be used in
concrete mix design to prevent efflorescence on the block.
The contractor shall advise the Engineer of the starting date for concrete panel casting at least 14
calendar days prior to beginning the operation if the casting operation is within the State, or 21
calendar days if the casting operation is outside the State.
(B) Physical Requirements:
At the time of delivery to the work site, the modular block facing units shall conform to the following
physical requirements:
1) Minimum required compressive strength of 4,000 psi (average 3 coupons)

2) Minimum required compressive strength of 3,500 psi (individual coupon)
3) Minimum oven dry unit weight of 125 pcf
4) Maximum water absorption of 5 % after 24 hours
5) Maximum number of blocks per lot of 2,000. Tests on blocks shall be submitted at the
frequency of one set per lot.
Acceptance of the concrete block, with respect to compressive strength, water absorption and unit
weight, will be determined on a lot basis. The lot shall be randomly sampled and tested in accordance
with ASTM C140. As no additional expense to the Department, the manufacturer shall perform the
tests at an Agency approved laboratory and submit the results to the Engineer for approval.
Compressive strength test specimens shall be cored or shall conform to the saw-cut coupon provisions
of ASTM C 140. Block lots represented by test coupons that do not reach an average compressive
strength of 4,000 psi will be rejected.
(C) Freeze-Thaw Durability:
In areas where repeated freezing and thawing under saturated conditions occur, the units shall be
tested to demonstrate freeze-thaw durability in accordance with Test Method ASTM C1262. Freeze-
thaw durability shall be based on tests from five specimens made with the same materials, concrete

mix design, manufacturing process, and curing method, conducted not more than 18 months prior to
delivery. Specimens used for absorption testing shall not subsequently be used for freeze-thaw
testing. Specimens shall comply with either or both of the following acceptance criteria depending on
the severity of the project location as determined by the Department:
1) The weight loss of four out of five specimens at the conclusion of 150 cycles shall not exceed
1% of its initial weight when tested in water.
2) The weight loss of each of four out of the five test specimens at the conclusion of 50 cycles
shall not exceed 1.5% of its initial mass when tested in a saline (3% sodium chloride by
weight) solution.
(D) Tolerances for Modular Block Dimensions:
Modular blocks shall be manufactured within the following tolerances:
1) The length and width of each individual block shall be within  ⅛ inch of the specified
dimension. Hollow units shall have a minimum wall thickness of 1¼ inches.
2) The height of each individual block shall be within  1/16 inch of the specified dimension.
3) When a broken (split) face finish is required, the dimension of the front face shall be within 
1.0 inch of the theoretical dimension of the unit.
(E) Finish and Appearance:
Units that indicate imperfect molding, honeycomb or open texture concrete and color variation on
front face of block due to excess form oil or other reasons shall be rejected. All units shall be visually
efflorescence free. All units shall be sound and free of cracks or other defects that would interfere
with the proper placing of the unit or significantly impair the strength or permanence of the
construction. Minor cracks (e.g. no greater than 1/50 inch in width and no longer than 25% of the
unit height) incidental to the usual method of manufacture or minor chipping resulting from shipment
and delivery, are not grounds for rejection.
The exposed faces shall be free of chips, cracks or other imperfections when viewed from a distance
of 30 feet under diffused lighting. Up to five (5) percent of a shipment may contain slight cracks or
small chips not larger than 1.0 inch.
Color and finish shall be as shown on the plans and shall be erected with a running bond
configuration.
(F) Pins:
If pins are required to align modular block facing units, they shall consist of a non-degrading polymer
or hot-dipped galvanized steel and be made for the express use with the modular block units supplied.
Connecting pins shall be capable of holding the geogrid in the proper design position during
backfilling.
(G) Cap Units and Adhesive:
The cap unit connection to the block unit immediately under it shall be of a positive interlocking type
and not frictional. Cap units shall be cast to or attached to the top of modular block facing units in
strict accordance with the requirements of the manufacturer of the blocks and the adhesive. The
surface of the block units under the cap units shall be clear of all debris and standing water before the

approved adhesive is placed. Contractor shall provide a written 10-year warranty, acceptable to
Owner, that the integrity of the materials used to attach the cap blocks will preclude separation and
displacement of the cap blocks for the warranty period.
(H) Unit (Core) Fill:
Unit (core) fill is defined as free-draining, coarse grained material that is placed within the empty
cores of the modular block facing units. Unit (core) fill shall be a well graded crushed stone or
granular fill meeting the gradation shown in Table 7. Gradation for unit fill shall be tested at the
frequency of 1 test per 50 yd3 at the job site and for every change in the material source.
Table 7
Gradation for Unit (Core) Fill
U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing

1½-inch 100
1-inch 75-100
¾-inch 50-75
No. 4 0-60
No. 40 0-50
No. 200 0-5
(I) Gravel Fill:
A minimum width of 1-ft of gravel fill should be provided behind solid (non-hollow) modular block
units. A minimum volume of 1-ft3/ft2 of drainage fill shall be provided. Gravel fill shall meet the
requirements of the unit (core) fill. A suitable geotextile fabric between the gravel fill and reinforced
wall fill shall be used to meet the filtration requirements if the gravel fill does not meet the filtration
criteria. The selection of a suitable geotextile for filtration purposes shall be supported by design
computations taking in to account the actual gradations of the gravel fill and the reinforced wall fill to
be used on the project. Gradation for gravel fill shall be tested at the frequency of 1 test per 50 yd3 at
the job site and for every change in the material source.
3.10 Certificate of Analysis for Modular Block Connection
For modular block facing units, a certification shall be provided with detailed calculations according
to AASHTO (2007) and the results of laboratory test results performed in accordance with Section
C.3 in Appendix B of FHWA NHI-10-025, dated 2009 (“Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume II”). Such certification shall demonstrate that all connections,
including block-to-reinforcement and block-to-block connections, and all related components meet or
exceed the current AASHTO 75 year design life requirements and are capable of resisting 100% of
the maximum tension in the soil reinforcements at any level within the wall. Long-term connection
testing for extensible reinforcements is also required. The effect of wall batter and normal pressures
representative of the full range of wall configurations and heights shall be incorporated in the tests.

4 Construction Requirements:
4.01 Excavation:
The contractor shall ensure that temporary slopes are safe during the period of wall construction, and
shall adhere to all applicable local, state and federal regulations. During construction of the MSE
walls, the contractor shall design, construct, maintain and, when called for, remove temporary
excavation support systems (shoring). Temporary excavation support systems may be left in place if
approved by the Engineer. The back slope of the excavation shall be benched. Where shoring is
required, the contractor shall submit the shoring design, and a plan outlining construction and
removal procedures, to the Engineer for review and approval prior to proceeding with the work.
Shoring plans shall be prepared and submitted as part of the working drawings, as specified in
Subsection ____ and shall bear the seal and signature of a licensed Professional Civil or Structural
Engineer, registered in the State. All shoring design shall include appropriate input and review by a
geotechnical engineer.
4.02 Foundation Preparation:
(A) General:
In the absence of specific ground improvement requirements in the plans and special provisions, the
following applies:
The foundation for the reinforced wall fill and retained backfill shall be graded level for the entire
area of the base of such backfills, plus an additional 12 inches on all sides, or to the limits shown in
the plans.
If soil reinforcement components are to be positioned on native soil, the top one (1) foot of native soil
shall meet the requirements of the reinforced backfill material specified in Subsection 3.05.
If soil reinforcement components are to be positioned on native rock mass, the rock mass shall be
classified as at least Class II rock mass in accordance with Section 10 of 4th Edition of AASHTO
(2007) Bridge Specifications. Otherwise the top foot of native rock mass on which the MSE structure
is to be constructed shall be scarified and compacted to a dry density not less than 100 percent of
maximum dry density as determined in accordance with AASHTO T 99 OR AASHTO T 180 . EDIT
NOTE: Specify one method, consistent with compaction specification.
(B) Proof-Rolling:
The contractor shall perform proof-rolling to evaluate the stability and uniformity of the subgrades on
which the MSE structure will be constructed. Proof rolling shall be performed on the entire areas at
the following locations:
1. At the bottom of the overexcavation and recompaction zones, if specified on the plans.
2. At the bottom of the overexcavation and replacement zones, if specified on the plans.
3. At the base of all walls.
4. At the top of native soil layers that have been scarified, moisture-conditioned, and
recompacted (if different from the bottom of the overexcavation and recompaction zones,
or overexcavation and replacement zones).

Proof-rolling shall be done immediately after subgrade compaction while the moisture content of the
subgrade soil is near optimum, or at the moisture content that was used to achieve the required
compaction.
If proof-rolling is performed after installation of pipe underdrains, the proof-roller shall not be used
within 1½ feet of the underdrains.
Proof-rolling shall be performed with a pneumatic-tired tandem axle roller with at least three wheels
on each axle, a gross weight of 25 tons (50 kips), a minimum tire pressure of 75 pounds per square
inch, and a minimum rolling width of 75 inches. A Caterpillar PS-300B (or PF-300B), Ingersoll-
Rand PT-240R, BOMAG BW24R, Dynapac CP271, or equipment with equivalent capabilities shall
be used for proof-rolling.
Proof-rolling equipment shall be operated at a speed between 1.5 and 3 miles per hour, or slower as
required by the Engineer to permit measurements of the deformations, ruts and/or pumping.
Proof-rolling shall be carried out in two directions at right angles to each other with no more than 24
inches between tire tracks of adjacent passes. The contractor shall operate the proof-roller in a pattern
that readily allows for the recording of deformation data and complete coverage of the subgrade.
The following actions shall be taken based on the results of the proof-rolling activity:
1. Rutting less than ¼-inch – The grade is acceptable.

2. Rutting greater than ¼-inch and less than 1½ inches – The grade shall be scarified and re-
compacted.
3. Rutting greater than 1½ inches – The compacted area shall be removed and reconstructed.
4. Pumping (deformation that rebounds, or materials that are squeezed out of a wheel’s path)
greater than one(1) inch – The area shall be remediated as directed by the Engineer.
The contractor shall be responsible for maintaining the condition of the approved proof-rolled soils
throughout the duration of the retaining wall construction. Wall construction shall not commence
until the foundation has been approved by the Engineer.
4.03 Concrete Leveling Pad:
Leveling pads shall be constructed of unreinforced concrete as shown on the working drawings.
Gravel leveling pads shall not be allowed. As a minimum, the concrete for leveling pads shall meet
the requirements of Section __. The elevation of the top of leveling pad shall be within ⅛ inch from
the design elevation when measured by a straightedge over any 10-foot run of the leveling pad.
The minimum width of the leveling pad shall be the width of the facing unit plus 8-inches. The
centerline of the leveling pad shall be within 1 inch from design location. When the facing units are
centered on the leveling pad, the leveling pad shall extend approximately 4-inches beyond the limits
of the facing unit as measured in the direction perpendicular to the face of the wall.
Cast-in-place leveling pads shall be cured for a minimum of 24 hours before placement of wall facing
units. A geotextile shall be applied over the back of the area of any openings between the facing units
and leveling pad steps. The geotextile shall extend a minimum of six (6) inches beyond the edges of
the opening. The opening shall be filled with concrete, conforming to Section ___, or shall be
concurrently backfilled on both sides with soil..

4.04 Subsurface Drainage:
Prior to wall erection, the contractor shall install a subsurface drainage system as shown on the
working drawings.
4.05 Wall Erection:
(A) General:
Walls shall be erected in accordance with the manufacturer’s written instructions. The contractor
shall be responsible for ensuring that a field representative from the manufacturer is available at the
site during construction of the initial 10-foot height of the full length of wall, and as called upon
thereafter by the Engineer, to assist the contractor and Engineer at no additional cost to the Agency.
All temporary construction aids (e.g., wedges, clamps, etc.) shall be in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations.
(B) Placement Tolerances for Walls with Precast Facing:
For walls with rigid facing, such as precast concrete panels, the panels shall be placed such that their
final position is vertical or battered as shown on the working drawings. As wall fill material is
placed, the panels shall be maintained in the correct vertical alignment by means of temporary
wedges, clamps, or bracing as recommended by the manufacturer. A minimum of two, but not more
than three, rows of panel wedges shall remain in place at all times during wall erection. Wedges shall
be removed from lower rows as panel erection progresses, so as to prevent chipping or cracking of
concrete panels. The contractor shall repair any damage to erected concrete panels as directed by the
Engineer and to the Engineer’s satisfaction. No external wedges in front of the wall shall remain in
place when the wall is complete.
Erection of walls with panel facing shall be in accordance with the following tolerances:
 Vertical and horizontal alignment of the wall face shall not vary by more than ¾ inch when
measured along a 10-foot straightedge.
 The overall vertical tolerance (plumbness) of the finished wall shall not exceed ½ inch per 10
feet of wall height. Negative (outward leaning) batter is not acceptable.
 The maximum permissible out of plane offset at any panel joint shall not exceed ⅜ inch.
 The final horizontal and vertical joint gaps between adjacent facing panel units shall be
within ⅛ inch and ¼ inch, respectively, of the design final joint opening per the approved
calculations required in Subsection 3.01(H).
Wall sections not conforming to these tolerances shall be reconstructed at no additional cost to the
Department.
(C) Placement Tolerances for Permanent Walls with Flexible Facing:
Erection of permanent walls with flexible facing (such as welded wire mesh) shall be in accordance
with the following tolerances:
 Vertical and horizontal alignment of the wall face shall not vary by more than two (2) inches
when measured along a 10-foot straightedge, or as shown in the plans and specifications.

 The overall vertical tolerance (plumbness) of the wall shall not exceed one (1) inch per 10
feet of wall height. Negative (outward leaning) batter is not acceptable.
 The offset limit between consecutive rows of facing shall not exceed one (1) inch from
planned offset.
Department.
(D) Placement Tolerances for Modular Block Units:
Erection of walls with Modular Block Units shall be as per the following requirements:
 Vertical and horizontal alignment of the wall face shall not vary by more than ¾-inch when
measured along a 10-feet straightedge.
 Overall vertical tolerance (plumbness) of the wall shall not exceed 1¼-inch per 10-ft of wall
height from the final wall batter. Negative (outward leaning) batter is not acceptable.
 The first row of units shall be level from unit-to-unit and from front-to-back. Use the tail of
the units for alignment and measurement.
 All units shall be laid snugly together and parallel to the straight or curved line of the wall
face.
 Unless otherwise noted, all blocks shall be dry-stacked and placed with each block evenly
spanning the joint in the row below (running bond). Shimming or grinding shall control the
elevations of any two adjacent blocks within 1/16 inch.
 The top of blocks shall be checked with a minimum length of 3-feet long straight edge bubble
level. Any high points identified by the straight edge shall be ground flat. Block front to
back tilting shall be checked frequently, however correction by shimming shall be done no
later than 3 completed courses.
Department.
(E) Placement of Metallic Reinforcement Elements:
Metallic reinforcement elements shall be placed normal (perpendicular) to the face of the wall, unless
otherwise shown on the approved plans. All reinforcement shall be structurally connected to the wall
face.
At each level of the soil reinforcement, the reinforced wall fill material shall be roughly leveled and
compacted before placing the next layer of reinforcement. The reinforcement shall bear uniformly on
the compacted reinforced soil from the connection to the wall to the free end of the reinforcing
elements. The reinforcement placement elevation shall be at the connection elevation to two (2)
inches higher than the connection elevation.
Where overlapping of reinforcing may occur, such as at corners, reinforcing connections to panels
shall be adjusted to maintain at least three (3) inches of vertical separation between overlapping
reinforcement.

(F) Placement of Geotextile:
All joints between precast concrete panels shall be covered with geotextile on the backside of the
wall. Adhesive shall be applied to panels only. Adhesive shall not be applied to geotextile fabric or
within two (2) inches of a joint. The contractor shall provide geotextile having a minimum width of
12 inches, and shall overlap fabric a minimum of four (4) inches. For modular block walls, the
placement of the geotextile fabric shall be in accordance with the plans.
(G) Joint Pads and Fillers:
The contractor shall install joint pads and fillers as shown on the working drawings.
(H) Placement of Geosynthetic Reinforcement:
Geosynthetic reinforcement shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s site-specific wall
erection instructions.
Geosynthetic reinforcement shall be placed in continuous longitudinal rolls in the direction of the
main reinforcement. Joints parallel to the wall shall not be permitted, except as shown on the
working drawings.
Reinforcement coverage shall be 100 percent of embedment area unless otherwise shown in the
working drawings. Adjacent sections of geosynthetic reinforcement need not be overlapped except
when exposed in a wrap-around face system, at which time the reinforcement rolls shall be
overlapped or mechanically connected per the manufacturer’s requirements.
Geosynthetic reinforcement shall be placed to lay flat and pulled tight prior to backfilling. After a
layer of geosynthetic reinforcement has been placed, suitable means, such as pins or small piles of
soil, shall be used to hold the geosynthetic reinforcement in position until the subsequent soil layer
can be placed.
During construction, the surface of the fill shall be kept approximately horizontal. Geosynthetic
reinforcement shall be placed directly on the compacted horizontal fill surface. The reinforcement
shall bear uniformly on the compacted reinforced soil from the connection to the wall to the free end
of the reinforcing elements. The reinforcement placement elevation shall be at the connection
elevation to two (2) inches higher than the connection elevation.
4.06 Reinforced Wall Fill Placement:
(A) General:
Reinforced wall fill placement shall closely follow erection of each course of facing panels. Backfill
shall be placed in such a manner to avoid damage or disturbance of the wall materials, misalignment
of facing panels, or damage to soil reinforcement or facing members. The contractor shall place
backfill to the level of the connection and in such a manner as to ensure that no voids exist directly
beneath reinforcing elements.
For walls with modular block facing units, the backfill shall not be advanced more than the height of
a modular block unit until the drainage fill, core fill and all fill in all openings within the blocks at

that level have been placed. The filled units shall be swept clean of all debris before installing the
next level of units and/or placing the geogrid materials.
For walls with flexible facing with gabion style facing, the rock near the wall face shall be hand-
placed in accordance with the recommendations of the wall manufacturer.
The maximum lift thickness before compaction shall not exceed ten (10) inches. EDIT NOTE: Insert
Agency maximum lift height. The contractor shall decrease this lift thickness, if necessary, to obtain
the specified density.
For geosynthetic reinforcements, the fill shall be spread by moving the machinery parallel to or away
from the wall facing and in such a manner that the geogrid remains taut. Construction equipment
shall not operate directly on the geogrid. A minimum fill thickness of six (6) inches over the geogrid
shall be required prior to operation of vehicles. Sudden braking and sharp turning shall be avoided.
For metallic reinforcements, the fill shall be spread by moving the machinery parallel to or away from
the wall facing and in such a manner that the steel reinforcement remains normal to the face of the
wall. Construction equipment shall not operate directly on the steel reinforcement. A minimum fill
thickness of three (3) inches over the steel reinforcement shall be required prior to operation of
vehicles. Sudden braking and sharp turning shall be avoided.
Wall materials which are damaged during backfill placement shall be removed and replaced by the
contractor, at no additional cost to the Department. The contractor may submit alternative corrective
procedures to the Engineer for consideration. Proposed alternative corrective procedures shall have
the concurrence of the MSE wall supplier and designer, in writing, prior to submission to the
Engineer for consideration. All corrective actions shall be at no additional cost to the Department.
(B) Compaction:
Reinforced wall fill shall be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in
accordance with the requirements of AASHTO T 99 OR AASHTO T 180. EDIT NOTE: Specify
one method, consistent with compaction specification.
Retained backfill shall be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in
accordance with the requirements of AASHTO T 99 (Standard Proctor) OR AASHTO T 180
(Modified Proctor). EDIT NOTE: Specify one method, consistent with compaction specification.
Backfill shall be compacted using a static-weighted or vibratory roller. Sheeps-foot or grid-type

rollers shall not be used for compacting material within the limits of the soil reinforcement. The
contractor shall take soil density tests, in accordance with _______________, to ensure compliance
with the specified compaction requirements. Soil density tests shall be taken at intervals of not less
than one for every 2000 cubic yards, with a minimum of one test per lift. Compaction tests shall be
taken at locations determined by the Engineer.
The backfill density requirement within three (3) feet of the wall facing shall be 90 percent of
maximum dry density as determined by AASHTO T 99 (Standard Proctor) OR AASHTO T 180
(Modified Proctor). EDIT NOTE: Specify one method, consistent with compaction specification..
Compaction within three (3) feet of the wall shall be achieved by a minimum number of passes of a
lightweight mechanical tamper or roller system. The minimum number of passes and rolling pattern
shall be determined, prior to construction of the wall, by constructing a test pad section. The

minimum dimensions of the test pad shall be five (5) feet wide, 15 feet long, and three (3) feet final
depth.
Compaction in the test pad section shall be performed as follows:

 Maximum lift thickness before compaction shall be eight (8) inches.
 Minimum one density test per lift.
Only those methods used to establish compaction compliance in the test pad section shall be used for
production work. Any change in the material as per Table 5 or the approved equipment shall require
the contractor to conduct a new test pad section and obtain re-approval by the Engineer of the
minimum number of passes and rolling pattern. No measurement or payment will be made for test
pad sections.
(C) Moisture Control:
The moisture content of the backfill material prior to and during compaction shall be uniformly
dispersed throughout each layer. Backfill materials shall have a placement moisture content three (3)
percent less than or equal to optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with the
requirements of AASHTO T 99 (Standard Proctor) OR AASHTO T 180 (Modified Proctor). EDIT
NOTE: Specify one method, consistent with compaction specification. for the reinforced wall fill,
and AASHTO T 99 (Standard Proctor) OR AASHTO T 180 for (Modified Proctor). EDIT NOTE:
Specify one method, consistent with compaction specification. the retained backfill. Backfill material
with a placement moisture content in excess of optimum shall be removed and reworked until the
moisture content is uniform and acceptable throughout the entire lift.
(D) Protection of the Work:
The contractor shall not allow surface runoff from adjacent areas to enter the wall construction site at
any time during construction operations. In addition, at the end of each day’s operation, the
contractor shall slope the last lift of backfill away from the wall facing so that runoff is directed away
from the structure. If the subgrade is damaged due to water or otherwise, such that it does not meet
the requirements of Subsection 4.02, then as directed by the Engineer, the contractor shall rework and
repair the damaged subgrade at no additional expense to the Department. The criteria in Subsection
4.02 shall be used to judge the adequacy of the repair. Rework and repair shall extend to a depth
where undamaged work is encountered.
5 Method of Measurement:
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls will be measured by the square foot of
completed wall. The vertical height will be taken as the difference in elevation measured from the
top of wall to the top of the leveling pad. OR The pay area will be taken as the wall panel area
supplied. EDIT NOTE: Specify one or the other option.
6 Basis of Payment:
The accepted quantities of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls, measured as
provided above, will be paid for at the contract unit price per square foot of wall, complete in place.
Such price shall include full compensation for furnishing all designs, design revisions, associated
working drawings, engineering calculations, labor, materials EDIT NOTE: may or may not include
reinforced wall fill, see below, tools, equipment, and incidentals. Such price shall also include

provision of manufacturer’s field representative, and all work involved in constructing the retaining
walls, including foundation preparation, proof-rolling, footings, drainage features, wall facing, slip
joints, concrete or shotcrete caps and aprons, rustication, paint or stain, grout, tendons, cables,
anchors, fabric, and all hardware and reinforcing steel, complete in place as shown on the plans and
as specified herein.
No separate measurement or payment will be made for excavation, reinforced wall fill, and retained
backfill associated with retaining walls, the cost of such work being considered as included in the
price paid for the MSE retaining wall. EDIT NOTE: Reinforced wall fill is a separate pay item for
some Agencies, and is listed as such.
No separate measurement or payment will be made for the design, construction, or removal of
temporary excavation support systems (shoring), or associated geotechnical review, the cost of such
work being considered as included in the price paid for the MSE retaining wall.
10.10 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR REINFORCED SLOPE

SYSTEMS
The availability of many different geosynthetic reinforcement materials as well as drainage

and erosion control products requires consideration of different alternatives prior to
preparation of contract documents so contractors are given an opportunity to bid using
feasible, cost-effective materials. Any proprietary material should undergo an Agency
review prior to inclusion as either an alternate offered during design (in-house) or
construction (value engineering or end result) phase.
It is highly recommended that each Agency develop documented procedures for:

C Review and approval of geosynthetic soil reinforcing materials.
C Review and approval of drainage composite materials.
C Review and approval of erosion control materials.
C Review and approval of geosynthetic reinforced slope systems and suppliers.
C In-house design and performance criteria for reinforced slopes.
The following guidelines are recommended as the basis for specifications or special
provisions for the furnishing and construction of reinforced soil slopes on the basis of pre
approved reinforcement materials. Specification guidelines are presented for each of the
following topics:
1. Specification Guidelines for RSS Construction (Agency design).
2. Specifications for Erosion Control Mat or Blanket.
3. Specifications for Geosynthetic Drainage Composite.
4. Specification Guidelines for Proprietary Geosynthetic RSS Systems.

10.10.1 Specification Guidelines For RSS Construction (Agency Design)
Description
Work shall consist of furnishing and placing geosynthetic soil reinforcement for construction of
reinforced soil slopes.
Geosynthetic Reinforcement Material
The specific geosynthetic reinforcement material and supplier shall be pre approved by the Agency as
outlined in the Agency's reinforced soil slope policy.
The geosynthetic reinforcement shall consist of a geogrid or a geotextile that can develop sufficient
mechanical interlock with the surrounding soil or rock. The geosynthetic reinforcement structure shall
be dimensionally stable and able to retain its geometry under construction stresses and shall have high
resistance to damage during construction, ultraviolet degradation, and all forms of chemical and
biological degradation encountered in the soil being reinforced.
The geosynthetics shall have a Nominal Long-Term Strength (Tal) and Pullout Resistance, for the soil
type(s) indicated, as listed in Table S1 for geotextiles and/or Table S2 for geogrids.
The Contractor shall submit a manufacturer's certification that the geosynthetics supplied meet the
respective index criteria set when the geosynthetic was approved by the Agency, measured in full
accordance with all test methods and standards specified. In case of dispute over validity of values,
the Engineer can require the Contractor to supply test data from an Agency approved laboratory to
support the certified values submitted, the Contractor’s cost.
Quality Assurance/Index Properties: Testing procedures for measuring design properties require
elaborate equipment, tedious set up procedures and long durations for testing. These tests are
inappropriate for quality assurance (QA) testing of geosynthetic reinforcements received on site. In
lieu of these tests for design properties, a series of index criteria may be established for QA testing.
These index criteria include mechanical and geometric properties that directly impact the design
strength and soil interaction behavior of geosynthetics. It is likely each family of products will
have varying index properties and QC/QA test procedures. QA testing should measure the
respective index criteria set when the geosynthetic was approved by the Agency. Minimum average
roll values, per ASTM D 4759, shall be used for conformance.

Table S-1. Required Geotextile Reinforcement Properties.
Nominal
Ultimate Strength (T ) Long-Term For use with
Geotextile(1) ULT
ASTM D4595(2) Strength(3) these Fills(4)
(Tal)
A GW-GM
A SW-SM-SC
B GW-GM
B SW-SM-SC
NOTES:
1. For geotextiles, minimum permeability > ___ cm/s > reinforced soil permeability.
Minimum survivability properties – Class 1 per AASHTO M-288 specification.
2. Based on minimum average roll values (MARV) (lb/ft {kN/m}).
3. Nominal long-term strength (Tal) based on (lb/ft {kN/m})
TULT
Tal 
RFD  RFID  RFCR
where RFCR is developed from creep tests performed in accordance with ASTM
D5262, RFID obtained from site installation damage testing and RFD from
hydrolysis or oxidative degradation testing extrapolated to 75 or 100 year design
life. For default reduction factors, include the durability requirements in Table 3-
12 as additional reinforcement property requirements.
4. Unified Soil Classification.
Table S-2. Required Geogrid Properties.

Nominal
Ultimate Strength (TULT)
Long-Term For use with
Geosynthetic(1) ASTM D6637 (2)
Strength(3) these Fills(4)
(Tal)
A GW-GM
A SW-SM-SC
B GW-GM
B SW-SM-SC
NOTES:
1. For geotextiles, minimum permeability > ___ cm/s > reinforced soil permeability.
Minimum survivability properties – Class 1 per AASHTO M-288 specification.
2. Based on minimum average roll values (MARV) (kN/m). Use D6637 for
geogrids.
3. Nominal long-term strength (Tal) based on (lb/ft {kN/m})
TULT
Tal 
RFD  RFID  RFCR
where RFCR is developed from creep tests performed in accordance with ASTM
D5262, RFID obtained from site installation damage testing and RFD from
hydrolysis or oxidative degradation testing extrapolated to 75 or 100 year design
life. For default reduction factors, include the durability requirements in Table 3-
12 as additional reinforcement property requirements.
4. Unified Soil Classification.

Construction
Delivery, Storage, and Handling - Follow requirements set forth under materials specifications for
geosynthetic reinforcement, drainage composite, and geosynthetic erosion mat.
Site Excavation - All areas immediately beneath the installation area for the geosynthetic
reinforcement shall be properly prepared as detailed on the plans, specified elsewhere within the
specifications, or directed by the Engineer. Subgrade surface shall be level, free from deleterious
materials, loose, or otherwise unsuitable soils. Prior to placement of geosynthetic reinforcement,
subgrade shall be proof-rolled to provide a uniform and firm surface. Any soft areas, as determined
by the Owner's Engineer, shall be excavated and replaced with suitable compacted soils. The
foundation surface shall be inspected and approved by the Owner's Geotechnical Engineer prior to fill
placement. Benching the backcut into competent soil shall be performed as shown on the plans or as
directed, in a manner that ensures stability.
Geosynthetic Placement - The geosynthetic reinforcement shall be installed in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations, unless otherwise modified by these specifications. The
geosynthetic reinforcement shall be placed within the layers of the compacted soil as shown on the
plans or as directed.
C The geosynthetic reinforcement shall be placed in continuous longitudinal strips in the
direction of main reinforcement. Joints in the design strength direction (perpendicular to the
slope) shall not be permitted with geotextile or geogrid, except as indicated on the drawings.
C Horizontal coverage of less than 100 percent shall not be allowed unless specifically detailed
in the construction drawings. In the case of 100% coverage in plan view adjacent strips need
not be overlapped.
C Adjacent rolls of geosynthetic reinforcement shall be overlapped or mechanically connected
where exposed in a wrap-around face system, as applicable.
C Place only that amount of geosynthetic reinforcement required for immediately pending work
to prevent undue damage. After a layer of geosynthetic reinforcement has been placed, the
next succeeding layer of soil shall be placed and compacted as appropriate. After the
specified soil layer has been placed, the next geosynthetic reinforcement layer shall be
installed. The process shall be repeated for each subsequent layer of geosynthetic
reinforcement and soil.
C Geosynthetic reinforcement shall be placed to lay flat and pulled tight prior to backfilling.
After a layer of geosynthetic reinforcement has been placed, suitable means, such as pins or
small piles of soil, shall be used to hold the geosynthetic reinforcement in position until the
subsequent soil layer can be placed. Under no circumstances shall a track-type vehicle be
allowed on the geosynthetic reinforcement before at least 6 in. (150 mm) of soil has been
placed. Sudden braking and sharp turning – sufficient to displace fill – shall be avoided.
C During construction, the surface of the fill should be kept approximately horizontal.
Geosynthetic reinforcement shall be placed directly on the compacted horizontal fill surface.
Geosynthetic reinforcements are to be placed within 3 in. (75 mm) of the design elevations
and extend the length as shown on the elevation view unless otherwise directed by the

Owner's Engineer. Correct orientation of the geosynthetic reinforcement shall be verified by
the Contractor.
Fill Placement - Fill shall be compacted as specified by project specifications or to at least 95 percent
of the maximum density determined in accordance with AASHTO T-99, whichever is greater.
C Density testing shall be made every 500 yd3 (420 m3) of soil placement or as otherwise
specified by the Owner's Engineer or contract documents.
C Backfill shall be placed, spread, and compacted in such a manner to minimize the
development of wrinkles and/or displacement of the geosynthetic reinforcement.
C Fill shall be placed in 12-inch (300 mm) maximum lift thickness where heavy compaction
equipment is to be used, and 6-inch (150 mm) maximum uncompacted lift thickness where
hand operated equipment is used.
C Backfill shall be graded away from the slope crest and rolled at the end of each work day to
prevent ponding of water on surface of the reinforced soil mass.
C Tracked construction equipment shall not be operated directly upon the geosynthetic
reinforcement. A minimum fill thickness of 6-in. (150 mm) is required prior to operation of
tracked vehicles over the geosynthetic reinforcement. Turning of tracked vehicles should be
kept to a minimum to prevent tracks from displacing the fill and the geosynthetic
reinforcement.
C If approved by the Engineer, rubber-tired equipment may pass over the geosynthetic
reinforcement at speeds of less than 25 mph (16 km/h). Sudden braking and sharp turning
shall be avoided.
Erosion Control Material Installation. See Erosion Control Material Specification for installation
notes.
Geosynthetic Drainage Composite. See Geocomposite Drainage Composite Material Specification

for installation notes.
Final Slope Geometry Verification. Contractor shall confirm that as-built slope geometries conform
to approximate geometries shown on construction drawings.
Method of Measurement
Measurement of geosynthetic reinforcement is on a square yard (meter) basis and will be computed
on the total area of geosynthetic reinforcement shown on the construction drawings, exclusive of the
area of geosynthetics used in any overlaps. Overlaps are an incidental item.

Basis of Payment
The accepted quantities of geosynthetic reinforcement by Type will be paid for per square yard
(meter) in-place.
Payment will be made under:

Pay Item Pay Unit
Geogrid Soil Reinforcement – Type A Square yard (meter)
Geogrid Soil Reinforcement – Type B square yard (meter)
Or
Geotextile Soil Reinforcement – Type A square yard (meter)
Geotextile Soil Reinforcement – Type B square yard (meter)
10.10.2 Specification for Erosion Control Mat or Blanket
Description
Work shall consist of furnishing and placing a synthetic erosion control mat and/or degradable
erosion control blanket for slope face protection and lining of runoff channels for use in construction
of reinforced soil slopes as shown on the plans or as specified by the Engineer.
Materials
(1) Erosion Control
The specific erosion control material and supplier shall be prequalified by the Agency prior to
use.
Prequalification procedures and a current list of prequalified materials may be obtained by

writing to the Agency. A 1 ft by 1 ft (0.3 m by 0.3 m) sample of the material may be required by
the Engineer in order to verify prequalification.
The soil erosion control mat shall be a Class __ material and be one (1) of the following types as
shown on the plans:
(i) Type __. Long-term duration (Longer than 2 Years)

Shear Stress (td) > 2 psf (95 Pa) to < 5 psf (240 Pa)
Prequalified Type __ products are:

______________ ______________
______________ ______________
(ii) Type __. Long-term duration (Longer than 2 Years)

Shear Stress (td) greater than or equal to 5 psf (240 Pa)

Prequalified Type __ products are:
______________ ______________
______________ ______________
Certification. The Contractor shall submit a manufacturer's certification that the erosion
mat/blanket supplied meets the property criteria specified when the material was approved by the
Agency. The manufacturer's certification shall include a submittal package of documented test
results that confirm the property values. In case of dispute over validity of property values, the
Engineer can require the Contractor to supply property test data from an approved laboratory to
support the certified values submitted. Minimum average roll values, per ASTM D4759, shall be
used for conformance.
(2) Staples.
Staples for anchoring the soil erosion control mat shall be U-shaped, made of 1/8 in. (3 mm) or
large diameter steel wire, or other approved material, have a width of 1 to 2 in. (25 to 50 mm),
and a length of not less than 18 in. (450 mm) for the face of RSS, and not less than 12 in. (300
mm) for runoff channels.
Construction Methods
(1) General.
The soil erosion control mat shall conform to the class and type shown on the plans. The
Contractor has the option of selecting an approved soil erosion control mat conforming to the
class and type shown on the plans, and according to the current approved material list.
(2) Installation.
The soil erosion control mat, whether installed as slope protection or as flexible channel liner in
accordance with the approved materials list, shall be placed within 24 hours after seeding or
sodding operations have been completed, or as approved by the Engineer. Prior to placing the
mat, the area to be covered shall be relatively free of all rocks or clods over 1-½ inches (38 mm)
in maximum dimension and all sticks or other foreign material which will prevent the close
contact of the mat with the soil. The area shall be smooth and free of ruts or depressions exist for
any reason, the Contractor shall be required to rework the soil until it is smooth and to reseed or
resod the area at the Contractor’s expense.
Installation and anchorage of the soil erosion control mat shall be in accordance with the project
construction drawings unless otherwise specified in the contract or directed by the Engineer.
The erosion control material shall be placed and anchored on a smooth graded, firm surface
approved by the Engineer. Anchoring terminal ends of the erosion control material shall be
accomplished through use of key trenches. The material in the trenches shall be anchored to the
soil with staples on maximum 20 in. (0.5 m) centers.

Erosion control material shall be anchored, overlapped, and otherwise constructed to ensure
performance until vegetation is well established. Pins shall be as designated on the construction
drawings, with a maximum spacing of 4 ft. (1.25 m) recommended.
Soil Filling. If noted on the construction drawings, the erosion control mat shall be filled with a
fine grained topsoil, as recommended by the manufacturer. Soil shall be lightly raked or brushed
on/into the mat to fill mat thickness or to a maximum depth of 1 in. (25 mm).
Measurement of erosion mat and erosion blanket material is on a square meter basis and will be
computed on the projected slope face area from defined plan lines, exclusive of the area of material
used in any overlaps, or from payment lines established in writing by the Engineer. Overlaps,
anchors, checks, terminals or junction slots, and wire staples or wood stakes are incidental items.
Quantities of erosion control material as shown on the plans may be increased or decreased at the
direction of the Engineer based on construction procedures and actual site conditions. Such variations
in quantity will not be considered as alterations in the details of construction or a change in the
character of work.
Basis of Payment
The accepted quantities of erosion control material will be paid for per square meter in place.

Pay Item Pay Unit
Geosynthetic (Permanent) Erosion Control Mat square yard (meter)
and/or
Degradable (Temporary) Erosion Control Blanket square yard (meter)
10.10.3 Specification for Geosynthetic Drainage Composite
Description
Work shall consist of furnishing and placing a geosynthetic drainage system as a subsurface drainage
media for reinforced soil slopes.

Drainage Composite Materials
The specific drainage composite material and supplier shall be preapproved by the Agency.
The geocomposite drain shall be:

[ insert approved materials that meet the project requirements. Geocomposites
should be designed on a project specific basis. Design criteria for flow capacity,
filtration, and permeability are summarized in the FHWA Geosynthetic, Design and
Construction Guidelines (Holtz et al., 2008). ]
OR
The geocomposite drain shall be a composite construction consisting of a supporting structure or
drainage core material surrounded by a geotextile. The geotextile shall encapsulate the drainage core
and prevent random soil intrusion into the drainage structure. The drainage core material shall consist
of a three dimensional polymeric material with a structure that permits flow along the core laterally.
The core structure shall also be constructed to permit flow regardless of the water inlet surface. The
drainage core shall provide support to the geotextile. The core and fabric shall meet the minimum
property requirements listed in Table S3.
A geotextile flap shall be provided along all drainage core edges. This flap shall be of sufficient
width for sealing the geotextile to the adjacent drainage structure edge to prevent soil intrusion into
the structure during and after installation. The geotextile shall cover the full length of the core.
The geocomposite core shall be furnished with an approved method of constructing and connecting
with outlet pipes or weepholes as shown on the plans. Any fittings shall allow entry of water from
the core but prevent intrusion of backfill material into the core material.
Certification and Acceptance. The Contractor shall submit a manufacturer's certification that the
geosynthetic drainage composite supplied meets the design properties and respective index criteria
measured in full accordance with all test methods and standards specified. The manufacturer's
certification shall include a submittal package of documented test results that confirm the design
values. In case of dispute over validity of design values, the Engineer can require the Contractor to
supply design property test data from an approved laboratory, to support the certified values
submitted. Minimum average roll values, per ASTM D4759, shall be used for conformance.

Table S3. Minimum Physical Property Criteria For
Geosynthetic Drainage Composites In Reinforced Soil Slopes
PROPERTY TEST METHOD VALUE1
Composite:
Flow Capacity2 ASTM D4716 ft2/s/ unit width (min)
Geotextile:
AOS3 ASTM D4751 ___ Max. Diameter (mm)
Permeability4 ASTM D44915 ______ cm/s
Trapezoidal Tear ASTM D4533
CLASS 26 56 lb (250 N)
CLASS 37 40 lb (180 N)
Grab Strength ASTM D4632
CLASS 26 160 lb (700 N)
CLASS 37 110 lb (500 N)
Puncture ASTM D6241
CLASS 26 310 lb (1375 N)
CLASS 37 40 lb (180 N)
Notes:
1. Values are minimum unless noted otherwise. Use value in weaker principal direction, as applicable. All
numeric values represent minimum average roll values.
2. The flow capacity requirements for the project shall be determined with consideration of design flow rate,
compressive load on the drainage material, and slope of drainage composite installation.
3. Both a maximum and a minimum AOS may be specified. Sometimes a minimum diameter is used as a
criterion for improved clogging resistance. See FHWA Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines
(Holtz et al., 2008) for further information.
4. Permeability is project specific. A nominal coefficient of permeability may be determined by multiplying
permittivity value by nominal thickness. The k value of the geotextile should be greater than the k value of
the soil.
5. Standard Test Methods for Water Permeability (hydraulic conductivity) of Geotextiles by Permittivity.
6. CLASS 2 geotextiles are recommended where construction conditions are unknown or where sharp angular
aggregate is used and a heavy degree of compaction (95% AASHTO T99) is specified.
7. CLASS 3 geotextiles (from AASHTO M-288) may be used with smooth graded surfaces having no sharp
angular projections, no sharp aggregate is used, and compaction requirements are light (<95% AASHTO
T99).
Construction
Delivery, Storage, and Handling. The Contractor shall check the geosynthetic drainage composite
upon delivery to ensure that the proper material has been received. During all periods of shipment
and storage, the geosynthetic drainage composite shall be protected from temperatures greater than
140o F (60o C), mud, dirt, and debris. Follow manufacturer's recommendations in regards to

protection from direct sunlight. At the time of installation, the geosynthetic drainage composite shall
be rejected if it has defects, tears, punctures, flaws, deterioration, or damage incurred during
manufacture, transportation, or storage. If approved by the Engineer, torn or punctured sections may
be removed or repaired. Any geosynthetic drainage composite damaged during storage of installation
shall be replaced by the Contractor at no additional cost to the Owner.
Placement. The soil surface against which the geosynthetic drainage composite is to be placed shall
be free of debris and inordinate irregularities that will prevent intimate contact between the soil
surface and the drain.
Seams. Edge seams shall be formed by utilizing the flap of geotextile extending from the
geocomposite's edge and lapping over the top of the geotextile of the adjacent course. The geotextile
flap shall be securely fastened to the adjacent fabric by means of plastic tape or non-water-soluble
construction adhesive, as recommended by the supplier. Where vertical splices are necessary at the
end of a geocomposite roll or panel, a 8-inch (200-mm)-wide continuous strip of geotextile may be
placed, centered over the seam and continuously fastened on both sides with plastic tape or non water
soluble construction adhesive. As an alternative, rolls of geocomposite drain material may be joined
together by turning back the geotextile at the roll edges and interlocking the cuspidations
approximately 2 in. (50 mm). For overlapping in this manner, the geotextile shall be lapped over and
tightly taped beyond the seam with tape or adhesive. Interlocking of the core shall always be made
with the upstream edge on top in the direction of water flow. To prevent soil intrusion, all exposed
edges of the geocomposite drainage core shall be covered by tucking the geotextile flap over and
behind the core edge. Alternatively, a 1 ft (300 mm) wide strip of geotextile may be used in the same
manner, fastening it to the exposed fabric 8 in. (200 mm) in from the edge and fold the remaining
flap over the core edge.
Repairs. Should the geocomposite be damaged during installation by tearing or puncturing, the
damaged section shall be cut out and replaced completely or repaired by placing a piece of geotextile
that is large enough to cover the damaged area and provide a sufficient overlap on all sides to fasten.
Soil Fill Placement. Structural backfill shall be placed immediately over the geocomposite drain.
Care shall be taken during the backfill operation not to damage the geotextile surface of the drain.
Care shall also be taken to avoid excessive settlement of the backfill material. The geocomposite
drain, once installed, shall not be exposed for more than seven days prior to backfilling.
Measurement of geosynthetic drainage composite is on a square meter basis and will be computed on
the total area of geosynthetic drainage composite shown on the construction drawings, exclusive of
the area of drainage composite used in any overlaps. Overlaps, connections, and outlets are incidental
items.

Quantities of drainage composite material as shown on the plans may be increased or decreased at the
direction of the Engineer based on construction procedures and actual site conditions. Such variations
in quantity will not be considered as alterations in the details of construction or a change in the
character of work.
Basis of Payment
The accepted quantities of drainage composite material will be paid for per square meter in place.
Pay Item Pay Unit
Geosynthetic Drainage Composite square yard (meter)
10.10.4 Specification Guidelines for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Slope Systems
Description
Work shall consist of design, furnishing materials, and construction of geosynthetic reinforced soil
slope structure. Supply of geosynthetic reinforcement, drainage composite, and erosion control
materials, and site assistance are all to be furnished by the slope system supplier.
Reinforced Slope System
Acceptable Suppliers - The following suppliers can provide Agency approved system:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Materials. Only geosynthetic reinforcement, drainage composite, and erosion mat materials approved
by the contracting Agency prior to project advertisement shall be utilized in the slope construction.
Geogrid Soil Reinforcement, Geotextile Soil Reinforcement, Drainage Composite, and Geosynthetic
Erosion Mat materials are specified under respective material specifications.
Design Submittal. The Contractor shall submit six sets of detailed design calculations, construction
drawings, and shop drawings for approval within 30 days of authorization to proceed and at least 60
days prior to the beginning of reinforced slope construction. The calculations and drawings shall be
prepared and sealed by a Professional Engineer, licensed in the State. Submittal shall conform to
Agency requirements for RSS.

Material Submittals. The Contractor shall submit six sets of manufacturer's certification that indicate
the geosynthetic soil reinforcement, drainage composite, and geosynthetic erosion mat meet the
requirements set forth in the respective material specifications, for approval at least 60 days prior to
start of RSS.
Construction
(Should follow the specifications details in this chapter)
Measurement of geosynthetic RSS Systems is on a vertical square foot basis.
Payment shall include reinforced slope design and supply and installation of geosynthetic soil
reinforcement, reinforced soil fill, drainage composite, and geosynthetic erosion mat. Excavation of
any unsuitable materials and replacement with select fill, as directed by the Engineer shall be paid
under a separate pay item.
Quantities of reinforced soil slope system as shown on the plans may be increased or decreased at the
direction of the Engineer based on construction procedures and actual site conditions.
Basis of Payment
The accepted quantities of geosynthetic RSS system will be paid for per vertical square foot (meter)
in place.

Pay Item Pay Unit
Geosynthetic RSS System Vertical square foot (meter)

CHAPTER 11
FIELD INSPECTION AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Construction of MSE and RSS systems is relatively simple and rapid. The construction
sequence consists mainly of preparing the subgrade, placing and compacting backfill in
normal lift operations, laying the reinforcing layer into position, and installing the facing
elements (tensioning of the reinforcement may also be required) or outward facing for RSS
slopes. Special skills or equipment are usually not required, and locally available labor can
be used, however, experienced crews can provide higher production rates. Most material
suppliers provide training for construction of their systems. The outline of a checklist
showing general requirements for monitoring and inspecting MSE and RSS systems is
provided in Table 11-1. The table should be expanded by the agency to include detailed
requirements based on the agencies specifications and the specific project plans and
specification requirements. Examples of detailed checklists for specific sections are provided
later in this chapter.
There are some special construction considerations that the designer, construction personnel,
and inspection team need to be aware of so that potential performance problems can be
avoided. These considerations relate to the type of system to be constructed, to specific site
conditions, the backfill material used and facing requirements. The following sections
review items relating to:
C Section 11.1 - preconstruction reviews.

C Section 11.2 - prefabricated materials inspection.
C Section 11.3 - construction control.
C Section 11.4 - performance monitoring programs.
11.1 PRECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS
Prior to erection of the structure, personnel responsible for observing the field construction of
the retaining structure must become thoroughly familiar with the following items:
C Plans and specifications.

C Site conditions relevant to construction requirements.
C Material requirements.
C Construction sequences for the specific reinforcement system.
FHWA NHI-10-025 11 – Field Inspection

Table 11-1. Outline of MSE/RSS Field Inspection Checklist Requirements.
□ 1. Read the specifications and become familiar with:
- material requirements
- construction procedures
- soil compaction procedures
- alignment tolerances
- acceptance/rejection criteria
□ 2. Review the construction plans and become familiar with:
- construction sequence
- corrosion protection requirements
- special placement to reduce damage
- soil compaction restrictions
- details for drainage requirements
- details for utility construction
- construction of slope face
- contractor's documents
□ 3. Review material requirements and approval submittals.
Review construction sequence for the reinforcement system.
□ 4. Check site conditions and foundation requirements. Observe:
- preparation of foundations
- leveling pad construction (check level and alignment)
- site accessibility
- limits of excavation
- construction dewatering
- drainage features; seeps, adjacent streams, lakes, etc.
□ 5. On site, check reinforcements and prefabricated units. Perform inspection of prefabricated
elements (i.e. casting yard) as required. Reject precast facing elements if:
- compressive strength < specification requirements
- molding defects (e.g., bent molds)
- honey-combing
- severe cracking, chipping or spalling
- color of finish variation
- tolerance control
- misaligned connections
□ 6. Check reinforcement labels to verify whether they match certification documents.
□ 7. Observe materials in batch of reinforcements to make sure they are the same. Observe
reinforcements for flaws and nonuniformity.
□ 8. Obtain test samples according to specification requirements from randomly selected
reinforcements.
□ 9. Observe construction to see that the contractor complies with specification requirements for
installation.
□ 10. If possible, check reinforcements after aggregate or riprap placement for possible damage. This
can be done either by constructing a trial installation, or by removing a small section of
aggregate or riprap and observing the reinforcement after placement and compaction of the
aggregate, at the beginning of the project. If damage has occurred, contact the design engineer.
□ 11. Check all reinforcement and prefabricated facing units against the initial approved shipment
and collect additional test samples.
□ 12. Monitor facing alignment:
- adjacent facing panel joints
- precast face panels
- modular block walls
- wrapped face walls
- line and grade

11.1.1 Plans and Specifications
Specification requirements for MSE and RSS are reviewed in Chapter 10. The owner's field
representatives should carefully read the specification requirements for the specific type of
system to be constructed, with special attention given to material requirements, construction
procedures, soil compaction procedures, alignment tolerances, and acceptance/rejection
criteria. Plans should be reviewed. Unique and complex project details should be identified
and reviewed with the designer and contractor, if possible. Special attention should be given
to material handling and storage, the construction sequence, corrosion protection
requirements for metallic reinforcement and UV protection for geosynthetics, special
placement requirements to reduce construction damage of reinforcement, soil compaction
restrictions, details for drainage requirements and utility construction, and construction of the
outward slope. The contractor's documents should be checked to make sure that the latest
issue of the approved plans, specifications, and contract documents are being used.
A checklist for review of MSE structures drawings is presented in Table 11-2 (FHWA NHI-
08-094 and 095). A checklist for review of MSE specifications is presented in Table 11-3
(FHWA NHI-08-094/095).
11.1.2 Review of Site Conditions and Foundation Requirements
The site conditions should be reviewed to determine if there will be any special construction
procedures required for preparation of the foundations, site accessibility, excavation for
obtaining the required reinforcement length, and construction dewatering and other drainage
features.
Foundation preparation involves the removal of unsuitable materials from the area to be
occupied by the retaining structure including all organic matter, vegetation, and slide debris,
if any. This is most important in the facing area to reduce facing system movements and,
therefore, to aid in maintaining facing alignment along the length of the structure. The field
personnel should review the borings to determine the anticipated extent of the removal
required.
Where construction of reinforced fill will require a side slope cut, a temporary earth support
system may be required to maintain stability. The contractor's method and design should be
reviewed with respect to safety and the influence of its performance on adjacent structures.
Caution is also advised for excavation of utilities or removal of temporary bracing or
sheeting in front of the completed MSE structures. Loss of ground from these activities
could result in settlement and lateral displacement of the retaining structure.

The groundwater level found in the site investigation should be reviewed along with levels of
any nearby bodies of water that might affect drainage requirements. Slopes into which a cut
is to be made should be carefully observed, especially following periods of precipitation, for
any signs of seeping water (often missed in borings). Construction dewatering operations
should be required for any excavations performed below the water table to prevent a
reduction in shear strength due to hydrostatic water pressure.
MSE/RSS structures should be designed to permit drainage of any seepage or trapped

groundwater in the retained soil. If water levels intersect the structure, it is also likely that a
drainage structure behind and beneath the wall will be required. Surface water infiltration
into the retained fill and reinforced fill should be minimized by providing an impermeable
cap and adequate slopes to nearby surface drain pipes or paved ditches with outlets to storm
sewers or to natural drains.
Internal drainage of the reinforced fill can be attained by use of a free-draining granular
material that is free of fines (material passing No. 200 {0.075 mm} sieve should be less than
5 percent). Because of its high permeability, this type of fill will prevent retention of any
water in the soil fill as long as a drainage outlet is available. Details are generally provided
for drainage to the base of the fill as shown on Figures 5-6, 5-9 and 5-10, to avert water from
exiting through the face of the wall, which could cause erosion and/or face stains. The drains
will, of course, require suitable outlets for discharge of seepage away from the reinforced soil
structure. Care should be taken to avoid creating planes of weakness within the structure
with drainage layers.

Table 11-2. Checklist for Drawing Review. (after FHWA NHI-08-094/095)
YES NO NA
1.0 DOCUMENTS
1.1 Have you thoroughly reviewed the design drawings?
1.2 Is there a set of all project drawings in the field trailer?
1.3 Has the contractor submitted shop drawings?
1.4 Have the shop drawings been approved by the designer and/or construction
division manager?
2.0 LAYOUT
2.1 Have you located the horizontal and vertical control points?
2.2 Do you know where the MSEW/RSS begins and ends?
2.3 Have you identified any locations of existing utilities, signs, piles, lights that
affect the proposed construction?
2.4 Have you identified the elevations/ grade at top and at bottom of
MSEWs/RSSs?
2.5 Have you identified the existing and finished grades?
2.6 Do you know where the construction limits are?
2.7 Have you identified how the site will be accessed and any provisions for
material storage?
2.8 Is phased construction involved?
3.0 FOUNDATION PREPARATION
3.1 Are any special foundation treatments required?
3.2 Is the foundation stepped?
3.3 Is concrete leveling pad and the required elevation(s) shown on the drawings?
3.4 Is shoring required?
4.0 DRAINAGE
4.1 Have you located the details for drainage?
4.2 When must the drainage provisions be installed?
4.3 Where does the drainage system outlet and does it allow for positive drainage?
4.4 Are geotextile filters required?
4.5 Is a drainage barrier (geomembrane) required for this project?
5.0 FACING
5.1 Have you identified the facing type, shape, size, and architectural finishing?
5.2 Are there different types, colors, or sized facing units on the job?
5.3 How do the facing units fit together?

YES NO NA
5.4 Do you understand any corner/curve details?
5.5 Do you understand bracing, bearing pads, wedging and shimming
requirements?
5.6 Is the facing battered?
5.7 Are geotextile filters required for wall joints and is the placement shown on the
drawings including overlaps and termination at the base and toe of the wall.
6.0 REINFORCING
6.1 What type of reinforcement is used in this project?
6.2 Can you determine the length, location and type of reinforcement throughout
the length and height of the wall or slope?
6.3 Do you understand how the reinforcing connects to the facing?
6.4 Have you identified any details for avoiding obstructions when placing
reinforcement?
6.5 Are cross sections showing reinforcement location? Are cross sections
shown for each stationing and major elevation change?
7.0 BACKFILL
7.1 Are different types of fill required in different locations in the wall?
8.0 ANCILLARY ITEMS
8.1 Is there any coping specified in the drawings?
8.2 Is there any traffic barrier or guard rail specified in the drawings?
8.3 Have you considered interfaces with CIP structures?
8.4 Do you understand the details for joints at or connections to CIP structures?
8.5 Are any of the following involved in this project?
8.5.1 Catch Basins/Drop Inlets
8.5.2 Culverts/Pipes?
8.5.3 Piles/Drilled Shafts?
8.5.4 Utilities and other obstructions?
8.6 Have you identified and do you understand any special detail to
accommodate these obstructions?
8.7 Do you know who is responsible for installation of each ancillary item?
8.8 Are diversion ditches, collection ditches, or slope drains shown on the
drawings?
8.9 Is a permanent or temporary erosion control blanket required?
8.10 Do you understand any erosion control details?

Table 11-3. Checklist for Specification Compliance. (after FHWA NHI-08-094/095)
YES NO NA
1.0 DOCUMENTS
1.1 Have you thoroughly reviewed the specifications?
1.2 Is there a set of specifications in the field trailer?
1.3 Are standard specifications or special provisions required in addition to
the project specifications? Do you have a copy?
2.0 PRE-CONSTRUCTION QUALIFYING OF MATERIAL SOURCES /
SUPPLIERS
2.1 Has the Contractor submitted pre-construction qualification test results
(showing that it meets the gradation, density, electrochemical, and other
soil-property requirements) for:
2.1.1 Reinforced soil
2.1.2 Retained soil
2.1.3 Facing soil (if applicable)
2.1.4 Drainage aggregate
2.1.4 Graded granular filters (if applicable)
2.2 Has the Contractor or Manufacturer submitted pre-construction
qualification test results and/or Certificate of Compliance demonstrating
that the facing materials comply with the applicable sections of the
specifications including:
2.2.1 Facing unit and connections
2.2.2 Horizontal facing joint bearing pads
2.2.3 Geotextile filter for facing joint
that the reinforcing materials comply with the applicable sections of the
specifications?
that the drainage materials comply with the applicable sections of the
specifications including:
2.2.1 Geotextile filters (e.g., Type, AOS, permittivity, strength)
2.2.2 Prefabricated Drains (i.e., geotextile filter and core)
2.2.3 Drainage Pipe (material, type, ASTM designation and schedule
2.4 Has approval of the soil sources been officially granted for:
2.4.2 Retained soil

YES NO NA
2.4.3 Facing soil
2.4.4 Drainage aggregate
2.5 Has approval of the facing material sources been officially granted
2.6 Has approval of the reinforcing material sources been officially granted?
3.1 Has temporary shoring been designed and approved?
4.0 DRAINAGE
4.1 Is the Contractor or Manufacturer submitting QC test results at the specified
frequency demonstrating that the drainage materials comply with the
applicable sections of the specifications?
4.2 Do the drainage materials delivered to the site correspond to the approved
shop drawings?
4.3 Do the identification labeling/markings on the geotextile filters and/or
prefabricated drainage materials delivered to the site correspond to the pre-
construction and QC submittals (date of manufacturing, lot number, roll
numbers, etc.)?
4.4 Have the drainage materials been inspected for damage due to transport,
handling, or storage activities?
4.5 Are the drainage materials properly stored to prevent damage, exposure to
UV light, contamination?
4.6 If any drainage materials were found damaged, have they been set aside,
rejected, or repaired in accordance with the specifications?
4.7 Has QA sampling of the drainage materials been performed at the required
frequency?
4.8 Does the QA lab know exactly which tests to run and the required test
parameters?
4.9 Do the QA test results for the drainage materials meet the specified
property values?
5.0 FACING
5.1 Is the Contractor or Manufacturer submitting QC test results at the specified
frequency demonstrating that the facing materials comply with the
applicable sections of the specifications?
5.2 Do the facing components delivered to the site correspond to the approved
shop drawings including:
5.2.1 Facing unit (shape, dimensions, reinforcement connections, overall
quantity)?
5.2.2 Horizontal facing joint bearing pads (material type, hardness,
modulus)

YES NO NA
5.2.3 Geotextile filter for facing joint (type, AOS, permittivity, strength)
5.3 Do the identification labeling/markings on the facing units and components
delivered to the site correspond to the pre-construction qualification and
QC submittals (date of manufacturing, batch number, lot number, etc.)?
5.4 Have the facing units and components been inspected for damage due to
transport, handling, or storage activities?
5.5 Are the facing units and components properly stored to prevent damage?
5.6 If any facing units and components were found damaged, have they been
rejected or repaired in accordance with the specifications?
5.7 Has QA sampling of the facing units and component materials been
performed at the required frequency?
parameters?
5.9 Do the QA test results for the facing unit and component materials meet the
specified property values?
6.0 REINFORCING
6.1 Is the Contractor or Manufacturer submitting QC test results at the
specified frequency demonstrating that the reinforcing materials comply
with the applicable sections of the specifications?
6.2 Do the reinforcing materials delivered to the site correspond to the
approved shop drawings (strength, dimensions, overall quantity)?
6.3 Do the identification labeling/markings on the reinforcing materials
delivered to the site correspond to the pre-construction and QC submittals
(date of manufacturing, lot number, roll numbers, etc.)?
6.4 Have the reinforcing materials been inspected for damage due to
transport, handling, or storage activities?
6.5 Are the reinforcing materials properly stored to prevent damage, exposure
to UV light, or corrosion?
6.6 If any reinforcing materials were found damaged, have they been set
aside, rejected, or repaired in accordance with the specifications?
6.7 Has QA sampling of the reinforcing materials been performed at the
required frequency?
parameters?
6.9 If pullout or interface shear testing is required, does the QA lab have
enough of the applicable soil and the compaction criteria (in addition to
the reinforcing materials)?
6.10 Do the QA test results for the reinforcing materials meet the specified
property values?

YES NO NA
7.0 BACKFILL
7.1 Is the Contractor submitting QC test results at the specified frequency for:
7.1.2 Retained soil
7.1.3 Facing soil
parameters?
7.3 Do the QA test results for the various materials meet the specified
property values:
7.3.1 Reinforced Soil
7.3.2 Retained Soil
7.3.3 Facing Soil
8.0 ANCILLARY ITEMS
8.1 Do any ancillary materials delivered to the site correspond to the
approved shop drawings (prefabricated copings, cap blocks and
attachment glue, if required, catch basins, pipe, guardrail, etc.)?
8.2 Do the identification labeling/markings on the ancillary materials
delivered to the site correspond to the QC submittals (date of
manufacturing, batch number, etc.)?
8.3 Have the ancillary materials been inspected for damage due to transport,
handling, or storage activities?
8.4 Are the ancillary materials properly stored to prevent damage?
8.5 If any ancillary materials were found damaged, have they been set aside,
rejected, or repaired in accordance with the specifications?
8.6 Have all requirements to sample/test any aspect of the work product after
assembly, installation, compaction been met?

11.2 PREFABRICATED MATERIALS INSPECTION
Material components should be examined at the casting yard (for systems with precast
elements) and on site. Typical casting operations are shown on Figure 11-1. Material
acceptance should be based on a combination of material testing, certification, and visual
observations.
When delivered to the project site, the inspector should carefully inspect all material (precast
facing elements, reinforcing elements, bearing pads, facing joint materials, and reinforced
backfill). On site, all system components should be satisfactorily stored and handled to avoid
damage. The material supplier's construction manual should contain additional information
on this matter.
11.2.1. Precast Concrete Elements
At the casting yard, the inspector should assure the facing elements are being fabricated in
accordance with the agency's standard specifications. For example, precast concrete facing
panels should be cast on a flat surface. Clevis loop embeds, tie strips, and other connection
devices must not contact or be attached to the facing element reinforcing steel. Curing
should follow required procedures and requirements (e.g., temperature, cover, moisture, etc.).
Facing elements delivered to the project site should be examined prior to erection. Panels
should be rejected on the basis of the following deficiencies or defects:
C Insufficient compressive strength.
C Mold defects (e.g., bent molds).
C Honey-combing.
C Severe cracking, chipping, or spalling.
C Significant variation in color of finish.
C Out-of-tolerance dimensions.
C Misalignment of connection devices.
The following maximum facing element dimension tolerances are usually specified for
precast concrete:
C Overall dimensions: 1/2-inch (13 mm)
C Connection device locations: 1-inch (25 mm)
C Clevis loop embeds: 1/8-inch (3 mm) horizontal alignment
C Element squareness: 1/2-inch (13 mm) difference between diagonals
C Surface finish: 1/8-inch in 5 ft (2 mm in 1 m) (smooth surface)
C Surface finish: 5/16-inch in 5 ft (5 mm in 1 m) (textured surface)

Figure 11-1. Casting yard for precast facing elements.

In cases where repair to damaged facing elements is possible, it should be accomplished to
the satisfaction of the engineer.
For drycast modular blocks, it is essential that compressive strengths and water absorption be
carefully checked on a lot basis. The following dimensional tolerances are usually specified:
C Overall dimensions: ± 1/8-inch (3.2 mm)
C Height of each block: ± 1/16-inch (1.6 mm)
11.2.2 Reinforcing Elements
Reinforcing elements (strips, mesh, sheets) should arrive at the project site securely bundled
or packaged to avoid damage (see Figure 11-2). These materials are available in a variety of
types, configurations, and sizes (gauge, length, product styles), and even a simple structure
may have different reinforcement elements at different locations. The inspector should
verify that the material is properly identified and check the specified designation (AASHTO,
ASTM, or agency specifications). Grid reinforcement should be checked for wire diameter,
length, width, and spacing of longitudinal and transverse members. For strip reinforcements,
the length and thickness should be checked.
Material verification is especially important for geotextiles and geogrids where many product
styles look similar but have different properties. In addition to the above measurements,
geogrids or geotextile samples should be weighed in the field to compare the mass per unit
area with the manufacturer’s identification value. Samples should also be sent to the
laboratory for verification testing. Color coding of roll ends can be helpful, especially in
complex configurations to prevent improper installations. Where more than one style will be
used, the roll ends could be painted and when reinforcements are cut to length, the lengths
could be painted on the material as shown in Figure 11-2.
Galvanization (application thickness 2 oz/ft2 {610 g/m2}), epoxy coatings (thickness 16 mils
{0.41 mm}) or other coatings, should be verified by certification or agency conducted tests
and checked for defects. Geosynthetic reinforcements should be properly packaged and
protective wraps should be maintained during shipping and handling to protect the material
from UV (e.g., sunlight) exposure.
Storage areas should meet both specifications and manufacturer’s storage requirements.
Materials should be stored off the ground to protect reinforcement from mud, dirt, and debris.
Geosynthetic reinforcements should not be exposed to temperatures greater than 140o F
(60oC) and manufacturer's recommendations should be followed in regards to UV protection
from direct sunlight.

including metallic strips, welded wire mesh, and geosynthetics and bottom photo
shows reinforcement length painted on geogrid reinforcement.

At the time of installation, the reinforcement should be rejected if it has defects, flaws,
deterioration, or damage incurred during manufacture, transportation, or storage. Metal
reinforcements should not contain bent, cut or repaired (e.g., welded or bent and
straightened) sections without approval of the MSE wall or RSS design engineer of record.
Geosynthetics should not contain tears, cuts or punctures and should be replaced or repaired
at the direction of the design engineer.
11.2.3 Facing Joint Materials
Bearing pads (HDPE, EPDM, PVC and neoprene), joint filler and joint cover (e.g.,
geotextiles) should be properly packaged to minimize damage in unloading and handling.
For example, polymer filler material and geotextiles, as previously indicated, must be
protected from sunlight during storage.
Although these items are often considered as miscellaneous materials, it is important for the
inspector to recognize that use of the wrong material or its incorrect placement can result in
significant structure distress. Properties of these materials must be checked, either based on
laboratory tests submitted by the supplier or preapproval (e.g., from a qualified products list),
for conformance with specification requirements. Samples should be sent to the laboratory
for verification testing.
11.2.4 Reinforced Backfill
The backfill in MSE/RSS structures is the key element in satisfactory performance. Both use
of the appropriate material and its correct placement are important considerations.
Reinforced backfill is normally specified to meet certain gradation, plasticity, soundness, and
electrochemical requirements. Depending on the type of contract, tests to ensure compliance
may be performed by either the contractor or the owner. The tests conducted prior to
construction and periodically during construction for quality assurance form the basis for
approval. During construction these tests include gradation and plasticity index testing at the
rate required in the agency’s or project-specific specifications (e.g., typically one test per
2000 yd3 (1500 m3) of material placed on large projects) and whenever the appearance and
behavior of the backfill changes noticeably.

11.3 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL
Each of the steps in the sequential construction of MSE and RSS systems is controlled by
certain method requirements and tolerances. Construction manuals for proprietary MSE
systems should be obtained from the contractor to provide guidance during construction
monitoring and inspection. A detailed description of general construction requirements for
MSE walls follows with requirements that apply to RSS systems noted.
11.3.1 Leveling Pad
A concrete leveling pad should have minimum dimensions in conformance with the plans
and specifications (typically 6 inches {150 mm} thick by the panel width plus 8 in. {200
mm} wide). The concrete compressive strength should also meet minimum specification
requirements. Curing of cast-in-place pads should follow the requirements in the
specifications (e.g., typically a minimum of 12 to 24 hours before facing units are placed).
Careful inspection of the leveling pad to assure correct line, grade, and offset is important. A
vertical tolerance of ⅛-inch (3 mm) to the design elevation is recommended. If the leveling
pad is not at the correct elevation, the wall will likely be difficult to construct and the
leveling pad elevation should be corrected. An improperly placed leveling pad can result in
subsequent facing unit misalignment, cracking, and spalling. Full height precast facing
elements may require a larger leveling pad to maintain alignment and provide temporary
foundation support. Gravel pads of suitable dimensions may be used with modular block
walls used for landscaping type applications. Typical installations are shown on Figure 11-3.
11.3.2 Erection of Facing Elements
Precast facing panels are purposely set at a slight backward batter (toward the reinforced fill)
in order to assure correct final vertical alignment after backfill placement as shown on Figure
11-4. Minor outward movement of the facing elements from wall fill placement and
compaction cannot be avoided and is expected as the interaction between the reinforcement
and reinforced backfill occurs. Typical backward batter for segmental precast panels is ½-in.
in 4 ft (20 mm per meter) of panel height with steel reinforcements. Modular block units are
typically stacked with an offset ½ to 1 in. to account for horizontal movements.
Full height precast panels as shown on Figure 11-5 are more susceptible cracking during
backfilling and misalignment difficulties than segmental panels. When using full-height
panels, the construction procedure should be carefully controlled to maintain tolerances.
Special construction procedures such as additional bracing and larger face panel batter may
be necessary.

(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 11-3. Concrete leveling pad showing: a) leveling the concrete, b) completed
pad, and c) placing the facing elements on the leveling pad.

Figure 11-4. Checking facing element batter and alignment.

Figure 11-5. Full height facing panels require special alignment care.

First Row of Facing Elements. Setting the first row of facing elements is a key detail as
shown in Figure 11-6. Construction should always begin adjacent to any existing structure
and proceed toward the open end of the wall. The facing units should be set directly on the
concrete leveling pad. Horizontal joint material or shims generally should not be permitted
between the first course of panels and the leveling pad unless specifications specifically
allow for and provide detail requirements (e.g., material type, properties, maximum thickness
(e.g., 1/16-inch, 1/8-inch) and other dimensional requirements) for such materials.
Temporary wood wedges may be used between the first course of concrete panels and the
leveling pad to set panel batter, but they must be removed during subsequent construction.
Some additional important details are:
C The first row of segmental panels must be braced until the bottom several layer(s) of
reinforcements has been backfilled. Adjacent panels should be clamped together to
prevent individual panel displacement.
C After setting and battering the first row of panels or placing the first row of modular
blocks, horizontal alignment should be visually checked (i.e., with survey instruments or
with a string-line).
C When using full-height panels, initial bracing and clamping are even more critical
because misalignments are difficult to correct as construction continues.
C Most MSE systems use a variety of panel sizes to best fit the wall envelope. Special
panels or modular block types may also be used to accommodate aesthetic treatments
design requirements (geometric shape, size, color, finish, connection points). The facing
element types must be checked to make sure that they are installed exactly as shown on
the plans.
C A geotextile filter should be placed over the back of the area of any openings between the
facing units and the leveling pad. The geotextile should extend a minimum of 6-in. (150
mm) beyond the edges of the openings. For large openings > than 1 in. (25 mm) in width
(such as where stepped leveling pads are required or wall drain outlets are placed over the
leveling pad), the openings should either be filled in with concrete or the section should
be concurrently backfilled on both sides of the facing unit with soil.

Figure 11-6. Setting first row of precast facing elements.

11.3.3 Reinforced Fill Placement, Compaction
Moisture and density control is imperative for construction of MSE and RSS systems. Even
when using high-quality granular materials, problems can occur if compaction control is not
exercised. Reinforced wall fill material should be placed and compacted at or within 2
percent dry of the optimum moisture content. If the reinforced fill is free draining with less
than 5 percent passing a No. 200 (0.075 mm) U.S. Sieve, water content of the fill may be
within ±3 percentage points of the optimum. Placement moisture content can have a
significant effect on reinforcement-soil interaction. Moisture content wet of optimum makes
it increasingly difficult to maintain an acceptable facing alignment, especially if the fines
content is high. Moisture contents that are too dry may not achieve required density and
could result in significant settlement during periods of precipitation (i.e., due to bulking).
A density of 95 percent of T-99 maximum value or 90 percent of T-180 is typically

recommended for retaining walls and slopes, and 100 percent of T-99 or 95% of T-180 is
usually recommended for abutments and walls or slopes supporting structural foundations.
A procedural specification is preferable where a significant percentage of coarse material,
generally 30 percent or greater retained on the ¾-inch (19 mm) sieve, prevents the use of the
AASHTO T-99 or T-180 test methods. In this situation, typically four to five passes with
conventional vibratory roller compaction equipment is adequate to attain the maximum
practical density. The actual requirements should be determined based on a test section as
discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.
Reinforced backfill should be dumped onto or parallel to the rear and middle of the
reinforcements and bladed toward and away from the front face as shown on Figure 11-7. At
no time should any construction equipment be in direct contact with the reinforcements
because the reinforcements can be damaged. Soil layers should be compacted up to 2 in.
(50 mm) above but no less than even with the elevation of each level of reinforcement
connections prior to placing that layer of reinforcing elements.
Compaction Equipment - With the exception of the 3-foot (1-m) zone directly behind the
facing elements or slope face, large, smooth-drum, vibratory rollers should be used to obtain
the desired compaction as shown on Figure 11-8a. Sheepsfoot and grid type rollers should
not be permitted because of possible damage to the reinforcements. When compacting
uniform medium to fine sands (in excess of 60 percent passing a No. 40 sieve) use a smooth-
drum static roller or lightweight (walk behind) vibratory roller, especially for the last pass.
The use of large vibratory compaction equipment with this type of backfill material will
make wall alignment control difficult and actually may loosen the upper surface of the soil.

Figure 11-7. Placement of reinforced fill.

Figure 11-8. Compaction equipment showing: a) large equipment permitted away
from face; and b) lightweight equipment within 3 ft (1 m) of the face.

Within 3 ft (1 m) of the wall or slope face, use small single or double drum, walk-behind
vibratory rollers or vibratory plate compactors as shown in Figure 11-8b. Placement of the
reinforced backfill near the front should not lag behind the remainder of the structure by
more than one lift. Poor fill placement and compaction in this area has in some cases
resulted in facing movement and/or downdrag on reinforcements, which increases connection
stresses. Within this 3 ft (1 m) zone, quality control should be maintained by a method
specification such as four passes of a light, walk-behind vibratory plate or drum compactor.
Test pads should be constructed to determine the actual number of passes and lift thickness
required to achieve compaction requirements with the compaction equipment to be used.
Higher quality fill is sometimes used in this zone so that the desired properties can be
achieved with less compactive effort. Excessive compactive effort or use of too heavy
equipment near the wall face could result in excessive face unit movement (segmental panels
and modular blocks) or structural damage (full-height, precast panels), and overstressing of
reinforcement layers. For welded wire wall facing systems, caution must be exercised such
that struts do not become dislodged during placement of backfill and compaction, which
could jeopardize the wall face integrity.
Inconsistent compaction and undercompaction caused by insufficient compactive effort or

allowing the contractor to "compact" backfill with trucks and dozers will lead to gross
misalignments and settlement problems and should not be permitted. Flooding of the backfill
to facilitate compaction should also not be permitted. Compaction control testing of the
reinforced backfill should be performed on a regular basis during the entire construction
project. A minimum frequency of one test within the reinforced soil zone per lift for every
150 ft (45 m) of wall is recommended.
11.3.4 Placement of Reinforcing Elements
Reinforcing elements for MSE and RSS systems should be installed in strict compliance with
spacing and length requirements shown on the plans. Reinforcements should generally be
placed perpendicular to the back of the facing panel. In specific situations (e.g., abutments
and curved walls) it may be permissible to skew the reinforcements from their design
location in either the horizontal or vertical direction. Skewing should not exceed the limits
defined in the specifications and overlapping layers of reinforcements should be separated by
3-in. (75-mm) minimum thickness of fill.
Curved walls create special considerations with MSE panel and reinforcement details.
Different placement procedures are generally required for convex and concave curves. For
reinforced fill systems with precast panels or modular blocks, joints will either be further
closed or opened by nominal facing movements that normally occur during construction.

Special considerations also arise when constructing MSE/RSS structures around deep
foundation elements or drainage structures. For deep foundations either drive piles prior to
face construction or use hollow sleeves at proposed pile locations during reinforced fill
erection. The latter method is generally preferred. Predrilling for pile installation through
the reinforced soil structure between reinforcements is risky and should be avoided.
Reinforcement skew to avoid obstructions must be within specification tolerances and in no
case should reinforcements be cut or excessively bent.
Connections. Each MSE system has a unique facing connection detail. Several types of
connections are shown on Figure 11-9. Connections are manufacturer specific and must be
made in accordance with the approved drawings. For example on Reinforced Earth
structures bolts are inverted between tie strips making a connection that acts in shear (i.e.,
double shear on the connector). Nuts are securely tightened with hand tools.
Flexible reinforcements, such as geotextiles and geogrids, usually require pretensioning to

remove any slack in the reinforcement and in the connection to the facing unit. The tension
is then maintained by staking or by placing fill during tensioning. Tensioning and staking
will reduce subsequent horizontal movements of the panel as the wall fill is placed.
11.3.5 Placement of Subsequent Facing Courses (Segmental Facings)
Throughout construction of segmental panel walls, facing panels should only be set at grade.
Placement of a panel on top of one not completely backfilled should not be permitted.
Alignment Tolerances. The key to a satisfactory end product is maintaining reasonable

horizontal and vertical alignments during construction. Generally, the degree of difficulty in
maintaining vertical and horizontal alignment increases as the vertical distance between
reinforcement layers increases. The following alignment tolerances are recommended:
C Adjacent facing panel joint gaps (all reinforcements): ¾-inch ± ¼-inch (19 mm ± 6 mm)
C Precast face panel (all reinforcements): 1/2-inch per 10 ft (6 mm per m) (horizontal and
vertical directions)
C Wrapped face walls and slopes (e.g., welded wire or geosynthetic facing): 2-inch per 10
ft (15 mm per m) (horizontal and vertical directions)
C Wrapped face walls and slopes (e.g., welded wire or geosynthetic facing) overall vertical:
1-inch per 10 ft (8 mm per m)
C Wrapped face walls and slopes (e.g., welded wire or geosynthetic facing) bulging: 1 to 2
inches (25 to 50 mm) maximum
C Reinforcement placement elevations: 1-inch (25 mm) of connection elevation

Figure 11-9. Facing connection examples.

Failure to attain these tolerances when following suggested construction practices indicates
that changes in the contractor's procedures are necessary. These might include changes in
reinforced backfill placement and compaction techniques, construction equipment, and
facing panel batter.
Facing elements that are out of alignment should not be pushed or pulled into place because
this may damage the panels and reinforcements and, hence, weaken the system. Appropriate
measures to correct an alignment problem are the removal of reinforced fill and reinforcing
elements, followed by the resetting of the panels. Decisions to reject structure sections that
are out of alignment should be made expediently because panel resetting and reinforced fill
handling are time consuming and expensive. “Post erection" deformations may be an
indication of foundation, drainage (i.e., if after a heavy rain). or retained soil problems and
should be evaluated immediately by qualified geotechnical specialists.
All material suppliers use bearing pads (HDPE, EPDM, PVC or neoprene are typically used)
on horizontal joints between segmental facing panels to keep the panel joints open. The
thickness of the bearing pads is based on the amount of anticipated short term and long term
settlement. Pads that are two thin could result in cracking and spalling of panels due to point
stresses and excessively large panel joint openings may result in an unattractive end product.
Filter materials (usually geotextiles) are used to prevent erosion of fill through the facing
joints while allowing water to pass. These materials should be installed in strict accordance
with the plans and specifications, especially with regard to type of material, thickness of
bearing pads, opening characteristics of geosynthetics, and quantity. Geotextile joint covers
and bearing pads are shown on Figure 11-10.
Wooden wedges shown on Figure 11-6 placed during erection to aid in alignment should
remain in place until the third layer of segmental panels are set, at which time the bottom
layer of wedges should be removed. Each succeeding layer of wedges should be removed as
the succeeding panel layer is placed. When the wall is completed, all temporary wedges
should be removed.
At the completion of each day's work, the contractor should grade the wall fill away from the
face and lightly compact the surface to reduce the infiltration of surface water from
precipitation. At the beginning of the next day's work, the contractor should scarify the
backfill surface, especially backfills containing fines, to prevent shear planes from
developing between lifts.

(a)
(b)
Figure 11-10. Joint materials: a) geotextile joint cover, and b) EPDM bearing pads.

A summary of several out-of-tolerance conditions and their possible causes is presented in
Table 11-4.
Table 11-4. Out-of-Tolerance Conditions and Possible Causes.
MSEW structures are to be erected in strict compliance with the structural and aesthetic
requirements of the plans, specifications, and contract documents. The desired results can
generally be achieved through the use of quality materials, correct construction/erection
procedures, and proper inspection. However, there may be occasions when dimensional tolerances
and/or aesthetic limits are exceeded. Corrective measures should quickly be taken to bring the
work within acceptable limits. Presented below are several out-of-tolerance conditions and their
possible causes.
CONDITION POSSIBLE CAUSE
1. Distress in wall: 1. a. Foundation (subgrade) material too

soft or wet for proper bearing.
a. Differential settlement or low spot in
wall. (Cause 1. a & b apply) b. Fill material of poor quality or not
properly compacted.
b. Overall wall leaning beyond vertical
alignment tolerance. (Cause 1 a&b)
c. Spalling, chipping, or cracking of c. Inadequate spacing in horizontal
facing units (Cause 1 a – e apply) and vertical joints
(e.g., from panel to panel contact or
differential movement of modular d. Use of improper bearing pads
block facing units). e. Stones or concrete pieces between
facing units (e.g. units not clean or
used to level face units)
2. First panel course difficult (impossible) 2. a. Leveling pad not level.

to set and/or maintain level.
3. Wall out of vertical alignment tolerance 3. a. Panel not battered sufficiently.

(plumbness), or leaning out.
b. Oversized compaction equipment
working within 3 ft (1 m) of wall
facing panels.
c. Backfill material placed wet of
optimum moisture content. Backfill
contains excessive fine materials
(beyond the specifications for percent
of materials passing a No. 200 sieve).
d. Backfill material pushed against back
of facing panel before being placed

and compacted above reinforcing
elements.
e. Excessive compaction of uniform,
medium-fine sand (more than 60
percent passing a No. 40 sieve).
f. Backfill material dumped close to free
end of reinforcing elements, then
spread toward wall face, causing
displacement of reinforcements and
pushing panel out.
g. Shoulder wedges not seated securely.
h. Shoulder clamps not tight.
i. Slack in reinforcement to facing
connections.
j. Inconsistent tensioning of
geosynthetic reinforcement to facing.
k. Localized over-compaction adjacent
to MBW unit.
4. Wall out of vertical alignment tolerance 4. a. Excessive batter set in panels or offset
(plumbness) or leaning in. in modular block units for select
granular backfill material being used.
b. Inadequate compaction of backfill.
c. Possible bearing capacity failure.
5. Wall out of horizontal alignment 5. a. See Causes 3c, 3d, 3e, 3j, 3k. Backfill
tolerance, or bulging. saturated by heavy rain or improper
grading of backfill after each day's
operations.
6. Panels do not fit properly in their 6. a. Panels are not level. Differential
intended locations. settlement (see Cause 1).
b. Panel cast beyond tolerances.
7. Large variations in movement of 7. a. Backfill material not uniform.

adjacent panels.
b. Backfill compaction not uniform.
c. Inconsistent setting of facing panels

Table 11-5. Checklist for Construction. (after FHWA NHI-08-094/095)
YES NO NA
1.0 DOCUMENTS AND PLANS
1.1 Has the Contractor furnished a copy of the installation plans or instructions
from the MSEW or RSS supplier as required by the Specifications?
1.2 Have the installation plans or instructions been approved by the Designer
and/or Construction Division Manager?
1.3 Have stockpile and staging areas been discussed and approved?
1.4 Have access routes and temporary haul roads been discussed and
approved?
2.0 LAYOUT
2.1 Has the contractor staked out sufficient horizontal and vertical control
points, including points required for stepped foundations?
2.2 Has the contractor accounted for wall batter when staking the base of the
wall?
2.3 Have drainage features and all utilities been located and marked?
2.4 Have Erosion & Sedimentation Controls been installed?
3.1 Has the MSEW or RSS foundation area been excavated to the proper
elevation?
3.2 Has the foundation subgrade been inspected (e.g., proof rolled) as required
by the specifications?
3.3 Has all soft or loose material been compacted or unsuitable materials (e.g.,
wet soil, organics) been removed and replaced?
3.4 Has the leveling-pad (if applicable) area been properly excavated and set to
the proper vertical and horizontal alignment?
3.5 Has the leveling pad (if applicable) cured for the specified time (typically
at least 12 hours) before the Contractor sets any facing panels?
4.0 DRAINAGE
4.1 Is the drainage being installed in the correct location?
4.2 Are drainage aggregates being kept free of fine materials?
4.3 Are all holes, rips and punctures in geotextiles being repaired in
accordance with the specifications?
4.4 Are composite drain materials being placed with the proper side to the
seepage face?
4.5 Do all collection and outlet pipes have a positive slope?

YES NO NA
5.0 FACING
5.1 Is the first row of facing panels (when applicable) properly placed? Do
they have proper spacing, bracing, batter, and do they have the wood
spacers installed?
5.2 Is the Contractor using the correct facing unit (correct size, shape, color,
and with the proper number of connections) for the applicable location and
elevation?
5.3 Is a geotextile filter being properly placed over joints in the facing panels?
5.4 Are the lower tiers of facing baskets (when applicable) properly placed?
Are they setback correctly to result in the designed slope angle? Are the
struts spaced correctly?
5.5 Have secondary reinforcing layers (e.g., biaxial geogrid) and vegetated
matting (where applicable) been properly placed? Are they setback
correctly to result in the designed slope angle?
5.6 Is the vertical elevation and horizontal alignment being checked
periodically and adjusted as needed?
5.7 Is the contractor removing the wooden wedges as per the specifications?
(Typically removed as soon as soon as erection and backfilling the panel
above the wedged panel is completed.)
5.8 Is the spacing between individual facing units (or for RSS and wrapped face
walls, overlap of reinforcement) in accordance with the specifications?
6.0 REINFORCING
6.1 Is the reinforcement being properly connected (connections tight and all of
the slack in the reinforcing layers removed)
6.2 Is the reinforcement in the proper alignment?
6.3 Is the reinforcement the right type?
6.4 Is the reinforcement the correct length?
6.5 Is the reinforcement being placed at the correct spacing and location?
6.6 Is the fill being brought up to 2” above the soil reinforcement elevation
before the reinforcement is connected?
6.7 Is construction equipment being kept from operating directly on the
reinforcement (i.e., until adequate soil cover is placed over the
reinforcement)?
7.0 BACKFILL
7.1 At the end of each day's operation is the Contractor grading the upper
surface of reinforced and retained soil to ensure runoff of storm water
away from the MSEW or RSS face or provide a positive means of
controlling runoff away from the construction area?

YES NO NA
7.2 Where applicable, has the Contractor backfilled in front of the MSEW or
RSS?
7.3 Is the Contractor placing the reinforced soil in lifts that are thin enough to
ensure good compaction, but thick enough not to damage the
reinforcement?
7.4 If the Contractor is using water to adjust the moisture of the reinforced,
retained, or facing soil, does it meet the requirements set forth in the
specifications?
7.5 Is the reinforced soil being placed to prevent damage to the reinforcement?
7.6 Are the lifts being spread to prevent excessive tension or excess slack in
the reinforcement?
7.7 Is the fill being compacted using the correct equipment and in the correct
pattern?
7.8 Is the soil moisture content within the specified range?
7.9 Is the soil compaction (dry density) within the specified range?
7.10 Is large compaction equipment being kept at least 3’ from the face?
8.0 ANCILLARY ITEMS AND FINISHED PRODUCT
8.1 Could installation of ancillary components (e.g., catch basins, storm-water
piping, guardrail) affect the reinforcing or facing components already
installed?
8.2 Have ancillary items been installed in accordance with the drawings and
specifications?
8.3 Are ancillary items being installed at the proper locations?
8.4 Are diversion ditches, collection ditches, or slope drains installed in
accordance with the drawings and specifications?
8.5 Is permanent or temporary erosion control blanket installed at the required
locations and using the details shown on the drawings?
8.6 Are there any visible signs of MSEW or RSS tilting, bulging, or
deflecting?
8.7 Has the vertical and horizontal alignment been confirmed by survey?
8.8 Is there a need to confirm the vertical or horizontal alignment at a future
time to evaluate whether movement is occurring?
8.9 Are there any signs of distress to the facing components (e.g., fracturing or
spalling of concrete panels, bowing of wire baskets, etc)?

11.4 PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROGRAMS
Since MSE wall and RSS technologies are well established, the need for monitoring
programs should be limited to cases in which new features or materials have been
incorporated in the design, substantial post construction settlements are anticipated and/or
construction rates require control, where degradation/corrosion rates of reinforcements are to
monitored (e.g., to allow use of marginal fills), or for asset management.
Degradation/Corrosion monitoring schemes are fully outlines in the companion Corrosion/

Degradation document.
11.4.1 Purpose of Monitoring Program
The first step in planning a monitoring program is to define the purpose of the measurements.
Every instrument on a project should be selected and placed to assist in answering a specific
question.
If there is no question, there should be no instrumentation. Both the questions that need to
be answered and the clear purpose of the instrumentation in answering those questions
should be established. The most significant parameters of interest should be selected, with
care taken to identify secondary parameters that should be measured if they may influence
primary parameters.
Important parameters that may be considered include:
C Horizontal movements of the face (for MSEW structures).

C Vertical movements of the surface of the overall structure.
C Local movements or deterioration of the facing elements.
C Drainage behavior of the backfill.
C Performance of any structure supported by the reinforced soil, such as approach slabs for
bridge abutments or footings.
C Horizontal movements within the overall structure.
C Vertical movements within the overall structure.
C Lateral earth pressure at the back of facing elements.
C Vertical stress distribution at the base of the structure.
C Stresses in the reinforcement, with special attention to the magnitude and location of the
maximum stress.
C Stress distribution in the reinforcement due to surcharge loads.
C Relationship between settlement and stress-strain distribution.

C Stress relaxation in the reinforcement with time.
C Aging condition of reinforcement such as metal losses due to corrosion or degradation of
polymeric reinforcements.
C Pore pressure response below structure.
C Temperature which often is a cause of real changes in other parameters, and also may
affect instrument readings.
C Rainfall which often is a cause of real changes in other parameters.
C Barometric pressure, which may affect readings of earth pressure and pore pressure
measuring instruments.
The characteristics of the subsurface, backfill material, reinforcement, and facing elements in
relation to their effects on the behavior of the structure must be assessed prior to developing
the instrumentation program. It should be remembered that foundation settlement will affect
stress distribution within the structure. Also, the stiffness of the reinforcement will affect the
anticipated lateral stress conditions within the retained soil mass.
11.4.2 Limited Monitoring Program
Limited observations and monitoring that should be performed on practically all structures
will typically include:
C Horizontal and vertical movements of the face (for MSEW structures).
C Vertical movements of the surface of the overall structure.
C Local movements or deterioration of the facing elements.
C Performance of any structure supported by the reinforced soil, such as approach slabs for
bridge abutments or footings.
Horizontal and vertical movements can be monitored by surveying methods, using suitable
measuring points on the retaining wall facing elements or on the pavement or surface of the
retained soil. Permanent benchmarks are required for vertical control. For horizontal
control, one horizontal control station should be provided at each end of the structure.
The maximum lateral movement of the wall face during construction is anticipated to be on
the order of H/250 for inextensible reinforcement and H/75 for extensible reinforcement.
Tilting due to differential lateral movement from the bottom to the top of the wall would be
anticipated to be less than ¼-inch per 5 ft (4 mm per m) of wall height for either system.
Post-construction horizontal movements are anticipated to be very small. Post construction
vertical movements should be estimated from foundation settlement analyses, and
measurements of actual foundation settlement during and after construction should be made.

11.4.3 Comprehensive Monitoring Program
Comprehensive studies involve monitoring of surface behavior as well as internal behavior of

the reinforced soil. A comprehensive program may involve the measurement of nearly all of
the parameters enumerated above and the prediction of the magnitude of each parameter at
working stress to establish the range of accuracy for each instrument.
Whenever measurements are made for construction control or safety purposes, or when used
to support less conservative designs, a predetermination of warning levels should be made.
An action plan must be established, including notification of key personnel and design
alternatives so that remedial action can be discussed or implemented at any time.
A comprehensive program may involve all or some of the following key purposes:
C Deflection monitoring to establish gross structure performance and as an indicator of the
location and magnitude of potential local distress to be more fully investigated.
C Structural performance monitoring to primarily establish tensile stress levels in the
reinforcement and or connections. A second type of structural performance monitoring
would measure or establish degradation rates of the reinforcements.
C Pullout resistance proof testing to establish the level of pullout resistance within a
reinforced mass as a function of depth and elongation.
The possible instruments for monitoring are outlined in Table 11-6.
11.4.4 Program Implementation
Selection of instrument locations involves three steps. First, sections containing unique
design features are identified. For example, sections with surcharge or sections with the
highest stress. Appropriate instrumentation is located at these sections. Second, a selection
is made of cross sections where predicted behavior is considered representative of behavior
as a whole. These cross sections are then regarded as primary instrumented sections, and
instruments are located to provide comprehensive performance data. There should be at least
two "primary instrumented sections." Third, because the selection of representative zones
may not be representative of all points in the structure, simple instrumentation should be
installed at a number of "secondary instrumented sections" to serve as indices of comparative
behavior. For example, surveying the face of the wall in secondary cross sections would
examine whether comprehensive survey and inclinometer measurements at primary sections
are representative of the behavior of the wall.

Table 11-6. Possible Instruments for Monitoring Reinforced Soil Structures.
PARAMETERS POSSIBLE INSTRUMENTS

Horizontal movements of face Visual observation
Surveying methods
Horizontal control stations
Tiltmeters
Vertical movements of overall structure Visual observation
Surveying methods
Benchmarks
Tiltmeters
Local movements or deterioration of facing Visual observation
elements Crack gauges
Drainage behavior of backfill Visual observation at outflow points
Open standpipe piezometers
Horizontal movements within overall structure Surveying methods
Horizontal control stations
Probe extensometers
Fixed embankment extensometers
Inclinometers
Tiltmeters
Vertical movements within overall structure Surveying methods
Benchmarks
Probe extensometers
Horizontal inclinometers
Liquid level gauges
Performance of structure supported by reinforced Numerous possible instruments (depends on
soil details of structure)
Lateral earth pressure at the back of facing Earth pressure cells
elements Strain gauges at connections
Load cells at connections
Stress distribution at base of structure Earth pressure cells
Stress in reinforcement Resistance strain gauges
Induction coil gauges
Hydraulic strain gauges
Vibrating wire strain gauges
Multiple telltales
Stress distribution in reinforcement due to Same instruments as for stress in reinforcement
surcharge loads

PARAMETERS POSSIBLE INSTRUMENTS
Relationship between settlement and stress-strain Same instruments as for:
distribution C vertical movements of surface of overall
structure
C vertical movements within mass of overall
structure
C stress in reinforcement
Earth pressure cells
Stress relaxation in reinforcement Same instruments as for stress in reinforcement
Total stress within backfill and at back of Earth pressure cells
reinforced wall section
Pore pressure response below structures Open standpipe piezometers
Pneumatic piezometers
Vibrating wire piezometers
Temperature Ambient temperature record
Thermocouples
Thermistors
Resistance temperature devices
Frost gauges
Rainfall Rainfall gauge
Barometric pressure Barometric pressure gauge
Access to instrumentation locations and considerations for survivability during construction

are also important. Locations should be selected, when possible, to provide cross checks
between instrument types. For example, when multipoint extensometers (multiple telltales)
are installed on reinforcement to provide indications of global (macro) strains, and strain
gauges are installed to monitor local (micro) strains, strain gauges should be located midway
between adjacent extensometer attachment points.
Most instruments measure conditions at a point. In most cases, however, parameters are of
interest over an entire section of the structure. Therefore, a large number of measurement
points may be required to evaluate such parameters as distribution of stresses in the
reinforcement and stress levels below the retaining structure. For example, accurate location
of the locus of the maximum stress in the reinforced soil mass will require a significant
number of gauge points, usually spaced on the order of 1-foot (300 mm) apart in the critical
zone. Reduction in the number of gauge points will make interpretation difficult, if not
impossible, and may compromise the objectives of the program.

In preparing the installation plan, consideration should be given to the compatibility of the
installation schedule and the construction schedule. If possible, the construction contractor
should be consulted concerning details that might affect his operation or schedule.
Step-by-step installation procedures should be prepared well in advance of scheduled

installation dates for installing all instruments. Detailed guidelines for choosing instrument
types, locations and installation procedures are given in FHWA RD 89-043 (Christopher et
al., 1989) and FHWA HI-98-034 (Dunnicliff, 1998).
11.4.5 Data Interpretation
Monitoring programs have failed because the data generated was never used. If there is a
clear sense of purpose for a monitoring program, the method of data interpretation will be
guided by that sense of purpose. Without a purpose, there can be no interpretation.
When collecting data during the construction phase, communication channels between design
and field personnel should remain open so that discussions can be held between design
engineers who planned the monitoring program and field engineers who provide the data.
Early data interpretation steps should have already been taken, including evaluation of data,
to determine reading correctness and also to detect changes requiring immediate action. The
essence of subsequent data interpretation steps is to correlate the instrument readings with
other factors (cause and effect relationships) and to study the deviation of the readings from
the predicted behavior.
After each set of data has been interpreted, conclusions should be reported in the form of an
interim monitoring report and submitted to personnel responsible for implementation of
action. The report should include updated summary plots, a brief commentary that draws
attention to all significant changes that have occurred in the measured parameters since the
previous interim monitoring report, probable causes of these changes, and recommended
action.
A final report is often prepared to document key aspects of the monitoring program and to
support any remedial actions. The report also forms a valuable bank of experience and
should be distributed to the owner and design consultant so that any lessons may be
incorporated into subsequent designs.

REFERENCES
AASHTO (2007). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 4th Edition, with 2008 and 2009
Interims, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.
AASHTO (2006). Roadside Design Guide, 3rd Edition, American Association of State
Transportation and Highway Officials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO (2006). Corrugated Polyethylene Drainage Pipe - M 252, Standard Specifications

for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 26th Edition,
American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials, Washington,
D.C.
AASHTO (2006). Standard Specifications for Geotextiles - M 288, Standard Specifications

for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 26th Edition,
American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials, Washington,
D.C.
AASHTO (2004). LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications, 2nd Edition, 2004, with 2006,
2007, 2008, and 2009 Interim Revisions
AASHTO (2002). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO (1994). 1994 Interims to 1992 Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 15th
Edition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.
AASHTO (1986). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
ADAMA Engineering, Inc. (2008), ReSSA3: Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis (3RD
edition), www.msew.com, Newark, DE,
ADAMA Engineering, Inc. (2001). ReSSA: Reinforced Slope Stability Analysis, developed
under contract with Federal Highway Administration, www.msew.com, Newark, DE,
ADAMA Engineering, Inc. (2000). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls: Program MSEW,
developed under contract with Federal Highway Administration, www.msew.com,
Newark, DE.
Adib M.E. (1988). “Internal Lateral Earth Pressure in Earth Walls,” Doctor of Philosophy
Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
FHWA NHI-10-025 References

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II R–1 November 2009
Andrawes, K. Z., McGown, A. and Murray, R. T. (1986). “The Load-Strain-Time Behavior
of Geotextiles and Geogrids,” Proceedings of the Third International. Conference on
Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria, pp. 707-712.
AGA, 2004. Hot-Dip Galvanizing for Corrosion Protection of Steel Products, American
Galvanizing Association, Centenial, OH, 12 pp.
Allen, T.M. and Bathurst, R.J. (2006), “Design and performance of an 11-m high block-faced
geogrid wall,” Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Geosynthetics,
Yokohama, Japan, pp. 953-956.
Allen, T.M., Bathurst, R.J., Lee, W. F., Holtz, R.D. and Walters, D.L., (2004) “A New
Method for Prediction of Loads in Steel Reinforced Walls”, ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 11, pp. 1109-1120.
Allen and Bathurst 2003
Allen et al. 2004
Allen et al. 2003
Allen, T., Christopher, B.R., Elias, V.E. and DiMaggio, J. (2001) Development of the
Simplified Method for Internal Stability Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth
(MSE) Walls, Washington State Department of Transportation Research Report WA-
RD 513.1, 108 p.
Allen et al. 1993
Allen, T.M., Christopher, B.R. and Holtz, R.D., (1992), “Performance of a 12.6 m High
Geotextile Wall in Seattle, Washington,” Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil Retaining
Walls, J.T.H. Wu Editor, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 81-100.
Anderson D.G., Martin, G.R., Lam, I. And Wang, J.N. (2008). Seismic Analysis and Design
of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments, Project NCHRP 12-
70, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 611,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Anderson, L.R., Nelson, K.J. and Sampaco, C.L. (1995). Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls, Transportation Research Circular Number 444, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., 17 p.
Anderson, S.A., Alzamora, D. and DeMarco, (2008). Asset Management Systems for
Retaining Walls, Proceedings of the 2008 Colorado ASCE Geotechnical Seminar
Program in Lakewood, CO, pp 162 – 177.

ASTM (2008). Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 4.13, Geosynthetics, ASTM International,
Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Arizona DOT 2009
Bathurst, R.J., Nernheim, A., and Allen, T.M. (2009). “Predicted loads in steel reinforced soil
walls using the AASHTO Simplified Method,” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 2, pp. 177-184.
Bathurst, R. J., Miyata, Y., Nernheim, A., and Allen, T. M., (2008a), “Refinement of K-
stiffness Method for geosynthetic reinforced soil walls,” Geosynthetics International,
Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 269-295.
Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M., and Nowak, A.S., (2008b), “Calibration Concepts for Load and
Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of Reinforced Soil Walls,” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 1377-1392.
Bathurst, R.J., Nernheim, A. and Allen, T.M. (2008c). “Comparison of measured and
predicted loads using the Coherent Gravity Method for steel soil walls.” Ground
Improvement, Vol. 161, No. 3, 113-120.
Bathurst, R.J., Walters, D., Vlachopoulos, N., Burgess P., and Allan, T.H., (2000). “Fullscale
Testing of Geosynthetic Reinforced Walls,” Proceedings of GeoDenver, ASCE
Special Publication 2000.
Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R. and Samtani, N.C. (2009). Design and Construction of
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, FHWA NHI-10-024
Volume I and NHI-10-025 Volume II, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 306 p (Vol I) and 380p (Vol II).
Berg, R.R., (2000). Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard MSEW and RSS
Designs, Project Report – Volume I, Summary Report, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Oakdale, MN, 98 p.
Berg, R.R. (1993), Guidelines for Design, Specification, and Contracting of Geosynthetic
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Slopes on Firm Foundations, FHWA-SA-93-025,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.

Berg, R.R., Anderson, R.P., Race, R.J., and Chouery-Curtis, V.E. (1990). “Reinforced Soil
Highway Slopes,” Transportation Research Record No. 1288, Geotechnical
Engineering, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 99-108.
Berg, R.R., Chouery-Curtis, V.E., and Watson, C.H., (1989). "Critical Failure Planes in
Analysis of Reinforced Slopes," Proceedings of Geosynthetics '89, Volume 1, San
Diego, February.
Bligh et al. (2009). Design of Roadside Barrier Systems Placed on MSE Retaining Walls-
Report in Review, Project NCHRP 22-20, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.
Bonarparte, R., Holtz, R.D. and Giroud, J.P., (1987). "Soil Reinforcement Design Using
Geotextiles and Geogrids", Geotextile Testing and The Design Engineer, ASTM,
Special Technical Publication 952.
Bonczkiewicz, C., Christopher, B. R., and Atmatzidis, D. K. (1988). "Evaluation of Soil

Reinforcement Interaction by Large-Scale Pullout Tests," Transportation Research
Record 1188, pp. 1-18.
Bush, D.I. (1990). “Variation of Long-Term Design Strength of Geosynthetics in

Temperatures up to 40oC”, Proceedings of the Fourth International. Conference on
Geotextiles, Geomembranes, and Related Products, The Hague, Netherlands, pp.
673-676.
Cedergren, H.R. (1989). Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets, Third Edition, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 465 p.
Chan C., Hover, K.C., Folliard, K.J., Hance R.M. and Trejo, D. (2007). Durability of
Segmental Retaining Wall Blocks: Final Report, FHWA HRT-07-021, FHWA,
McLean, VA, 271 p.
Chow and Van Laeken (1991). “Viscoelastic Relaxation in oriented Semicrystalline

Polymers,” Polymer, Vol. 32, pp. 1798-1802.
Christopher, B. R. (1993). Deformation Response and Wall Stiffness in Relation to

Reinforced Soil Wall Design, Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue University, 352 pp.
Christopher, B. R., Gill, S. A., Giroud, J. P., Juran, I., Mitchell, J. K., Schlosser, F., and
Dunnicliff, J., (1990). “Design and Construction Guidelines for Reinforced Soil
Structure - Volume 1.” FHWA-RD-89-043, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D. C.

Christopher, B. R., Gill, S. A., Giroud, J. P., Juran, I., Mitchell, J. K., Schlosser, F., and
Dunnicliff, J. (1989). Design and Construction Guidelines - Volume II, Summary of
Research and Systems Information , FHWA RD 89-043, FHWA, Washington, D.C.
Collin, J.G. (1996). "Controlling Surficial Stability Problems on Reinforced Steepened

Slopes" Geotechnical Fabrics Report IFAI.
Collin, J. G., Berg, R.R., and Meyers, M. (2002). Segmental Retaining Wall Drainage
Manual, National Concrete Masonry Association, Herdon, Virginia, 2002, 96 p.
Collin J.G. (1986). Earth Wall Design, Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of
Berkeley, 419 p.
Daniel, D.E. and Koerner, R.M. (1993). Quality Assurance and Quality Control for Waste
Containment Facilities, U.S. EPA Technical Guidance Document, EPA/600/R-
93/182, Cincinnati, OH, 305 p.
den Hoedt, G., Voskamp, W., van den Heuvel, C. J. M. (1994). “Creep and Time-to-Rupture
of Polyester Geogrids at Elevated Temperatures,” Proceedings of the Fifth
International. Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes, and Related Products,
Singapore, pp. 1125-1130.
DiMagiio, J. (1994). Design and Construction Monitoring of Mechanically Stabilized Earth

Structures, FHWA.
Dunnicliff, J. (1998). Geotechnical Instrumentation, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, FHWA-HI-98-034, 238 p.
Elias, V., Fishman, K.L., Christopher, B.R. and Berg, R.R. (2009). Corrosion/Degradation of
Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil
Slopes, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington DC, FHWA-NHI-09-087, 146 p.
Elias, V., Welsh, J., Warren, J., Lukas, R.,. Collin, J.G. and Berg, R.R. (2006). Ground
Improvement Methods, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., FHWA NHI-06-019 (Vol. I) and FHWA NHI-06-
020 (Vol. II), 2006.
Elias, V, Christopher, B.R. and Berg, R.R. (2001). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, FHWA-NHI-00-
043, 418 p.
Elias, V. (2000). Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically Stabilized

Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, FHWA-NHI-00-044, Washington, D.C., 94p.

Elias, V., Salman, A., Juran, I., Pearce, E., Lu, S., (1999). “Testing Protocols for Oxidation
and Hydrolysis of Geosynthetics,” FHWA RD-97-144, Washington, D.C.
Elias, V. and Christopher, B.R., (1997). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced
Soil Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA SA-96-071, Washington, D.C., 371 p.
Elias V. (1989). "Corrosion/Durability of Soil Reinforced Structures" FHWA RD 89-186.

Washington D.C., 105 p.
Elias, V., Zehong, Y., Swan, R.H., and Bachus, R.C., (1998). Testing Protocols for Confined
Creep and Extension Testing of Geosynthetics, FHWA-RD-97-143, FHWA,
Washington, D.C., 211 p.
Embacher, R., Schultz, A. and Snyder, M. (2001a). Condition and Durability of Segmental
Concrete Block Retaining Walls Along Roadways in Minnesota, Minnesota
Department of Transportation, 348 p.
Embacher, R., Schultz, A. and Snyder, M. (2001b).
Eurocode 7 Geotechnical Design, European Committee for Standardization
Ferry, J. D. (1980). Viscoelastic Properties of Polymers, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons,
NY.
FHWA Federal Lands Highway Division’s Roadway Aesthetic Treatments Photo Album
(RATPA) available at http://gallery.company39.com/FLH/gallery/.
Findley, W. N., Lai, J. S., Onaran, K. (1976). Creep and Relaxation of Nonlinear
Viscoelastic Materials, Dover Publications, NY, 369 pp.
Gray, D.H. and Sotir, R. (1995). Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering Slope Stabilization, A
Practical Guide for Erosion Control, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Hayden, R.F., Schmertmann, G.R., Qedan, B.Q., and McGuire, M.S. (1991) “High Clay
Embankment Over Cannon Creek Constructed with Geogrid Reinforcement,”
Proceedings of Geosynthetics ‘91, Atlanta, GA.
Helwany, B., Wu, J. T. H., 1992, “A Generalized Creep Model for Geosynthetics,”
International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Japan, pp.
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. (2008). Geosynthetic Design and
Construction Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, Report FHWA-NHI-07-
092, McLean, VA.

Huntington, W.C. (1957). Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, pp. 175-217.
ISO/FDIS 9080 (2001)
Jewell, R.A. (1990). "Revised Design Charts for Steep Reinforced Slopes, Reinforced
Embankments: Theory and Practice in the British Isles", Thomas Telford, London,
U.K.
Jewell, R.A. and Greenwood, J.H. (1988). “Long-Term Strength and Safety in Steep Soil
Slopes Reinforced by Polymer Materials”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 7,
Nos. 1 and 2, pp. 81-118.
Jurgenson, L. (1934). "The Shearing Resistance of Soils", Journal of the Boston Society of
Civil Engineers, Also in Contribution to Soil Mechanics, 1925-1940, Boston Society
of Civil Engineers, pp 134-217.
Kavazanjian, E. (2009). Personal communication.
Kenney, T.C. and Lau, D. (1986). Reply (to discussions), Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 420-423,
Internal Stability of Granular Filters, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2,
1985, pp. 215-225.
Kenney, T.C. and Lau, D. (1985). Internal Stability of Granular Filters, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1985, pp. 215-225.
Koerner, G.R., Hsuan, Y.G. and Hart, M. (2000). Field Monitoring and Laboratory Study of
Geosynthetics in Reinforcement Applications, Tasks B1 and B2, Geosynthetic
Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA, 116 p.
Koerner, R.M., (1998). Designing With Geosynthetics, 4th Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 761p.
Lazarte, C. A., Elias, V., Espinoza, R. D., Sabatini, P.J. (2003). “Soil Nail Walls”,
Geotechnical Engineering Circular, No. 7, Federal Highway Administration Report,
Report No. FHWA-IF-03-017, Washington, D.C.
Leshchinsky and Han (2004).
Leshchinsky, E. and Boedeker, R.H. (1989). "Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Structures",

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Volume 115, Number 10, pp. 1459-
1478.
Lostumbo, J.M. (2009). “Yeager Airport Runway Extension: Tallest Known 1H:1V Slope in
U.S.,” Proceedings of Geosynthetics 2009, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp. 593-598.

Lothspeich, S., and Thornton, S. (2000). “Comparison of Long-term Design Reduction
Factors Based on Creep Rupture and Creep Strength Criteria for Several Geosynthetic
Reinforcing Materials,” EuroGeo 2, pp. 341-346.
Mayne, P. W., Christopher, B. R., and DeJong, J. (2002). “Manual on Subsurface

Investigations”, National Highway Institute Publication, Federal Highway
Administration, Report FHWA-NHI-01-031, Washington, D.C.
McGown, A., Paine, N., and DuBois, D.D. (1984). “Use of Geogrid Properties in Limit
Equilibrium Analysis”, Proceedings of the Symposium on Polymer Grid
Reinforcement in Civil Engineering, Paper No. 1.4, pp. 1-5.
Meyerhof, G.G., (1951). “The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Foundations.” Geotechnique

Vol. 2 pp. 301-332.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), (2008). Approved Products List for

MBW Unit – Geosynthetic Reinforcement Combinations (available at
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/geoteng.html).
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), (2008). Standard Drawings.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), (2008). Use of Dry-Cast Segmental

Masonry Retaining Wall Units, Technical Memorandum No. 08-06-MRR-01, April 7,
2008, 5 p. (available at www.dot.state.mn.us/design/tech-memos/active).
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), (2001). Technical Memorandum No.:

01-05-MR-01, Program Support Group, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 8
February 2001, 8 p.
Morrison, K. F., Harrison, F. E., Collin, J. G., Dodds, A., and Arndt, B. (2006). “Shored
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (SMSE) Wall Systems”, Technical Report, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Report No. FHWA-CFL/TD-06-001,
212 p.
Munfakh, G., Arman, A., Collin, J.G., Hung, J,C-J. and Brouillette, R.P. (2001). Shallow
Foundations, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-NHI-01-023, Washington,
D.C., 222 p.
Murray, R. T. and McGown, A. (1988). “Assessment of the Time Dependent Behavior of

Geotextiles for Reinforced Soil Applications,” Durability of Geotextiles RILEM,
Chapman and Hall.
Musser and Denney (2005).

NCMA (2009). Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, National Concrete Masonry
Association, 3rd Edition, Herndon, VA.
NCMA (1997). Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, National Concrete Masonry
Association, Collin, J.G., editor 2nd Edition, Herndon, VA, TR-127A.
Newmark, N.M., (1965). “Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments,”

Geotehcnique, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 139-160.
O’Neill, M.W. and Reese, L.C. (1999). Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., FHWA-NHI-99-025.
Popelar, et al., (1990). “Viscoelastic Material Characterization and Modeling for

Polyethylene,” Polymer Engineering and Science, Vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 577-586.
Popelar, C.H., Kenner, V.H., and Wooster, J.P. (1991). “An Accelerated Method for
Establishing the Long Term Performance of Polyethylene Gas Pipe Materials”,
Polymer Engineering and Science, Vol. 31, pp. 1693-1700.
Prandtl, L. (1921). àber die eindingungsfestigkeit (hate) plasticher baustoffe und die
festigkeit von schneiden, Zeitschrift fár Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, Vol
1, No. 1, pp. 15-20.
Reissner H. (1924). Zum erddruckproblem, Proceedings of the 1st Intem. Congress of Applied
Mechanics, Delft, Germany, pp. 295-311.
Ruegger, R. (1986). "Geotextile Reinforced Soil Structures on which Vegetation can be

Established", Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Geotextiles,
Vienna, Austria, Volume II, pp. 453-458.
Sabatini, P. J., Pass, D. G. and Bachus, R. C. (1999). “Ground Anchors and Anchored
Systems.” Geotechnical Engineering Circular, No. 4, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-99-015.
Samtani, N. C. and Nowatzki, E. A. (2006). “Soils and Foundations”, Reference Manual -

Volume I and II, Report No. FHWA NHI-06-088 and FHWA NHI-06-089, Federal
Highway Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation.
Sankey, J.E., Bailey, M.J., and Chen, B. (2007). “SeaTac Third Runway: Design and
Performance of MSE Tall Wall,” New Horizons in Earth Reinforcement, 5th
International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, IS Kyushu 2007, Fukuoka, Japan.

Schmertmann, G.R., Chouery-Curtis, V.E., Johnson, R.D. and Bonaparte, R. (1987). Design
Charts for Geogrid-Reinforced Soil Slopes, Proceedings of Geosynthetics '87, New
Orleans, LA, Volume 1, pp. 108-120.
Schwanz, N., Meyers, M.S., and Berg, R.R. (1997). Specifying and Bidding Segmental
Concrete Faced MSE Walls on Corps of Engineers Projects, Proceedings of
Geosynthetics '97 Conference, Long Beach, California, pp. 789-801.
Silvestri, V. (1983). "The Bearing Capacity of Dykes and Fills Founded on Soft Soils of
Limited Thickness", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 428-
436.
Simac, M.R., Bathhurst R.J. Berg R.R., Lothspeich S.E., (1993). Design Manual for Segmental
Retaining Walls, National Concrete Masonry Association. Herndon, VA, 1993, 336 p.
Sotir, R.B. and Christopher, B.R. (2000). “Soil Bioengineering and Geosynthetics for Slope
Stabilization,” Proceedings, Geosynthetics Asia 2000, Selangor Daruf, Ehsan
Malaysia.
Sotir, R.B. and Stulgis, R.P. (1999). "Slope Stabilization Using Soil Bioengineering Case
Studies", Proceedings ASCE International Water Resource Engineering Conference
Program, Seattle, WA.
Sotir, R.B., Difini, J.T. and McKown, A.F. (1998). "Soil Bioengineering Biotechnical
Stabilization of a Slope Failure," Proceedings, The Sixth International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Atlanta, GA.
Stuedlein, A.W., Mikkelsen, P.E. and Bailey, M.J. (2007). Instrumentation and Performance
of the Third Runway North MSE Wall at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Field
Measurements in Geomechanics 2007, GSP No. 175, ASCE, J. DiMaggio and P.
Osborn (Eds.), pp 1-14.
Takaku, A. (1981). “Effect of Drawing on Creep Fracture of Polypropylene Fibers”, Journal

of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 26, pp. 3565-3573.
Takemura (1959). Theoretical Consideration of the Effect of Crystallinity on the

Viscoelastic Properties of Polyethylene,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol.
38, pp. 471-478.
Tanyu, B.F., Sabatini, P.J. and Berg, R.R. (2008). Earth Retaining Structures, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.,
FHWA-NHI-07-071, 2008.

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II R – 10 November 2009
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice,
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 330-332.
Thornton, J. S., Allen, S. R., and Thomas, R. W., (1997) “Approaches for the Prediction of
Long Term Viscoelastic Properties of Geosynthetics from Short-Term Tests,”
Geosynthetics ’97, IFAI, Long Beach, CA, Vol. 1, pp. 277-291.
Thornton, J. S., Allen, S. R., Thomas, R. W., and Sandri, D., 1998b, “The Stepped Isothermal
Method for Time-Temperature Superposition and Its Application to Creep Data of
Polyester Yarns,” Sixth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes, and
Related Products, Atlanta, GA, pp.699-706.
Thornton, J. S., and Baker, T. L., 2002, “Comparison of SIM and conventional Methods for
Determining Creep-Rupture Behavior of a Polypropylene Geotextile,” 7th
International Geosynthetics Conference, Nice, France, Vol. 4, pp. 1545-1550.
Thornton, J. S., Paulson, J., and Sandri, D., (1998a), “Conventional and Stepped Isothermal
Methods for Characterizing Long-Term Creep Strength of Polyester Geogrids,” Sixth
International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes, and Related Products,
Atlanta, GA, pp.691-698.
Vesic’A.S. (1975). Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations, Foundation Engineering

Handbook, Winterkorn, H. and H.Y. Fang, H.Y. (Eds.), Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York, NY, Chapter 3, pp. 121-147.
Wadsworth, H. (1998). Handbook of Statistical Methods for Engineers and Scientists,

McGraw-Hill, 688 pp.
Washington Department of Transportation (2009). Standard Practice T 925, Standard

Practice for Determination of Long-Term Strength for Geosynthetic Reinforcement,
WSDOT Materials Manual M46-01.03.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), (2006). Geotechnical Design

Manual, M 46-03, Chapter 15 – Abutments, Retaining Walls, and Reinforced Slopes.
Wayne and Wilcosky (1995). "An innovative use of a nonwoven geotextile in the repair of
Pennsylvania State Route 54", Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Volume 13, Number 2.
Wilding, M.A. and Ward, I.M. (1978). “Tensile and Creep Recovery in Ultra-High Modulus
Polyethylenes,” Polymer, Vol. 19, pp.
Wilding, M.A. and Ward, I.M. (1981). “Creep and Recovery of Ultra High Modulus
Polyethylene”, Polymer, Vol. 22, pp. 870-876.

Wright, S. (2005)
Wright, S.G. and Duncan, J.M. (1990). "Limit Equilibrium Stability Analyses for Reinforced
Slopes," presented at the Transportation Research Board 70th Annual Meeting,
January 13-17, Washington D.C.
Wrigley et al. 2000
Wrigley et al. 1999
Wu, J.T.H, Lee, K., Helwany, S., and Ketchart, K. (2006). Design and Construction Guidelines
for Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutments with a Flexible Facing System,
NCHRP Report 556, Project 12-59, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.
Wu, J.T.H. (1994). Design and Construction of Low Cost Retaining Walls – The Next
Generation in Technology, Colorado Transportation Institute, Report CTI-UCD-1-94,
152p.
Yarger, T.L. and Barnes R.S. (1993), "Montana Department of Transportation's Introduction
to Geogrid Use for Steepened Embankment Design", Proceedings of Geosynthetics
'93, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, pp 311-326.
Zhurko 1965
Zornberg J., Barrows, R., Christopher, B.R. and Wayne, M. (1995). "Construction and
Instrumentation of a Highway Slope Reinforced with High-Strength Geotextiles",
Proceedings of Geosynthetics '95, Nashville, TN.

APPENDIX A
LRFD LOAD NOTATION,
LOAD COMBINATIONS, AND LOAD FACTORS
FHWA NHI-10-025 Appendix A – LRFD Factors & Nomenclature

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II A –1 November 2009
A.1 LOAD NOTATION
From AASHTO 3.3.2, the following notation is used for permanent and transient loads and
forces.
Permanent Loads
CR = Force effects due to creep
DD = Downdrag force
DC = Dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachments
DW = Dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities
EH = Horizontal earth loads
EL = Miscellaneous locked-in force effects resulting from the construction
process, including jacking apart cantilevers in segmental construction
ES = Earth surcharge load
EV = Vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill
PS = Secondary forces from post-tensioning
SH = Force effects due shrinkage
Transient Loads
BR = Vehicular braking force
CE = Vehicular centrifugal force
CT = Vehicular collision force
CV = Vessel collision force
EQ = Earthquake load
FR = Friction load
IC = Ice load
IM = Vehicular dynamic load allowance
LL = Vehicular live load
LS = Live load surcharge
PL = Pedestrian live load
SE = Force effect due to settlement
TG = Force effect due to temperature gradient
TU = Force effect due to uniform temperature
WA = Water load and stream pressure
WL = Wind on live load
WS = Wind load on structure

A.2 LOAD COMBINATIONS
Load combinations and load factors from AASHTO 3.4, Table 3.4.1-1 are listed below.
Load Combinations and Load Factors (Table 3.4.1-1, AASHTO, 2007)

Load DC Use One of These at a Time
Combination DD
DW
EH
EV LL
ES IM
EL CE
PS BR
CR PL
Limit State SH LS WA WS WL FR TU TG SE EQ IC CT CV
STRENGTH I γp 1.75 1.00 – – 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE – – – –
(unless noted)
STRENGTH II γp 1.35 1.00 – – 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE – – – –
STRENGTH III γp – 1.00 1.40 – 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE – – – –
STRENGTH IV γp – 1.00 – – 1.00 0.50/1.20 – – – – – –
STRENGTH V γp 1.35 1.00 0.40 1.0 1.00 0.50/1.20 γTG γSE – – – –
EXTREME γp γEQ 1.00 – – 1.00 – – – 1.00 – – –
EVENT I
EXTREME γp 0.50 1.00 – – 1.00 – – – – 1.00 1.00 1.00
EVENT II
SERVICE I 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.0 1.00 1.00/1.20 γTG γSE – – – –
SERVICE II 1.00 1.30 1.00 – – 1.00 1.00/1.20 – – – – – –
SERVICE III 1.00 0.80 1.00 – – 1.00 1.00/1.20 γTG γSE – – – –
SERVICE IV 1.00 – 1.00 0.70 – 1.00 1.00/1.20 – 1.0 – – –
FATIGUE – LL, – 0.75 – – – – – – – – – – –
IM & CE ONLY

A.3 LOAD FACTORS FOR PERMANENT LOADS
Load factors for permanent loads, from AASHTO 3.4, Table 3.4.1-2 are listed below.
Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp (Table 3.4.1-2, AASHTO, 2007)

Type of Load, Foundation Type, and Load Factor
Method Used to Calculate Downdrag
Maximum Minimum
DC: Component and Attachments 1.25 0.90
DC: Strength IV only 1.50 0.90
DD: Downdrag Piles, α Tomlinson Method 1.4 0.25
Piles, Method 1.05 0.30
Drilled shafts, O’Neill and Reese (1999) Method 1.25 0.35
DW: Wearing Surfaces and Utilities 1.50 0.65
EH: Horizontal Earth Pressure
 Active 1.50 0.90
 At-Rest 1.35 0.90
 AEP for anchored walls 1.35 N/A
EL: Locked-in Construction Stresses 1.00 1.00
EV: Vertical Earth Pressure
 Overall Stability 1.00 N/A
 Retaining Walls and Abutments 1.35 1.00
 Rigid Buried Structure 1.30 0.90
 Rigid Frames 1.35 0.90
 Flexible Buried Structures other than Metal Box Culverts 1.95 0.90
 Flexible Metal Box Culverts 1.50 0.90
ES: Earth Surcharge 1.50 0.75

APPENDIX B
DETERMINATION OF PULLOUT RESISTANCE FACTORS and
MBW UNIT – GEOSYNTHETIC CONNECTION STRENGTH
Pullout resistance of soil reinforcement is defined by the ultimate pullout resistance required
to cause outward sliding of the reinforcement through the soil. Reinforcement specific data
has been developed and is presented in Chapter 3. The empirical data uses different
interaction parameters, and it is therefore difficult to compare the pullout performance of
different reinforcements.
The method for determining reinforcement pullout presented herein, consists of the
normalized approach recommended in the FHWA manual FHWA-RD-89-043 (Christopher
et al., 1990). The pullout resistance, F* is a function of both frictional and passive resistance,
depending on the specific reinforcement type. The scale effect correction factor, α, is a
function of the nonlinearity in the pullout load - mobilized reinforcement length relationship
observed in pullout tests. Inextensible reinforcements usually have little, if any nonlinearity
in this relationship, resulting in α equal to 1.0, whereas extensible reinforcements can exhibit
substantial nonlinearity due to a decreasing shear displacement over the length of the
reinforcement, resulting in an α of less than 1.0.
Both F* and α must be determined through product specific tests, or empirically/theoretically

using the procedures provided herein and in Section 3.3, in particular Table 5. It should be
noted that the empirical procedures provided in this appendix for the determination of F*
reduce, for the most part, to the equations currently provided in 2007 AASHTO for pullout
design.
The pullout resistance of partial/full friction facing/reinforcement connections is defined as

the load required to cause sliding of the reinforcement relative to the facing blocks or
reinforcement rupture at the facing connection, whichever occurs first.
B.1 EMPIRICAL PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE F* AND α
Pullout resistance can be estimated empirically/theoretically using the method provided in

Chapter 3. F* using this method, is calculated as follows:
F* = Frictional Resistance + Passive Resistance

= Tan ρ + Fq αβ
FHWA NHI-10-025 Appendix B – Pullout & Connection Strengths

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II B–1 November 2009
where Tan ρ is an apparent friction coefficient for the specific reinforcement, ρ is the soil-
reinforcement interface friction angle, Fq is the embedment (or surcharge) bearing capacity
factor, and αβ is a structural geometric factor for passive resistance. The determination of
each of these parameters is provided in Table 5, Chapter 3, with α estimated analytically
using direct shear test data and the "t-z" method used in the design of friction piles.
However, since some test data is required and the analytical method is complex, it is better to
obtain α directly from pullout test data or use conservative default values for α. If pullout
test data is not available, a default value of 1.0 can be used for α for inextensible
reinforcements and a default value of 0.6 to 0.8 can be used for extensible reinforcements.
B.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE F* AND α
Two types of tests are used to obtain pullout resistance parameters: the direct shear test, and
the pullout test. The direct shear test is useful for obtaining the peak or residual interface
friction angle between the soil and the reinforcement material. ASTM D-5321 should be
used for this purpose. In this case, F* would be equal to tan ρpeak. F* can be obtained directly
from this test for sheet and strip type reinforcements. However, the value for α must be
assumed or analytically derived, as α cannot be determined directly from direct shear tests.
A pullout test can also be used to obtain pullout parameters for these types of soil
reinforcement. A pullout test must be used to obtain pullout parameters for bar mat and grid
type reinforcements, and to obtain values for α for all types of reinforcements. In general,
the pullout test is preferred over the direct shear test for obtaining pullout parameters for all
soil reinforcement types. It is recommended that ASTM D6706 test procedure using the
controlled strain rate method be used. For long-term interaction coefficients, the constant
stress (creep) method can be used. For extensible reinforcements, it is recommended that
specimen deformation be measured at several locations along the length of the specimen
(e.g., three to four points) in addition to the deformation at the front of the specimen. For all
reinforcement materials, it is recommended that the specimen tested for pullout have a
minimum embedded length of 24 inches (600 mm). Additional guidance is provided herein
regarding interpretation of pullout test results.
For geogrids, the grid joint, or junction strength, must be adequate to allow the passive
resistance on the transverse ribs to develop without failure of the grid joint throughout the
design life of the structure. To account for this, F* for geogrids should be determined using
one of the following approaches:

C Using quick effective stress pullout tests (i.e., constant rate of displacement method for
short-term loading condition per ASTM D6706) and creep testing (per ASTM D5262) of
the geogrid with clamping and loading through-the-junction.
short-term loading condition per ASTM D6706), but with the geogrid transverse ribs
severed.
short-term loading condition per ASTM D6706) if the summation of the shear strengths
of the joints occurring in a 1 ft. (300 mm) length of grid sample is equal to or greater than
the ultimate strength of the grid element to which they are attached. If this joint strength
criteria is used, grid joint shear strength should be measured in accordance with
GRI:GG2 (GRI, 1988).
C Conduct long-term effective stress pullout tests of the entire geogrid structure in
accordance with the constant stress (creep) method of ASTM D6706.
For pullout tests, a normalized pullout versus mobilized reinforcement length curve should
be established as shown in Figure B-1. Different mobilized lengths can be obtained by
instrumenting the reinforcement specimen. Strain or deformation measuring devices such as
wire extensometers attached to the reinforcement surface at various points back from the
grips should be used for this purpose. A section of the reinforcement is considered to be
mobilized when the deformation measuring device indicates movement at its end. Note that
the displacement versus mobilized length plot (uppermost plot in figure) represents a single
confining pressure. Tests must be run at several confining pressures to develop the Pr versus
σvLp plot (middle plot in figure). The value of Pr selected at each confining pressure to be
plotted versus σvLp is the lessor of either the maximum value of Pr (i.e., maximum
sustainable load), the load which causes rupture of the specimen, or the value of Pr obtained
at a predefined maximum deflection measured at either the front or the back of the specimen.
Note that Pr is measured in terms of load per unit reinforcement width.

Figure B-1 Experimental procedure to determine F* and α for soil reinforcement using
pullout test.

It is recommended that for inextensible reinforcements, a maximum deflection of ¾-inch (20
mm) measured at the front of the specimen be used to select Pr if the maximum value for Pr
or rupture of the specimen does not occur first. For extensible reinforcements, it is
recommended that a maximum deflection of 15 mm (5/8-inch) measured at the back of the
specimen be used to select Pr if the maximum value for Pr or rupture of the specimen does
not occur first. Note that it is acceptable, as an alternative, to define Pr for inextensible
reinforcements based on a maximum deflection of 5/8-inch (15 mm) measured at the back of
the specimen as is recommended for extensible reinforcements.
F*peak and F*m are determined from the pullout data as shown in Figure B-1. The method
provided in this figure is known as the corrected area method (Bonczkiewicz et. al., 1988).
The determination of α is also illustrated in Figure B-1. Typical values of F* and α for
various types of reinforcements are provided by Christopher (1993).
Note that the conceptualized curves provided in Figure B-1 represent a relatively extensible
material. For inextensible materials, the deflection at the front of the specimen will be nearly
equal to the deflection at the back of the specimen, making the curves in the uppermost plot
in the figure nearly horizontal. Therefore, whether the deflection criteria to determine Pr for
inextensible reinforcements is applied at the front of the specimen or at the back of the
specimen makes little difference. For extensible materials, the deflection at the front of the
specimen can be considerably greater than the deflection at the back of the specimen. The
goal of the deflection criteria is to establish when pullout occurs, not to establish some
arbitrary serviceability criteria. For extensible materials, the pullout test does not model well
the reinforcement deflections which occur in full scale structures. Therefore, just because
relatively large deflections occur at the front of an extensible reinforcement material in a
pullout test when applying the deflection criteria to the back of the specimen does not mean
that unacceptable deflections will occur in the full scale structure.
B.3 CONNECTION RESISTANCE AND STRENGTH OF PARTIAL AND FULL

FRICTION SEGMENTAL BLOCK/REINFORCEMENT FACING
CONNECTIONS
For reinforcement connected to the facing through embedment between facing elements
using a partial or full friction connection (e.g., segmental concrete block faced walls), the
connection strength can be determined directly through long-term testing of the connection to
failure. The test set up should be in general accordance with ASTM D6638 with the
modifications as described in the interim Long-Term Connection Strength Testing Protocol
described below. Extrapolation of test data should be conducted in general accordance with

Appendix D. Tests should be conducted at a confining stress that is greater than or equal to
the highest confining stress considered for the wall system, and as necessary at additional
confining stresses below that level to determine behavior for the full range of confining
stresses anticipated.
Regardless of the mode of failure extrapolation of the time to failure envelope must be
determined. Once the failure envelope has been determined, a direct comparison between the
short-term ultimate strength of the connection and the creep rupture envelope for the
geosynthetic reinforcement in isolation can be accomplished to determine RFCR. The
connection strength obtained from the failure envelope must also be reduced by the durability
reduction factor RFD. This reduction factor should be based on the durability of the
reinforcement or the connector, whichever is failing in the test.
If it is determined that the connectors failed during the connection test and not the
geosynthetic, the durability of the connector, not the geosynthetic, should be used to
determine the reduction factors for the long-term connection strength in this case. If the
connectors between blocks are intended to be used for maintaining block alignment during
wall construction and are not intended for long-term connection shear capacity, the alignment
connectors should be removed before assessing the connection capacity for the selected
block-geosynthetic combination. If the pins or other connection devices are to be relied upon
for long-term capacity, the durability of the connector material must be established.
The connection strength reduction factor resulting from long term testing, CRcr, is evaluated
as follows:
T
CR cr  crc (B-1)
Tlot
where Tcrc is the extrapolated ( 75 - 100 year) connection test strength and Tlot is the ultimate
wide width tensile strength (ASTM D4595) for the reinforcement material lot used for
connection strength testing.
The connection strength reduction factor resulting from quick tests, CRult, is evaluated as
follows:
T
CR ult  ultconn (B-2)
Tlot
where Tultconn is the peak connection load at each normal load.

Testing Protocol
Objective: Determine the sustained load capacity of the connection between a modular block
wall (MBW) facing element and a geosynthetic reinforcing material.
Method: Construct a test apparatus of full-scale MBW units and geosynthetic reinforcing
material in a laboratory. Perform a series of tests at different normal loads (confining
pressures) to model different wall heights, varying the applied load from 95 percent of the
peak connection capacity determined from the quick connection test (SRWU-1) to 50 percent
of the peak connection capacity. Measure and record the deflections and time to pullout or
rupture of the connection.
Procedure:
1. Determine index properties of the geosynthetic reinforcing roll being tested:
a. Wide width tensile strength (ASTM D4595)
Note: it is preferable to perform the D4595 test on the roll sample being tested and to
perform the test in the same apparatus being used for the long-term connection
testing. This will help remove uncertainty in the test results from using different lots
of the geosynthetic reinforcement material and from comparing test results from
different test equipment.
b. Creep rupture envelope for geosynthetic: develop a rupture envelope for the
specific geosynthetic being tested based on creep rupture tests, Appendix D, using
the same longitudinal strip of reinforcement.
75-year life
Material Creep Rupture Envelope
TULT
Creep Load (as a % of the
Ultimate Strength)
Elapsed Time (Hours)
Figure B-2 Creep Rupture Envelope for Geosynthetic Reinforcement

2. Determine short-term (quick test) connection properties of the MBW unit/geosynthetic
reinforcement combination, per ASTM D6638, as modified below.
a. Construct a test setup in general accordance with the ASTM D6638 test method with
the following revisions:
i. Testing shall be carried out on a single width block specimen. Setup shall
consist of two MBW units at the base with one MBW unit centered over the
two base units.
ii. Geosynthetic reinforcement width shall be as close as possible to the length of
the MBW unit (for geogrids this is dependent on the transverse aperture). In
no case shall the geosynthetic be wider than the length of the MBW unit.
iii. Geosynthetic specimen shall have sufficient length to cover the interface
surface as specified by the user. The specimen must be trimmed to provide
sufficient anchorage at the geosynthetic loading clamp and a free length
between the back of the MBW units and loading clamp ranging from a
minimum of 8 in. to a maximum of 24 in. (203 to 610 mm). The same free
length used for the short-term test shall be used for the long-term test. The
same longitudinal strip of reinforcement shall be used for all short-term and
long-term connection tests.
iv. The temperature in the test space, especially close to the gage length of the
specimen shall be maintained within ± 2° C (±4° F) of the targeted value.
v. Where granular infill is required in the connection, half units may be used to
provide confinement for the granular fill on each side of the single top unit.
Granular fill may or may not be used in the short-term and long-term test as
desired. Whichever condition (with or without infill) is selected for the short-
term tests shall be the same for the long-term tests. Where granular infill is
not required as part of the connection, the single unit may be used.
vi. Normal load shall be applied to the top of the MBW unit to provide the
desired confining pressure by a mechanism capable of maintaining the desired
load for a period of not less than one year. (It has been observed that under
rapid loading some blocks may rotate and short-term instantaneous high
normal loads can result if the vertical loading system does not have the
mechanical compliance necessary to dilate. Tests shall be run for a period of
1,000 hours, however the apparatus should be capable of sustaining loads for
longer periods if determined later during the test.)
vii. Tension loads shall be applied to the reinforcing member in a direction
parallel to the connection interface, and in the plane of the connection
interface. (The mechanism for applying the tensile loads shall be capable of
sustaining an applied load for periods of not less than one-year.)

b. Perform a series of quick tests in accordance with ASTM D6638, as modified above,
on the MBW unit/ geosynthetic reinforcement combination at different normal loads
to establish the Tultconn/Normal Load connection curve.
3. Determine the normal and tensile load levels for sustained load testing on the MBW
unit/geosynthetic reinforcement combination.
a. The highest normal load for the sustained load test may not exceed point A (Figure B-
3) when the Tultconn/Normal load curve is bilinear or multilinear or point B (Figure B-
3) when the slope of the curve is linear. Tultconn is defined as the ultimate connection
strength determined from ASTM D6638. Additional normal loads may be evaluated
to determine the long-term connection strength as a function of normal load.
b. From the connection strength verses displacement curve (Figure B-4) for the quick
test, using the normal load determined in step A, determine the applied tensions loads
for a range of percentages of the Peak Connection Capacity (e.g., 95, 90, 85, 80,75,
66 and 50 percent of Peak Connection capacity). The tensile loads should be selected
to define the connection rupture curve for 1000 hours.
4. Perform sustained load testing on the MBW unit/geosynthetic reinforcement combination
at the normal and tensile load levels determined from step 3 using the same test apparatus
used to determine the short-term connection properties. A different test apparatus may be
used to perform the long-term tests as long as a correlation is made between the two test
machines. Unless otherwise agreed upon, a minimum of four normal load levels shall be
used to develop the connection rupture curve.
a. Assemble the MBW unit/geosynthetic reinforcement test as done in step 3, and
apply the normal load desired to the top MBW unit.
b. Apply the full load (e.g., 95, 90, 85, and 80 percent of Tultconn) tensile load rapidly
and smoothly to the specimen, preferably at a strain rate of 10 ± 3%/min. Record
the total time for loading.
c. Measure the extension/deflection of the connection, at the back of the MBW unit
in accordance with the following approximate time schedule: 1, 2, 6, 10, 30 min,
and 1, 2, 5, 10, 30, 100, 200, 500 and 1,000 hrs (Note: shorter reading times may
be required).
Record the time to failure of the connection.
d. Repeat steps A through C for the other normal load levels recording the loads and
time to failure.
5. Presentation of data.
a. Plot the results of the creep rupture test on a log time plot extrapolated to a
minimum of 75 years, per Appendix D. The extrapolated load is the (75 - 100
year) connection load, Tcrc
b. On the same graph, plot the time to failure for the results of the sustained load
tests on the reinforcement itself from Step 1.

c. From the data plot, extrapolate to 75 years (670,000 hrs), per Appendix D.
d. All deviations from the connection test setup from the actual connection used for
construction shall be noted in the test report.
A (example 1 connection – where

curve becomes horizontal)
Tultconn B (example 2 connection –

where curve is linear)
Peak Connection Load
Tultconn
Normal Load (kN)
Figure B-3 Connection Strength verses Normal Load

Tultconnn
T95
T90
T85
T80
Connection Load
Displacement (mm)
Figure B-4 Connection Strength verses Displacement

B.4 CONNECTION RESISTANCE DEFINED WITH SHORT-TERM TESTING
B.4.1 Protocol
As discussed in Section 4.4.7.i, the long-term connection strength reduction factor to account
for reduced ultimate strength resulting from the connection, CRcr, may be obtained from
long-term or short-term tests. as described below.
Short-term (i.e., quick) ultimate strength tests, per ASTM D6638, are used to define an
ultimate connection strength, Tultconn, at a specified confining pressure. Tests should be
performed in accordance with ASTM D6638, Determining Connection Strength Between
Geosynthetic Reinforcement and Segmental Concrete Units (Modular Concrete Blocks).
With short-term testing, CRcr, is defined as follows:
Tultconn
CR cr  (4-43)
RFcr Tlot
RFcr is the geosynthetic creep reduction factor (see Chapter 3), and Tlot is the ultimate wide
width tensile strength of the reinforcement material roll/lot used for the connection strength
testing.
The raw data from short-term connection strength laboratory testing should not be used for
design. The wall designer (and/or system supplier) should evaluate the data and define the
nominal long-term connection strength, Talc. Steps for this data reduction are summarized
and discussed below.
Step 1: Separate laboratory test data by failure mode – pullout and rupture
The laboratory data is separated by observed failure mode – pullout or
rupture. Note that observed pullout may be more of a combination of pullout
and rupture versus a clearly defined pullout.
Step 2: Replot data and develop equations for ultimate connection strength, Tultconn
Data should be plotted and Tultconn defined as a function of normal load or
normal pressure. Tultconn is defined in one or two straight-line segments on the
plot. Data points for the two different failure modes should be plotted as
separate lines.
Step 3: Evaluate data with consideration of other tests

Evaluate data with consideration of data from testing of different grade(s) of
reinforcement with same MBW unit. Replot data and develop equations, as
appropriate. Trends in data between different tests should be rational.
Step 4: Determine short-term ultimate connection strength reduction factor, CRu

CRu is the short-term ultimate connection strength reduction factor defined as
follows:
T
CR u  ultconn (B-3)
Tlot
Step 5: Determine reinforcement creep reduction factor, RFCR

The creep reduction factor for the geosynthetic reinforcement was previously
defined (see Chapter 3 and Appendix D).
Step 6: Determine long-term connection strength, CRcr

CRcr, the long-term ultimate connection strength reduction factor (based upon
short-term testing) is defined as follows:
CR u
CR cr  (B-4)
RFCR
Note that the creep reduction factor is applied to short-term ultimate

connection strength regardless of observed failure mode (i.e., rupture or
pullout).
Step 7: Determine nominal long-term connection strength, Talc

Use equation 4-41 to determine Talc.
The nominal long-term connection strength, Talc developed by frictional
and/or structural means, determined as follows:
T  CR cr
Talc  ult (4-41)
RFD
where:
Talc = nominal long-term reinforcement/facing connection
strength per unit reinforcement width at a specified
confining pressure
Tult = ultimate tensile strength of the geosynthetic soil
reinforcement, defined as the minimum average roll value
(MARV)

RFD = reduction factor to account for chemical and
biological degradation
CRcr = long-term connection strength reduction factor to
account for reduced ultimate strength resulting
from the connection
Step 8: Define limits of applicability of the defined Talc

The nominal long-term connection strength equation defined is applicable to
the test conditions utilized. The limits of the testing program normal loading
should be stated with Talc. Extrapolation of the connection strength equation
should not be extended significantly above or below this normal loading
range.
B.4.2 Example Calculation
An example problem is presented within to demonstrate the analysis of laboratory connection

strength data of modular block wall (MBW) units and geosynthetic reinforcements. Data is
analyzed to determine the nominal strength envelope to use in design. This example is for a
large MBW unit where one grade of a geogrid was tested, and all failure occurred by rupture
of the reinforcement. (Fictional MBW unit and geosynthetic manufacturer names are used
within.)
Table B-1. Summary of steps for data reduction of MBW connection strength, with
short-term (quick) test data.
Step Item
1 Separate laboratory test data by failure mode – pullout and rupture
2 Replot data and develop equations for ultimate connection strength, Tultconn
3 Evaluate data with consideration of data from testing of different grade(s) of
reinforcement with same MBW unit. Replot data and develop equations, as
appropriate.
4 Determine short-term ultimate connection strength reduction factor, CRu
5 Determine reinforcement creep reduction factor, RFCR
6 Determine long-term connection strength, CRcr
7 Determine nominal long-term connection strength, Talc
8 Define limits of applicability (i.e., limits of testing program normal loading)

Laboratory Report
The following information was provided in the two laboratory test reports (a report for each
grade of geogrid used).
AA MBW Unit and Grade II, Type XX Geogrid”
Apparatus and General

Test Procedure: per ASTM D6638
Large Modular Block Unit: AA
42 in. wide (toe to heel), 18 in. high, 48 in. long
Weight  2,200 lbs per unit
Geogrid: Grade II, Type XX
Tult-MARV = 4,300 lb/ft (reported by manufacturer)
Lot and roll numbers provided
TLOT = 4,730 lb/ft
Connection Test Results: Tensile loads at peak capacity
Tensile loads at ¾-inch displacement
7 normal loads
Two tests at one normal load
Data – see table below
Recommended design curve and equation presented
Connection Test Notes: All tests ended in geogrid rupture after large deformation.
Evidence of slippage of the geogrid within the MBW unit-
geogrid interface in all tests.
Amount of slippage diminished with increased normal
loading.
The actual design capacity envelope could be lower than
presented if the quality of construction in the field is less
than that adopted in this controlled laboratory
investigation.

Tensile Capacity
Normal Load Approximate Peak Tensile
Test Number (lb/ft) at ¾-inch
(lb/ft) Wall Height (ft) Capacity (lb/ft)
Displacement
1 816 2.4 557 1073
2 1665 4.9 659 1431
3 2498 7.3 620 1259
4 2509 7.3 669 1445
5 2509 7.3 688 1293
6 3353 9.8 641 1390
7 4219 12.4 667 1582
8 5074 14.9 859 1637
Peak connection capacity, Tultconn = 1068 + N tan 6 in (lb/ft of geogrid) and N in lb/ft of wall
length
Evaluate Data
Step 1. Separate data by failure mode – pullout and rupture.

All data for this MBW unit and soil reinforcement is rupture failure.
Step 2. Replot raw data and check equation for Tultconn.

Equation provided in report checks. Tultconn = 1068 + N tan 6 in (lb/ft) and N in lb/ft
Step 3. Evaluate data with consideration of data from different grade of soil
reinforcement.
There is no additional test data with similar products to compare this data to.
Step 4. Determine CRu

The short-term connection strength reduction factor is:
Tultconn
CR u 
Tlot
Tlot is the ultimate tensile strength of the material used in the connection testing. The was
laboratory test report listed a Tlot = 4,730 lb/ft.
Step 5. Determine the creep reduction factor, RFCR

The agency had previously evaluated the long-term (i.e., nominal) strength of the
Grade II, Type XX geogrid. The agency evaluation used a creep reduction factor
equal to 1.9, which was based upon an evaluation of the data supplied by the
manufacturer.

Step 6. Determine CRcr
Short-term connection strength testing was used. Therefore, the long-term connection
strength reduction factor to account for reduced ultimate strength resulting from the
connection, using Equation 4-43, is equal to:
Tultconn 1068  N tan 6  1068  N tan 6 

CRcr   
RFcr Tlot 1.9  1.10 Tult  MARV  2.09 Tult  MARV 
Step 7. Determine Talc

The nominal long-term reinforcement/facing connection strength per unit
reinforcement width at a specified normal load, N, using Equation 4-41, is equal to:
1068  N tan 6 
Tult  MARV 
T  CRcr 2.09 Tult  MARV 
Talc  ult   444  0.044 N
RFD 1.15
where Talc is in terms of lb/ft width of reinforcement and N is in terms of lb/ft width
of wall facing length.
The laboratory test data and the nominal long-term connection strength lines are
presented in Figure B-5.
Step 8. Define limits of applicability

The nominal long-term connection strength equation defined is applicable to the test
conditions utilized. The limits of the testing program normal loading should be stated
with Talc. Extrapolation of the connection strength equation should not be extended
significantly above or below this normal loading range.
As noted in the laboratory test report (see data table under Laboratory Report) the
limits of this test program are approximate wall heights of 2.4 to 14.9 ft.

AA MBW Unit - Type XX, Grade II Geogrid
Connection Rupture Strength
1800
Ultimate Connection Strength (lb/ft
y = 0.1132x + 1068.2
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
y = 0.044x + 444
400
200
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Normal Pressure (lb/ft)
Test Data Design Line Linear (Test Data) Linear (Design Line)
Figure B-5. Laboratory test data and the nominal long-term connection strength lines for
AA MBW unit and Type XX, Grade II geogrid.
Practical Considerations
 The nominal long-term connection strength should be compared that of other soil
reinforcements with this MBW unit and to other MBW units with this soil reinforcement,
as a check for reasonableness.
 The laboratory test reports presented “design connection strength” lines. These were
based on ultimate strength reduced by a factor of safety equal to 1.5 and a 3/4 –inch
displacement criteria. These “design connection strength” lines are for a design standard
that is different from AASHTO, and therefore should not be used fro transportation
works. Data should be evaluated in accordance with AASHTO/FHWA criteria, as
detailed within this example.

APPENDIX C
STEEL SOIL REINFORCEMENTS
Linear Strip Reinforcements

Vertical Horizontal
Type Dimensions Fy/Fu
Spacing Spacing
Varies, but typically
Steel Strips 5/32 in. thick by 2 in. wide 65/75 ksi 30 in.
12 to 30in,
(ribbed) (4 mm thick by 50 mm wide) (450/520 MPa) (750 mm)
(300 to 750 mm)
Welded Wire
Wire Wire Wire Wire Wire
Designation Area Diameter Area Diameter
in2 in. mm2 mm
W3.5 0.035 0.211 22.6 5.4 Fy/Fu 65/80 ksi (450/550 MPa)
W4 0.040 0.226 25.8 5.7 Longitudinal Typically 6 in. (150 mm)
W4.5* 0.045 0.239 29.0 6.0 Wire Spacing
W5 0.050 0.252 32.3 6.4 Transverse Typically varies 9 to 24 in.
W7 0.070 0.298 45.2 7.6 Wire Spacing (230 to 600 mm)
W9.5 0.095 0.348 61.3 8.8 Mat Spacing:
W11 0.110 0.374 71.0 9.5 For welded wire faced walls, vertically 12, 18 or 24 in.
(300, 450, or 600 mm) and continuous horizontally.
W12 0.120 0.391 77.4 9.9 For precast concrete faced walls, vertically 24 to 30 in.
W14 0.140 0.422 90.3 10.7 (600 to 750 mm), horizontally 3.6 to 4 ft. (1.1 to 1.2 m)
W16 0.160 0.451 103 11.5 wide mats spaced at 6.2 ft (1.9 m) center-to-center or
W20 0.200 0.505 129 12.8 continuous
*Typical min. size for permanent walls
Bar Mats
Wire Wire Wire Wire Wire
Designation Area Diameter Area Diameter
in2 in. mm2 mm
Fy/Fu 65/75 ksi (450/520 MPa)
W8 0.080 0.319 51.6 8.1 Longitudinal Typically 6 in. (150 mm) with
Wire Spacing 4 to 7 longitudinal bars per
mat
W11 0.110 0.374 71.0 9.5 Transverse Typically varies 6 to 24 in.
Wire Spacing (150 to 600 mm)
Mat Spacing:
W15 0.150 0.437 96.8 11.1 Mat Spacing:
Typically 30 in. (750 mm) vertically and 5 ft (1.5
m) center-to-center horizontally
W20 0.200 0.505 129 12.8
Specific wall manufacturers may be able to provide a much wider range of reinforcement
configurations depending on the design needs.
FHWA NHI-10-025 Appendix C – Steel Reinforcements

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II C –1 November 2009
FHWA NHI-10-025 Appendix C – Steel Reinforcements
MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II C –2 November 2009
APPENDIX D
DETERMINATION OF CREEP STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR, RFCR AND
DETERMINATION LONG-TERM ALLOWABLE STRENGTH, Tal
(after WSDOT Standard Practice T 925, Standard Practice for Determination
of Long-Term Strength for Geosynthetic Reinforcement)
D.1 BACKGROUND
The effect of long-term load/stress on geosynthetic reinforcement strength and deformation

characteristics should be determined from the results of product specific, controlled, long-
term laboratory creep tests conducted for a range of load levels and durations in accordance
with ASTM D5262 adequate for extrapolation purposed to the desired design life, carried out
to rupture when possible. Creep testing in accordance with ASTM D5262, but carried out to
rupture where feasible, is described herein as the “conventional method.” A limited number
of conventional creep tests may be supplemented and extended to longer creep rupture times
using ASTM D6992 (Stepped Isothermal Method, or SIM) as described in this appendix.
Specimens should be tested in the direction in which the load will be applied in use. Test
results should be extrapolated to the required structure design life. Based on the extrapolated
test results, the following is to be determined:
• For ultimate limit state design, the highest load level, designated T1, which precludes
both ductile and brittle creep rupture within the required lifetime.
• For the limit state design, creep test results should be extrapolated to the required
design life and design site temperature in general accordance with the procedures
outlined in this Appendix.
C In both cases, unless otherwise specified or mutually agreed upon by the geosynthetic
supplier, the testing laboratory, and the owner, a baseline testing temperature of 68o F
(20o C) shall be used for this testing. Higher test temperatures shall be considered as
elevated temperatures to be used for the purpose of time extrapolation. ASTM D5262
requires that the testing temperature be maintained at +3.6o F (2o C). For some polymers,
this degree of variance could significantly affect the accuracy of the shift factors and
extrapolations determined in accordance with this appendix. For polymers that are
relatively sensitive to temperature variations, this issue should be considered when
extrapolating creep data using time-temperature superposition techniques, or minimized
by using a tighter temperature tolerance.
FHWA NHI-10-025 Appendix D – Geosynthetic Creep Factor

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II D –1 November 2009
• The creep reduction factor, RFCR, is determined by comparing the long-term creep
strength, T1, to the ultimate tensile strength (ASTM D4595 for geotextiles, ASTM
D6637 for geogrids) of the sample tested for creep. The sample tested for ultimate
strength should be taken from the same lot, and preferably the same roll, of material
that is used for the creep testing. For ultimate limit state design, the strength
reduction factor to prevent long-term creep rupture is determined as follows:
Tultlot
RFCR  (D-1)
Tl
where, Tultlot is the average lot specific ultimate tensile strength (ASTM D4595) for
the lot of material used for the creep testing.
At present, creep tests are conducted in-isolation (ASTM D5262) rather than confined in-soil
(e.g., FHWA RD-97-143, Elias et al., 1998), even though in-isolation creep tests tend to
overpredict creep strains and underpredict the true creep strength when used in a structure.
Note that the procedures provided in this appendix are for in-isolation creep rupture testing.
Considering that typical design lives for permanent MSE structures are 75 years or more,
extrapolation of creep data is required. No standardized method of geosynthetic creep data
modeling and extrapolation exists at present, though a number of extrapolation and creep
modeling methods have been reported in the literature (Findley et al., 1976; Wilding and
Ward, 1978; Wilding and Ward, 1981, Takaku, 1981; McGown et al., 1984; Andrawes et al.,
1986; Murray and McGown, 1988; Bush, 1990; Popelar et al., 1991; Helwany and Wu,
1992). Many of the methods discussed in the literature are quite involved and
mathematically complex. Therefore, rather than attempting to develop mathematical models
which also have physical significance to characterize and extrapolate creep, as is often the
case in the literature (for example, using Rate Process Theory to develop rheological models
of the material), a simplified visual/graphical approach will be taken. This does not mean
that the more complex mathematical modeling techniques cannot be used to extrapolate creep
of geosynthetics; they are simply not outlined in this appendix.
The determination of T1 can be accomplished through the use of stress rupture data. Rupture
data is necessary to determine the creep reduction factor for ultimate limit state conditions..
Stress rupture test results, if properly accelerated and extrapolated can be used to investigate
the effects of stress cracking and the potential for a ductile to brittle transition to occur.
Since the primary focus of creep evaluation in current practice is at rupture, only
extrapolation of stress rupture data will be explained in this appendix. Creep strain data can

be used to estimate T1, provided that the creep strain data is not extrapolated beyond the
estimated long-term rupture strain. The use of rupture data, and not strain data, is
recommended. Therefore, no guidance is provided regarding extrapolation of creep strain
data to determine T1.
Single ribs for geogrids, or yarns or narrow width specimens for woven geotextiles may be
used for creep testing for ultimate limit state design provided that it can be shown through a
limited creep testing program (conducted as described in Section D.5) that the rupture
behavior and envelope for the single ribs, yarns, or narrow width specimens are the same as
that for the full product, with product width as defined in ASTM D5262. This comparison
must demonstrate that there is no statistical difference between the full width product creep
rupture regression line and the single rib, yarn, or narrow width specimen regression line at a
time of 1,000 hours using a student-t distribution at a confidence level of 0.10 (see Equation
D.3-1).
Considering that typical design lives for permanent MSE structures are 75 years or more,
extrapolation of creep data will be required. Current practice allows creep data to be
extrapolated up to one log cycle of time beyond the available data without some form of
accelerated creep testing, or possibly other corroborating evidence (Jewell and Greenwood,
1988; GRI, 1990). Based on this, unless one is prepared to obtain 7 to 10 years of creep data,
temperature accelerated creep data, or possibly other corroborating evidence, must be
obtained.
It is well known that temperature accelerates many chemical and physical processes in a
predictable manner. In the case of creep, this means that the creep strains under a given
applied load at a relatively high temperature and relatively short times will be approximately
the same as the creep strains observed under the same applied load at a relatively low
temperature and relatively long times. Temperature affects time to rupture at a given load in
a similar manner. This means that the time to a given creep strain or to rupture measured at
an elevated temperature can be made equivalent to the time expected to reach a given creep
strain or to rupture at in-situ temperature through the use of a time shift factor.
The ability to accelerate creep with temperature for polyolefins such as polypropylene (PP)
or high density polyethylene (HDPE) has been relatively well defined (Takaku, 1981; Bush,
1990; Popelar et al., 1991). Also for polyolefins, there is some risk that a "knee" in the stress
rupture envelope due to a ductile to brittle transition could occur at some time beyond the
available data (Popelar et al., 1991). Therefore, temperature accelerated creep data is
strongly recommended for polyolefins. However, in practice, a ductile to brittle transition for
polyolefin geosynthetic reinforcement products has so far not been observed, likely due to

the highly oriented nature of polymer resulting from the processing necessary to make fibers
and ribs. In general, the degree of orientation of the polymer is an important factor regarding
the potential for ductile to brittle transitions.
For polyester (PET) geosynthetics, available evidence indicates that temperature can also be
used to accelerate PET creep, based on data provided by den Hoedt et al., (1994) and others.
However, the creep rupture envelopes for PET geosynthetics tend to be flatter than polyolefin
creep rupture envelopes, and accurate determination of time-shift factors can be difficult for
PET geosynthetics because of this. This may require greater accuracy in the PET stress
rupture data than would be required for polyolefin geosynthetics to perform accurate
extrapolations using elevated temperature data. This should be considered if using elevated
temperature data to extrapolate PET stress rupture data. Note that a "knee" in the stress
rupture envelope of PET does not appear to be likely based on the available data and the
molecular structure of polyester.
If elevated temperature is used to obtain accelerated creep data, it is recommended that

minimum increments of 10o C be used to select temperatures for elevated temperature creep
testing. The highest temperature tested, however, should be below any transitions for the
polymer in question. If one uses test temperatures below 70 to75o C for polypropylene (PP),
high density polyethylene (HDPE), and PET geosynthetics, significant polymer transitions
will be avoided. If higher temperatures must be used, the effect of any transitions on the
creep behavior should be carefully evaluated. One should also keep in mind that at these
high temperatures, significant chemical interactions with the surrounding environment are
possible, necessitating that somewhat lower temperatures or appropriate environmental
controls be used. These chemical interactions are likely to cause the creep test results to be
conservative. Therefore, from the user's point of view, potential for chemical interactions is
not detrimental to the validity of the data for predicting creep limits. However, exposure to
temperatures near the upper end of these ranges could affect the stress-strain behavior of the
material due to loss of molecular orientation, or possibly other effects that are not the result
of chemical degradation. Therefore, care needs to be exercised when interpreting results from
tests performed at temperatures near the maximum test temperature indicated above. In
general, if the stiffness of the material after exposure to the environment is significantly
different from that of the virgin material, the stress-strain properties, and possibly the
strength, of the material may have been affected by the exposure temperature in addition to
the chemical environment. If the stiffness has been affected, the cause of the stiffness change
should be thoroughly investigated to determine whether or not the change in stiffness is
partially or fully due to the effect of temperature, or alternatively not use the data obtained at
and above the temperature where the stiffness was affected.

Unless otherwise specified or required by site-specific temperature data, an effective design
temperature of 20o C (Tamb) should be assumed.
A number of extrapolation and creep modeling methods have been reported in the literature
(Findley et al., 1976; Wilding and Ward, 1978; Wilding and Ward, 1981; Takaku, 1981;
McGown et al., 1984; Andrawes et al., 1986; Murray and McGown, 1988; Bush, 1990;
Popelar et al., 1991; Helwany and Wu, 1992). Many of the methods discussed in the
literature are quite involved and mathematically complex.
Two creep extrapolation techniques are provided herein for creep rupture evaluation: the
conventional method, which utilizes a simplified visual/graphical approach, temperature
acceleration of creep, regression techniques, and statistical extrapolation, and the Stepped
Isothermal Method (SIM). This does not mean that the more complex mathematical
modeling techniques cannot be used to extrapolate creep of geosynthetics; they are simply
not explained herein. These two techniques are described in more detail as follows:

RUPTURE DATA – CONVENTIONAL METHOD
Step 1: Plot the creep rupture data as log time to rupture versus log load level or versus load
level, as shown in Figure D.2-1. Do this for each temperature in which creep rupture data is
available. The plotting method that provides the best and most consistent fit of the data
should be used. In general, 12 to 18 data points (i.e., combined from all temperature levels
tested to produce the envelope for a given product, with a minimum of 4 data points at each
temperature) are required to establish a rupture envelope (Jewell and Greenwood, 1988;
ASTM D5262. 2007). The data points should be evenly distributed through each log cycle of
time. Rupture points with a time to rupture of less than 5 hours should in general not be
used, unless it can be shown that these shorter duration points are consistent with the rest of
the envelope (i.e., they do not contribute to non-linearity of the envelope). As a guide:
C three of the test results should have rupture times (not shifted by temperature
acceleration) of 10 to 100 hours,
C four of the test results should have rupture times between 100 and 1,000 hours, and
C four of the test results should have rupture times of 1,000 to 10,000 hours, with at least
one additional test result having a rupture time of approximately 10,000 hours (1.14
years) or more.
It is recommended that creep strain be measured as well as time to rupture, since the creep
strain data may assist with conventional time-temperature shifting and in identifying any
change in behavior that could invalidate extrapolation of the results.

100
T1
T1 < T2 < T3
80 T2
aT2
T3 aT3
Load Level, P (%)
60
40
20
0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Time to Rupture, t (hrs)
Figure D.2-1 Typical stress rupture data for geosynthetics and the determination of shift
factors for time-temperature superposition.
It is acceptable to establish rupture points for times of 10,000 hours or more by assuming that
specimens subjected to a given load level which have not yet ruptured to be near a state of
rupture. Therefore, the time to rupture for those particular specimens would be assumed
equal to the time the load has been in place. Note that this is likely to produce conservative
results.
Step 2: Extrapolate the creep rupture data. Elevated temperature creep rupture data can be
used to extrapolate the rupture envelope at the design temperature through the use of a time
shift factor, aT. If the rupture envelope is approximately linear as illustrated in Figure D.2-1,
the single time shift factor aT will be adequate to perform the time-temperature superposition.
This time-temperature superposition procedure assumes that the creep-rupture curves at all
temperatures are linear on a semi-logarithmic or double logarithmic scale and parallel. It has
been found empirically that the curves for PET are semi-logarithmic and approximately
parallel, or double logarithmic and approximately parallel in the case of HDPE and PP. It
should be pointed out that the theory of Zhurkov (1965), which assumes that the fracture

process is activated thermally with the additional effect of applied stress, predicts that the
creep-rupture characteristics should be straight when plotted on a double logarithmic
diagram, and that their gradients should be stress-dependent.
Use of a single time shift factor to shift all the creep rupture data at a given temperature,
termed “block shifting,” assumes that the shift factor aT is not highly stress level dependent
and that the envelopes at all temperatures are parallel, allowing an average value of aT to be
used for all of the rupture points at a given temperature. While research reported in the
literature indicates that aT may be somewhat stress level dependent and that the curves at all
temperatures are not completely parallel, this assumption tends to result in a more
conservative assessment of the creep reduction factor RFCR (Thornton and Baker, 2002).
The time to rupture for the elevated temperature rupture data is shifted in accordance with the
following equation:
t amb  (t elev ) (a T ) (D.2-1)
where, tamb is the predicted time at in-situ temperature to reach rupture under the specified
load, telev is the measured time at elevated temperature to reach a rupture under the specified
load, and aT is the time shift factor. aT can be approximately estimated using a
visual/graphical approach as illustrated in Figures D.2-1 and D.2-2. The preferred approach,
however, is to use a computer spreadsheet optimization program to select the best shift
factors for each constant temperature block of data to produce the highest R2 value for the
combined creep rupture envelope to produce the result in Figure D.2-2.
Note that incomplete tests may be included, with the test duration replacing the time to
rupture, but should be listed as such in the reported results, provided that the test duration,
after time shifting, is 10,000 hours or more. The rule for incomplete tests is as follows. The
regression should be performed with and without the incomplete tests included. If the
incomplete test results in an increase in the creep limit, keep the incomplete tests in the
regression, but if not, do not include them in the regression, in both cases for incomplete tests
that are 10,000 hours in duration after time shifting or more. Record the duration of the
longest test which has ended in rupture, or the duration of the longest incomplete test whose
duration exceeds its predicted time to failure: this duration is denoted as tmax.

100
T1
T1 < T2 < T3
80 T2
aT2
T3 aT3
Load Level, P (%)
60
Pd
40
20
tmax
td
0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Time to Rupture, t (hrs)
Figure D.2-2. Extrapolation of Stress Rupture Data and the Determination of the Creep
Limit Load.
It is preferred that creep rupture data be extrapolated statistically beyond the elevated
temperature time shifted data using regression analysis (i.e., curve fitting) up to a maximum
of one log cycle of time for all geosynthetic polymers (greater extrapolation using only
statistical methods is feasible, but uncertainty in the result increases substantially and must be
taken into account). Therefore, adequate elevated temperature data should be obtained to
limit the amount of statistical extrapolation required.
Also note that there may be situations where extrapolation to create a creep rupture envelope
at a lower temperature than was tested is necessary. Situations where this may occur include
the need to elevate the ambient temperature to have greater control regarding the temperature
variations during the creep testing (i.e., ambient laboratory temperature may vary too much),
or for sites where the effective design temperature is significantly lower than the “standard”
reference temperature used for creep testing (e.g., northern or high elevation climates). In
such cases, it is feasible to use lower bound shift factors based on previous creep testing
experience to allow the creep rupture envelope to be shifted to the lower temperature, as shift
factors for the materials typically used for geosynthetic reinforcement are reasonably
consistent. Based on previous creep testing experience and data reported in the literature

(Chow and Van Laeken, 1991; Thornton et al., 1998a; Thornton, et al., 1998b; Lothspeich
and Thornton, 2000; Takemura 1959; Bush, 1990; Popelar et al., 1990; Wrigley et al., 2000;
Takaku 1981; Thornton and Baker, 2002), shift factors for HDPE and PP geosynthetics are
typically in the range of 0.05 to 0.18 decades (i.e., log cycles of time) per 1o C increase in
temperature (i.e., a 10o C increase would result in a time shift factor of 12 to 15) and 0.05 to
0.12 decades per 1o C increase in temperature for PET geosynthetics. It is recommended that
if shifting the creep rupture envelope to temperatures below the available data is necessary,
that a shift factor of 0.05 decades per 1o C increase in temperature for PP, HDPE, and PET be
used. This default shift factor should not be used to shift the creep rupture data more than
10o C.
Step 3: Once the creep data has been extrapolated, determine the design, lot specific, creep
limit load by taking the load level at the desired design life directly from the extrapolated
stress rupture envelope as shown in Figure D.2-2. If statistical extrapolation beyond the time
shifted stress rupture envelopes (PP or HDPE), or beyond the actual data if temperature
accelerated creep data is not available, is necessary to reach the specified design life, the
calculated creep load T1 should be reduced by an extrapolation uncertainty factor as follows:
Pcl
Tl  (D.2-2)
1.2x1
where Pcl is the creep limit load taken directly from the extrapolated stress rupture envelope,
and "x" is the number of log cycles of time the rupture envelope must be extrapolated beyond
the actual or time shifted data, and is equal to log td – log tmax as illustrated in Figure D.2-2.
The factor (1.2)x-1 is the extrapolation uncertainty factor. If extrapolating beyond the actual
or time shifted data less than one log cycle, set “x-1” equal to “0”. This extrapolation
uncertainty factor only applies to statistical extrapolation beyond the actual or time shifted
data using regression analysis and assumes that a “knee” in the rupture envelope beyond the
actual or time shifted data does not occur.
Note that a condition on the extrapolation is that there is no evidence or reason to believe that
the rupture behavior will change over the desired design life. It should be checked that at
long durations, and at elevated temperatures if used:
 There is no apparent change in the gradient of the creep-rupture curve
 There is no evidence of disproportionately lower strains to failure
 There is no significant change in the appearance of the fracture surface.
Any evidence of such changes, particularly in accelerated tests, should lead to the exclusion
of any reading where either the gradient, strain at failure or appearance of the failure is
different to those in the test with the longest failure duration. Particular attention is drawn to

the behavior of unoriented thermoplastics under sustained load, where a transition in
behavior is observed in long-term creep-rupture testing (i.e., the so called “ductile to brittle
transition – Popelar et al., 1991). The effect of this transition is that the gradient of the creep-
rupture curve becomes steeper at the so-called “knee” such that long-term failures occur at
much shorter lifetimes than would otherwise be predicted. The strain at failure is greatly
reduced and the appearance of the fracture surface changes from ductile to semi-brittle. If
this is observed, any extrapolation should assume that the “knee” will occur. For the method
of extrapolation reference should be made to ISO/FDIS 9080 (2001), ASTM D5262 (2007),
and Popelar et al., (1991).
This extrapolation uncertainty factor also assumes that the data quality is good, data scatter is
reasonable, and that approximately 12 to 18 data points which are well distributed (see Step 1
for a definition of well distributed) defines the stress rupture envelope for the product. If
these assumptions are not true for the data in question, this uncertainty factor should be
increased. The uncertainty factor may also need to be adjusted if a method other than the one
presented in detail herein is used for extrapolation. This will depend on how well that method
compares to the method provided in this appendix. This extrapolation uncertainty factor
should be increased to as much as (1.4)x if there is the potential for a "knee" in the stress
rupture envelope to occur beyond the actual or time shift data, or if the data quality, scatter,
or amount is inadequate. Furthermore, if the data quantity or over the time scale is
inadequate, it may be necessary to begin applying the extrapolation uncertainty factor before
the end of the time shifted data.
Note that based on experience, the R2 value for the composite (i.e., time shifted) creep
rupture envelope should be approximately 0.8 to 0.9 or higher to be confident that Equation
B.2-3 will adequately address the extrapolation uncertainty. If the R2 value is less than
approximately 0.6 to 0.7, extrapolation uncertainty is likely to be unacceptably high, and
additional testing and investigation should be performed. In general, such low R2 values are
typically the result of data that is too bunched up, unusually high specimen-to-specimen
variability, or possibly poor testing technique.
D.3 PROCEDURES FOR EXTRAPOLATING CREEP RUPTURE DATA –

STEPPED ISOTHERMAL METHOD (SIM)
An alternative creep strain/rupture analysis and extrapolation approach that has recently
become available for geosynthetics is the Stepped Isothermal Method (SIM) proposed,
illustrated, and investigated by Thornton et al. (1997), Thornton et al. (1998a), Thornton et
al. (1998b), and Thornton and Baker (2000). SIM has been applied successfully to PET

geogrids and PP geotextiles. SIM utilizes an approach similar to the Williams-Landell-Ferry,
or WLF, approach to creep extrapolation (Ferry, 1980), where master creep curves for a
given material are produced from a series of short-term tests (i.e., creep test durations on the
order of a few hours) on the same specimen over a wide range of temperatures (i.e., while the
load on the specimen is held constant, the temperature is increased in steps). The sections of
creep curve at the individual temperatures are shifted in time and combined to form a
continuous prediction of the creep strain at the starting temperature.
Though the general principles of this method have been in use for many years in the polymer
industry (Ferry, 1980), it has been only recently that this approach has been used for
geosynthetics. Though this approach was initially developed to extrapolate creep strain data,
it has been adapted to produce stress rupture data by taking the specimen to rupture once the
highest test temperature is reached. In effect, through time shifting of the creep strain data
obtained prior to rupture, the rupture point obtained has an equivalent shifted time that is
several orders of magnitude greater than the actual test time, which could be on the order of
only a few days.
The method is conducted in accordance with ASTM D6992. Key issues are the very short
test time used for this method, potential use of temperatures that are well above transitions in
the geosynthetic material, and its complexity. Key technical advantages of the method,
however, include more accurate determination of time shift factors, since the same specimen
is used at the same load level at all of the temperatures (the “conventional” method must deal
with the effect of specimen to specimen variability when determining the shift factors), and
that time shift factors between temperatures are determined at the same load level,
eliminating the effect of load level in the determination of the shift factors (in the
“conventional” method, the shift factors used are in fact an average value for a wide range of
loads).
SIM can be considered for use in generating and extrapolating geosynthetic creep and creep
rupture data provided this method is shown to produce results which are consistent with the
“conventional” extrapolation techniques recommended in this appendix. To this end, creep-
rupture testing shall be conducted using conventional tests (ASTM D5262) and SIM tests
(ASTM D6992). At least six SIM rupture tests and six conventional rupture tests and shall
be conducted on one of the products in the product line being evaluated. Of the six SIM
rupture tests, four shall have rupture times (shifted as appropriate) between 100 and 2000
hours and two shall have rupture times greater than 2000 hours. All of the conventional
creep rupture points shall be obtained at the reference temperature (i.e., not temperature
shifted). Creep rupture plots shall be constructed, regression lines computed and the log
times to rupture determined at a load level that corresponds to 1,000 hours and 50,000 hours

on the conventional creep rupture envelope, for the two data sets. The log time to rupture for
the SIM regression at this load level shall be within the upper and lower 90% confidence
limits of the mean conventional regressed rupture time at the same load level using Student’s
t test.
The following minimum creep rupture data points are recommended where conventional and
SIM data points are used in combination:
C 4 conventional rupture and 4 SIM rupture data points between 100 and 2,000 hours
(after shifting)
C 2 conventional and 2 SIM rupture data points between 2,000 and ~10,000 hours
(after shifting), with
o 1 conventional rupture data point at ~10,000 hours or greater with 1 SIM
rupture data point at ~10,000 hours or greater (after shifting); OR
o 2 conventional rupture data points at ~10,000 hours or greater without SIM
data point at ~10,000 hours or greater (after shifting)
The confidence limit for the regression performed for the conventional creep rupture data is
given by (Wadsworth, 1998):
log t L  log t reg


 t ,n  2
1

P  P
2
 
 
 
(D.3-1)
 
 Pi  P
2
n
 
and
 P  P log t  log t  2
 log t  log t  
2 i i
 P  P 
i 2 (D.3-2)
  i
n2
where:
log tL = lower and upper bound confidence limit. The + or – term in Equation B.2-1
results in the lower and upper bound confidence limits, respectively.
treg = time corresponding to the load level from the conventional creep rupture
envelope at which the comparison between the two envelopes will be made
(e.g., at 1,000 and 50,000 hrs after time shifting)
t,n-2 = value of the t distribution determined from applicable Student t table (or
from the Microsoft EXCEL function TINV(,n-2)) at  = 0.10 and n-2
degrees of freedom (this corresponds to the 90% two-sided prediction limit).
n = the number of rupture or allowable run-out points in the original test sample
(i.e., the conventional creep rupture data)

P = load level obtained at treg from the regression line developed from the
conventional creep rupture testing
P = the mean rupture load level for the original test sample (i.e., all rupture or run-
out points used in the regression to establish the conventional creep rupture
envelope)
Pi = the rupture load level of the i’th point for the rupture points used in the
regression for establishing the conventional creep rupture envelope
log t = the mean of the log of rupture time for the original test sample (i.e., all rupture
or run-out points used in the regression to establish the conventional creep
rupture envelope)
ti = the rupture time of the i’th point for the rupture points used in the regression
for establishing the conventional creep rupture envelope
Once log tL, both upper and lower bound, has been determined at the specified load level,
compare these values to the log rupture time (i.e., log tSIM) obtained for the SIM creep rupture
envelope test at the specified load level (e.g., 1,000 and 50,000 hours). The value of log tSIM
at the two specified load levels must be between the upper and lower bound confidence limits
(log tL). If this requirement is not met, perform two additional SIM tests at each load level P
for the specified treg where this comparison was made and develop a new SIM creep rupture
envelope using all of the SIM data. If for the revised SIM regression envelope resulting from
these additional tests this criterion is still not met, perform adequate additional conventional
creep rupture testing to establish the complete rupture envelope for the product in accordance
with this appendix).
If the criterion provided above is met, the SIM testing shall be considered to be consistent
with the conventional data, and SIM may be used in combination with the conventional data
to meet the requirements of Section D.2 regarding the number of rupture points and their
distribution in time and maximum duration. Therefore, the combined data can be used to
create the creep rupture envelope as shown in Figure D.2-2. In that figure, the SIM data shall
be considered to already be time shifted. Equation D.2-3 is then used to determine Tl.
D.4 DETERMINATION OF RFCR
Step 4: The creep reduction factor, RFCR, is determined by comparing the long-term creep
strength, T1, to the ultimate tensile strength (ASTM D4595 or ASTM D6637) of the sample
tested for creep (Tlot). The sample tested for ultimate tensile strength should be taken from
the same lot, and preferably the same roll, of material that is used for the creep testing. For

ultimate limit state design, the strength reduction factor to prevent long-term creep rupture is
determined as follows:
Tultlot
RFCR  (D.4-1)
Tl
where, Tultlot is the average lot specific ultimate tensile strength (ASTM D4595 or ASTM
D6637) for the lot of material used for the creep testing. Note that this creep reduction factor
takes extrapolation uncertainty into account, but does not take into account variability in the
strength of the material. Material strength variability is taken into account when RFCR, along
with RFID and RFD, are applied to Tult to determine the long-term allowable tensile strength,
as Tult is a minimum average roll value. The minimum average roll value is essentially the
value that is two standard deviations below the average value.
D.5 USE OF CREEP DATA FROM "SIMILAR" PRODUCTS and EVALUATION

OF PRODUCT LINES
Long-term creep data obtained from tests performed on older product lines, or other products
within the same product line, may be applied to new product lines, or a similar product
within the same product line, if one or both of the following conditions are met:
C The chemical and physical characteristics of tested products and proposed products are
shown to be similar. Research data, though not necessarily developed by the product
manufacturer, should be provided which shows that the minor differences between the
tested and the untested products will result in equal or greater creep resistance for the
untested products.
C A limited testing program is conducted on the new or similar product in question and
compared with the results of the previously conducted full testing program.
For polyolefins, similarity could be judged based on molecular weight and structure of the
main polymer (i.e., is the polymer branched or crosslinked, is it a homopolymer or a blend,
percent crystallinity, etc.?), percentage of material reprocessed, tenacity of the fibers and
processing history, and polymer additives used (i.e., type and quantity of antioxidants or
other additives used). For polyesters and polyamides, similarity could be judged based on
molecular weight or intrinsic viscosity of the main polymer, carboxyl end group content,
percent crystallinity, or other molecular structure variables, tenacity of the fibers and
processing history, percentage of material reprocessed or recycled, and polymer additives

used (e.g., pigments, etc.). The untested products should also have a similar macrostructure
(i.e., woven, nonwoven, extruded grid, needlepunched, yarn structure, etc.) and fiber
dimensions (e.g., thickness) relative to the tested products. It should be noted that percent
crystallinity is not a controlled property and there is presently no indication of what an
acceptable value for percent crystallinity should be.
For creep evaluation of a similar product not part of the original product line, this limited
testing program should include creep tests taken to at least 1,000 to 2,000 hours in length
before time shifting if using the “conventional” creep testing approach, with adequate
elevated temperature data to permit extrapolation to 50,000 hours or more. If it has been
verified that SIM can be used, in accordance with Section D.3, durations after time shifting
due to elevated temperature up to a minimum of 50,000 hours are required. A minimum of 4
data points per temperature level tested should be obtained to determine time shift factors and
to establish the envelope for the similar product. These limited creep test results must show
that the performance of the similar product is equal to or better than the performance of the
product previously tested. This comparison must demonstrate that there is no statistical
difference between the old product regression line and the regression line obtained for the
similar product at a time of 2,000 hours (not temperature accelerated) and 50,000 hours (after
time shifting) using a student-t distribution at a confidence level of 0.10 (see Equation D.3-
1). If no statistical difference is observed, the results from the full testing program on the
older or similar product could be used for the new/similar product. If this is not the case, then
a full testing and evaluation program for the similar product should be conducted.
Similarly, for extension of the creep data obtained on one product in the product line (i.e., the
primary product tested, which is typically a product in the middle of the range of products in
the product line) to the entire product line as defined herein, a limited creep testing program
must be conducted on at least two additional products in the product line. The combination
of the three or more products must span the full range of the product line in terms of weight
and/or strength. The limited test program described in the preceding paragraph should be
applied to each additional product in the product line. The loads obtained for the data in each
envelope should then be normalized by the lot specific ultimate tensile strength, Tlot. All
three envelopes should plot on top of one another, once normalized in this manner, and the
two additional product envelopes should be located within the confidence limits for the
product with the more fully developed creep rupture envelope (i.e., the “primary” product) as
described above for “similar” products. If this is the case, then the creep reduction factor for
the product line shall be the lesser of the reduction factor obtained for the product with the
fully developed rupture envelope and the envelope of all three products combined, and
normalization using the ultimate tensile strength shall be considered acceptably accurate.

If this is not the case, then the creep rupture envelopes for the other two products, plus
enough other products within the product line, to establish the trend in RFCR as a function of
product weight or ultimate tensile strength, so that the RFCR for the other products within the
product line can be accurately interpolated. Furthermore, Tal must be determined in
accordance with the following:
Note that normalization using the ultimate lot specific tensile strength may not be completely
accurate for some geosynthetic products regarding characterization of creep rupture behavior,
and other normalization techniques may be needed (Wrigley et al., 1999). In such cases,
individual creep reduction factors for each product in the product line may need to be
established through fully developed creep rupture envelopes for representative products
obtained at the low, middle, and high strength end of the product series. Once the creep
limited strength, Pcl and the creep reduction factors are established for each product, in this
case, product variability must still be taken into account. In such cases, Tal must be the lesser
of the determination from Equation 1 and the following determination:
P95
T al 
RFID  RFD
where,
P95 = the tensile strength determined from the 95% lower bound prediction limit for
the creep rupture envelope at the specified design life (see Equations 4 and 5 in
“Quality Assurance (QA) Criteria for Comparison to Initial Product
Acceptance Test Results”)
D.6 CREEP EXTRAPOLATION EXAMPLES USING STRESS RUPTURE DATA
A creep extrapolation example using stress rupture data is provided. The example uses
hypothetical stress rupture data, which is possible for PET geosynthetics, to illustrate the
simplest extrapolation case.
D.6.1 Stress Rupture Extrapolation Example
The following example utilizes hypothetical stress rupture data for a PET geosynthetic. The
data provided in this example is for illustration purposes only.
Given: A PET geosynthetic proposed for use as soil reinforcement in a geosynthetic MSE
wall. A design life of 1,000,000 hours is desired. The manufacturer of the geogrid has
provided stress rupture data at one temperature for use in establishing the creep limit for the
material. The stress rupture data came from the same lot of material as was used for the wide

width load-strain tests. The wide width ultimate strength data for the lot is as provided in
Figure D.6-1. The stress rupture data is provided in Figure D.6-2.
Find: The long-term creep strength, T1, at a design life of 1,000,000 hours and a design
temperature of 20o C, and the design reduction factor for creep, RFCR using the stress rupture
data.
Solution: The step-by-step procedures provided for stress rupture data extrapolation will be
followed. Step 1 has already been accomplished (Figure D.6-2).
Step 2: Extrapolate the stress rupture data. Use regression analysis to establish the best fit
line through the stress rupture data. Extend the best fit line to 1,000,000 hours as shown in
Figure D.6-2.
Step 3: Determine the design, lot specific, creep limit load from the stress rupture envelope
provided in Figure D.6-2. The load taken directly from the rupture envelope at 1,000,000
hours is 63.4 kN/m. This value has been extrapolated 1.68 log cycles beyond the available
data. Using Equation D.4,
Tl  63.4 kN/m / 1.21.68  1  56.0 kN/m
Step 4: The strength reduction factor to prevent long-term creep rupture RFCR is determined
as follows (see Equation D.1):
Tultlot
RFCR 
Tl
where, Tutlot is the average lot specific ultimate tensile strength for the lot material used for
creep testing. From Figure D.6-1, Tutlot is 110 kN/m. Therefore,
RFCR  110 kN/m / 56.0 kN/m  2.0
In summary, using rupture based creep extrapolation, T1 = 56.0 kN/m, and RFCR = 2.0

Figure D.6-1 Wide width load-strain data for PET geosynthetic at 20 C.

Figure D.6-2 Stress rupture data for PET geosynthetic at 20 C.
D.7 RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE Tal

(after WSDOT Standard Practice T 925, Standard Practice for Determination of Long-Term
Strength for Geosynthetic Reinforcement)
The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications provide minimum requirements for the
assessment of Tal for use in the design of geosynthetic reinforced soil structures. A
framework for the use of installation damage, creep, and durability test data that can be
obtained from available ASTM, ISO, and GRI test standards to determine RFID, RFCR, and
RFD is presented below. This protocol should be used to establish values of RFID, RFCR, and
RFD that are not project or site specific, that can applied to the typical situations a given
agency or owner will face. These reduction factors could then be applied to most design
situations. Using this approach, a generalized step-by-step procedure to determine these
reduction factors is as follows:

1. Characterize the typical environment to which the geosynthetic reinforcement will be
exposed during installation and throughout its life. Key environmental parameters to
be considered include the soil gradation and its angularity above and below the
geosynthetic layers (RFID), likely backfill placement procedures (RFID), in-soil
“average” site temperature to be used for design (RFCR and RFD), backfill pH range
likely to be present (RFD), potential exposure to sunlight, in particular UV light, and
special soil conditions that may affect aging, such as summarized in Table 3-9 (RFD).
“Average” site temperature to be used for design is defined as the temperature which
is halfway between the average yearly air temperature and normal daily air
temperature for the highest month at the site. This site temperature definition is
considered to be a conservative estimation of the average effective temperature in the
soil. Note that at the connection between the soil reinforcement and the facing
elements, the temperature could be significantly higher than this, especially if the
facing has a southern exposure.
2. To determine RFCR, conduct laboratory creep tests as described previously, using the
“average” site temperature as the baseline test temperature. For those located in the
northern tier of states within the USA, in most cases, it is sufficiently accurate, and a
little conservative, to use a default baseline temperature of 20o C. For those located
in the southern reaches of the U.S., where “average” in-soil temperatures could
approach 30o C or higher, a higher baseline temperature should be used. Using the
creep test results and time-temperature superposition to shift elevated temperature
creep data to the baseline temperature timescale (see following section), create a
creep rupture envelope for the baseline temperature, making sure that the rupture
envelope extends out to the desired design life (typically 75 years). If necessary,
extrapolate the envelope to the design life beyond the time shifted data using
regression analysis techniques.
3. To determine RFD, conduct the index durability tests described previously and as
summarized in Table 3-11, provided that the environment to which the geosynthetic
will be exposed during its life (i.e., step 1 above) is within the boundaries of
conditions to which the index test results are applicable. These environment
boundaries are as follows:
 Granular soils (sands, gravels) used in the reinforced volume.

 pH as determined by AASHTO T289 ranging from 4.5 < pH < 9 for
permanent applications and 3 < pH < 10 for temporary applications
 Site temperature < 85o F (30o C) for permanent applications and < 95o F (35o
C) for temporary applications
 Maximum backfill particle size of ¾-inch (19 mm), unless full scale
installation damage tests conducted in accordance with ASTM D5818 are

available and indicate that RFID for the site backfill soil and geosynthetic
combination is less than 1.7, and
 Soil organic content, as determined by AASHTO T267 for material finer than
the 0.0787 in. (No. 10) sieve < 1 percent.
Site conditions not within these boundaries should be considered to be aggressive

with regard to the determination of RF. If the test results meet the established criteria
to consider the geosynthetic adequately durable, a default value for RFD as specified
herein may be used. If the index test results do not meet the specified criteria, or if
the anticipated environment is likely to be outside the boundaries applicable to the
index tests, long-term durability tests such as described by Elias et al. (2009) should
be considered to determine RFD directly.
4. To determine RFID, field expose samples of the geosynthetic to three or more
different fill materials that encompass the range of soil conditions likely to be
encountered. For state agencies, the selection of backfill gradations could be tied to
the standard backfill materials used for reinforced walls and slopes by the agency.
Once the samples exposed to installation stresses are tested to determine tensile
strength loss for each backfill condition, the tensile strength loss and RFID could be
plotted as a function of a key gradation parameter, such as the d50 size, to enable
selection of RFID for the specific backfill gradation being considered.
The four step approach provided above is also applicable to specifically target the
determination of these reduction factors to a specific site environment. The most common
adaptation for targeting a site specific condition is to conduct installation damage tests using
the actual backfill material to be used in the reinforced soil structure. The value of RFID
derived from that site specific testing is then used with the values of RFCR and RFD
determined as described in the above four step process. Site specific determination of RFCR,
primarily in consideration of a site specific baseline temperature, can also be accomplished,
provided that adequate creep data is available to establish a rupture envelope for the site
specific baseline temperature (assuming that site specific temperature is significantly
different from the baseline temperature used for the available creep test data). If inadequate
creep rupture data is available to accomplish that, it is generally cost and time prohibitive to
conduct a new suite of creep tests targeted to the site specific temperature as a baseline.
Also, determination of RFD for site specific conditions is time and cost prohibitive and is
rarely done, as such testing typically takes one to two years or more to complete.
Once the reduction factors are determined, then Tal can be determined in accordance with
Equation 3-12 and used to design the geosynthetic structure (see Chapter 4).

APPENDIX E
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
This appendix presents ten example problems that illustrate the application of the various
equations and principles for design of MSE walls and slopes discussed in Chapters 2 to 8.
The ten example problems were chosen to encompass a variety of geometries, soil
reinforcements, and loading conditions. The first seven examples are for MSE walls, and
the final three examples are for reinforced soil slopes (RSS). A summary of the example
problems is included in Table E0.
Table E0
Summary of Example Problems
No. Problem Description
MSE Walls
E1 Modular Block Wall (MBW) Faced MSE wall with broken back sloping fill and live
load surcharge, reinforced with geogrids
E2 Bearing check for sloping toe conditions, with and without high groundwater
E3 Segmental precast panel MSE wall with sloping backfill surcharge, reinforced with
steel strips
E4 Segmental precast panel MSE wall with level backfill and live load surcharge,
reinforced with steel bar mats
E5 Bridge abutment with spread footing on top of a segmental precast panel faced MSE
wall with steel strips
E6 Example E4 with traffic barrier impact loading
E7 Example E4 with seismic loading
RSS
E8 Road widening
E9 High slope for new road construction
E10 Facing stability calculation
MSE Wall Examples:

While using LRFD methodology care has to be taken in using the correct load factors and
load combinations. There are several different ways in which the computations using LRFD
can be performed. As noted in Chapter 4, for simple problem geometries the critical loading
conditions can be readily identified while for complex geometries this may not be possible
because the critical load effects due to various combinations of maximum and minimum
loads may not be clear without performing all the intermediate computations for various load
FHWA NHI-10-025 Appendix E – Example Calculations

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II E –1 November 2009
factors. Therefore, the MSE wall example problems in this appendix have been solved in the
following two formats:
Format A: In this format designs are developed based on critical load combinations that
are readily identifiable based on the problem geometry. This format is used in
Example E1.
Format B: In this format, the computations for load effects are first performed using
maximum load factors and minimum load factors. Then, using the values
computed for maximum and minimum load combinations, the critical load
effects are obtained by suitably combining the maximum and minimum loads.
This format is used in Examples E2, E3 and E4.
Format B involves more computations than Format A. However, in the LRFD context,
Format B is essential while evaluating MSE walls with complex geometries such as those
discussed in Chapter 6. This is because the critical combination of various loads may not be
readily apparent until the complex system of surcharges on and within the MSE walls are
analyzed with applicable maximum and minimum load factors.
Rather than introduce the more comprehensive Format B in Example E5 which addresses a
case of complex geometry, a conscious attempt was made to first introduce Format B with
respect to relatively simpler geometries. Thus, Example E3 and E4 have been solved with
Format B. Example E3 is similar to Example E1 in the sense that they both include sloping
backfill. Thus, the reader can develop a good feel for the design using both formats. Then,
in Example E5 it will become evident that Format B represents a more logical way of
handling complex geometries.
Format B also permits easier incorporation of extreme events such as vehicular impact and
seismic events as demonstrated in Examples E6 and E7, respectively. Format B will also
provide a more adaptable solution scheme in the event that load factors are modified and/or
additional recommendations are developed for load combinations in future versions of
AASHTO.
FHWA NHI-10-025 Appendix E – Example Calculations

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II E –2 November 2009
EXAMPLE E1
MBW UNIT FACED, MSE WALL WITH BROKEN BACKSLOPE AND
LIVE LOAD SURCHARGE, REINFORCED WITH GEOGRIDS
E1-1 INTRODUCTION
This example problem demonstrates the analysis of an MSE wall with a broken backslope
and live load traffic surcharge. The MSE wall is faced with modular block wall (MBW)
units and has geogrid soil reinforcements. The MSE wall configuration to be analyzed is
shown in Figure E.1-1.
This MSE wall is (assumed to be) a “simple” structure and, therefore, is analyzed with the
load factors that typically control external stability analyses (see Figure 4-1). The design
steps used in these calculations follow the basic design steps presented in Table 4-3, of
which, the primary steps are presented in Table E1-1. Each of the steps and sub-steps are
sequential. Therefore, if the design is revised at any step or sub-step the previous
computations need to be re-examined. Each step and sub-step follow.
Figure E.1-1 Configuration of example problem E1.
FHWA NHI-10-025 Example E1 – Broken Backslope & Traffic

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II E1 – 1 November 2009
Table E.1-1. Primary Design/Analysis Steps
Step 3. Estimate Wall Embedment Depth, Design
Height(s), and Reinforcement Length
Step 4 Define unfactored loads
Step 5 Summarize Load Combinations, Load Factors,
and Resistance Factors
Step 11. Design Wall Drainage Systems
C Geometry
o Exposed wall height above finished grade, He = 18 ft
o MBW unit facing, with 3 batter
o 2H:1V broken backslope, 9 feet high
o Level toe slope
C Loading Conditions
o Broken back slope
o Traffic surcharge
o No loads from adjacent structures
o No seismic
o No traffic barrier impact
C Performance Criteria
o Design code – AASHTO/FHWA LRFD
o Maximum tolerable differential settlement = 1/200
o Design life = 100 years

C Subsurface conditions
o Foundation soil, 'f = 30°, f = 125 pcf
o Factored Bearing resistance of foundation soil

For service limit consideration, qnf-ser = 7.50 ksf for 1-inch of total settlement

For strength limit consideration, qnf-str = 10.50 ksf

No groundwater influence
C Reinforced wall fill, 'r = 34°, r = 125 pcf, pH = 7.3, maximum size ¾-inch
C Retained backfill, 'b = 30°, b = 125 pcf
Step 3. Estimate Wall Embedment Depth and Reinforcement Length
The minimum embedment depth = H/20 for walls with horizontal ground in front of wall, see
Table 2-1; i.e., 0.9 ft for exposed wall height of 18 ft. Therefore, use minimum embedment
depth of 2.0 ft. Thus, design height of the wall, H = 20 ft.
Due to the 2H:1V backslope and traffic surcharge on the retained backfill, the initial length
of reinforcement is assumed to be 0.9H or 18 ft. This length will be verified as part of the
design process.
Step 4 – Define Unfactored Loads
The primary sources of external loading on an MSE wall are the earth pressure from the
retained backfill behind the reinforced zone and any surcharge loadings above the reinforced
zone. The 3 batter is a near vertical face, therefore assume a vertical face and that the MSE
wall acts as a rigid body with earth pressures developed on a vertical pressure plane at the
back end of the reinforcements. Estimate the earth pressures on wall for the broken
backslope condition as shown in Figure 4-4 (reproduced below) and with Equations 4-2 and
4-3.
From figure:
H = 20.0 ft
2H = 40.0 ft
Height of slope = 9 ft
Therefore, angle I = arctan (9/40) = 12.7
Slope crest is at the end of the reinforcement length, therefore, h = 20 + 9 = 29 ft

2007).
Using Eq. 4-3, and  = I ,  = I,  for vertical and near vertical wall face, and b = 30
2
sin30  12.7  sin30  12.7  
2
 sin (b' +  ) sin (b' -  )  
 = 1 +   1    2.133
 sin ( -  ) sin ( +  )   sin90  12.7  sin90  12.7  
The external lateral pressure coefficient, Kab, using Eq. 4-2, is equal to:
sin ( + b )
2 '
sin 2 90  30 
K ab =   0.360
 sin 2  sin ( -  ) 2.133 sin 2 90  sin 90  12.7 

Traffic Load
The traffic load is on the level surface of the retained backfill. For external stability, traffic
load for walls parallel to traffic have an equivalent height of soil, heq equal to 2.0 ft.
Unfactored Loads:
F1 = ½ b h2 Kab = ½ (125 pcf) (29 ft)2 (0.360) = 18.92 k/lft

FH1 = F1 cos I = 18.92 k/lft (cos 12.7) = 18.46 k/lft
FV1 = F1 sin I = 18.92 k/lft (sin 12.7) = 4.16 k/lft
q = 2.0 ft (125 pcf) = 250 psf

F2 = q h Kab = 250 psf (29 ft) (0.360) = 2.61 k/lft
V1 = r H L = 125 pcf (20 ft) (18 ft) = 45.00 k/lft

V2 = ½ r L (h – H) = ½ (125 pcf) (18 ft) (29 ft – 20 ft) = 10.12 k/lft
Step 5. Summarize Load Combinations, Load Factors, and Resistance Factors
The design requires checking Strength I and Service I limit states. This is a simple wall.
Note that examination of only the critical loading combination, as described in Section 4.2, is
sufficient for simple walls. Load factors typically used for MSE walls are listed in Tables 4-
1 and 4-2. Load factors applicable to this problem are listed in Table E1-5.1.
Table E1-5.1. Summary of applicable load factors

Load Factors
Load Combination
EV ES EH
Strength I (maximum) 1.35 1.50 1.50
Strength I (minimum) 1.00 0.75 0.90
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00
Resistance factors for external stability and for internal stability are summarized in Table E1-
5.2, see Tables 4-6 and 4-8 for more detail and AASHTO reference.

Table E1-5.2. Summary of applicable resistance factors for evaluation of resistances
Item Resistance Factor
Sliding of MSE wall on foundation soil s = 1.00
Bearing resistance b = 0.65
Tensile resistance and connectors for
t = 0.90
geosynthetic reinforcement – static
Pullout resistance – static p = 0.90
The external stability is a function of the various forces and moments that are shown in
Figure E1-2. In the LRFD context the forces and moments need to be categorized into
various load types. For this example problem, the primary load types are soil loads (EV, EH
and ES).
6.1 Evaluate Sliding Stability
This is a simple wall and, therefore, which load factor – minimum or maximum – is readily
identified, see Figure E1.6-1 below (or Figure 4-1) for load factors for sliding and
eccentricity checks.
E.1.6-1 Typical load factors for sliding stability and eccentricity check.
The factored resistance against failure by sliding (RR) can be estimated with Eq. 4-4:
RR =  R

1) Calculate nominal thrust, per unit width, acting on the back of the reinforced zone. From
Step 4:
FH1 = 18.46 k/lft
FH2 = 2.55 k/lft
2) Calculate the nominal and the factored horizontal driving forces. For a broken back slope
and uniform live load surcharge, use Equations 4-9, 4-10, and 4-11 to calculate the
factored driving force. Use the maximum load factors of EH = 1.50 and LS = 1.75 in
these equations because it creates the maximum driving force effect for the sliding limit
state.
Pd  γ EH FH1  γ LS FH2
Pd  γ EH FH1   LS F2  1.50 18.46   1.75 2.55   27.69  4.46  32.15 k/lft
3) Assume that the critical sliding failure is along the foundation soil. Thus, the frictional
property is tan 'f. Since this is a sheet type of reinforcement, sliding should also be
checked at the elevation of the first layer of soil reinforcement (and applicable height).
  tan f  tan 30   0.577
4) Calculate the nominal components of resisting force and the factored resisting force per
unit length of wall. The minimum EV load factor (= 1.00) is used because it results in
minimum resistance for the sliding limit state. The maximum EH and LS load factors are
used to stay consistent with factors used to calculate the driving forces. The factored
resistance, Rr, is equal to:
R r  [ γ EV ( V1  V2 )  γ EH (FV1 )   LS (FV2 )]  μ
R r  1.00 (45.00  10.12 k/lft)  1.50 (4.16 k/lft)  1.75 (0.57) (0.577)
R r  (55.12  6.24  1.00) (0.577)  36.0 k/lft
5) Compare factored sliding resistance, Rr, to the factored driving force, Pd, to check that
resistance is greater. If the CDR < 1.0, increase the reinforcement length, L, and repeat
the calculations. The sliding capacity demand ratio is:
Rr 36.0 k/lft
CDR S    1.12  O.K.
Pd 32.15 k/lft

6.2 Eccentricity Limit Check
The system of forces for checking the eccentricity at the base of the wall is shown on Figure
E1.6-2. The weight and width of the wall facing is neglected in the calculations.
Sum the factored moments about the centerline of the wall zone, with the loads as previously
defined and moment arms as shown in Figure E1.6-1. This is a simple wall and, therefore,
which load factor – minimum or maximum – is readily identified, see Figure 4-1, and are the
same as used for the sliding check.
Figure E1.6-2 Forces for eccentricity check.
e 
M O  M R
V
 EH-MAX FH1 9.67 ft    LS FH2 14.5 ft    EV  MIN V1 0   EV  MIN V2 3 ft    EH-MAX FV1   LS FV2 9 ft 
e
 EV -MIN V1   EV MIN V2   EH  MAX FV1   LS FV2

1.50 18.469.67 ft   1.752.55 14.5 ft   1.0045.00 0   1.0010.12 3 ft   1.504.16   1.750.57 9 ft 
e
1.0045.00  1.0010.12  1.504.16  1.750.57 
267.8 k - ft  64.70 k - ft  0  30.36 k - ft  65.14 k - ft 237.00 k - ft

e   3.80 ft
45.00 k  10.12 k  6.24 k  1.00 k 62.36 k
Check that e < L/4:
L 18
  4.5 ft e  3.80  4.50 ft  O.K.
4 4
6.3 Evaluate Bearing on Foundation
This step, 6.3, requires a different computation of the eccentricity value computed in Step 6.2
because different, i.e., maximum in lieu of minimum, load factor(s) are used. This is a
simple wall and, therefore, which load factor – minimum or maximum – is readily identified,
see Figure E1.6-3 below (or Figure 4-1) for load factors for bearing check.
E.1.6-1 Typical load factors for bearing check.

1) Calculate the eccentricity, eB, of the resulting force at the base of the wall. The e value
from the eccentricity check, Step 6.a, cannot be used, calculate eB with factored loads.
The maximum load factors for EH and EV are used to be consistent with the computation
for v (below) where maximum load factors results in the maximum vertical stress.
 EH -MAX FH1 9.67 ft    LS FH2 14.5 ft    EV  MAX V1 0    EV  MAX V2 3 ft    EH -MAX FV1   LS FV2 9 ft 
eB 
 EV -MAX V1   EV  MAX V2   EH  MAX FV1   LS FV2
1.50 18.46 9.67 ft   1.752.55 14.5 ft   1.3545.00 0   1.3510.12 3 ft   1.504.16   1.750.57 9 ft 
eB 
1.3545.00   1.3510.12   1.504.16   1.750.57 

eB    2.77 ft
60.75 k  13.66 k  6.24 k  1.00 k 81.65 k
distribution. Maintain consistency with loads and load factors used in the eccentricity
calculation and corresponding bearing stress calculation.
σV 
V
L  2e B
For this wall with a broken backslope and traffic surcharge the factored bearing stress is:
γ EV -MAX V1  γ EV -MAX V2  γ EH-MAX FV1  γ LS FV2

q V -F 
L  2e B
81.65 k/lft
q V -F   6.55 ksf
18 ft  22.77 ft 
3) Determine the nominal bearing resistance, qn, see Eq. 4-22.

The nominal bearing resistance for strength limit state was provided. qn-str = 10.50 ksf

4) Compute the factored bearing resistance, qR. The resistance factor, , for MSE walls is
equal to 0.65 (see Table E1-5.2). The factored bearing resistance (qR or qnf-str) was given
in Step 2 as equal to 10.50 ksf. (see Eq. 4-23) as:
qR =  qn
qR = 10.50 ksf
5) Compare the factored bearing resistance, qR, to the factored bearing stress, V-F, to check
that the resistance is greater.
qR 10.50 ksf
CDR S    1.60  O.K.
 V -F 6.55 ksf
6.4 Settlement Estimate
Settlement is evaluated at Service I Limit State. From Step 2, the estimated settlement under
a bearing stress of 7.50 ksf is 1.00 in. The bearing stress for Service I limit state is ___ ksf.
Therefore, the settlement will be less than 1.00 in.
Step 7 EVALUATE INTERNAL STABILITY
7.1 Select Type of Soil Reinforcement

Geogrid soil reinforcement will be used. Three grades, or strengths, of geogrid may be used.
The grades and ultimate tensile strengths of these geogrids are summarized in Table E1-7.1.
Table E1-7.1. Geogrid grades and strengths.

Name (Grade): GG-I GG-II GG-III
Ultimate Tensile Strength (lb/ft): 6,000 9,000 12,000
7.2 Define Critical Slip Surface
The critical failure surface is approximately linear in the case of extensible, geogrid
reinforcements (see Figure E1-7-1), and passes through the toe of the wall.

Figure E.7-1. Location of failure surface for internal stability of MSE walls and extensible
reinforcements (from Figure 4-9.
7.3 Define Unfactored Loads
The relationship between the type of the reinforcement and the overburden stress is shown in
Figure 4-10. The Kr/Ka ratio extensible (e.g., geogrid) reinforcement is a constant, and is
equal to 1.0.
The lateral earth pressure coefficient Kr is determined by applying a multiplier to the active
earth pressure coefficient. The active earth pressure coefficient is determined using a
Coulomb earth pressure relationship, assuming no wall friction and a β angle equal to zero
(i.e., equivalent to the Rankine earth pressure coefficient, see Eq. 4-25). With a reinforced
fill friction angle of 34, the active lateral earth pressure coefficient is:
 ' 
K a  tan 2  45  r   tan 2  45  34   0.283

 2  2
Therefore,
K r  K a  r   0.2831.0   0.283
K

 K a 

The stress, 2, due to a sloping backfill on top of an MSE wall can be determined as shown
in Figure 4-11. An equivalent soil height, S, is computed based upon the slope geometry.
The value of S should not exceed the slope height for broken back sloping fills. A
reinforcement length of 0.7H is used to compute the sloping backfill stress, 2, on the soil
reinforcement, as a greater length would only have minimal effect on the reinforcement. The
vertical stress is equal to the product equivalent soil height and the reinforced fill unit weight,
and is uniformly applied across the top of the MSE zone.
The equivalent uniform height of soil, Seq, is equal to:
 2  0.7H tanβ  1 2  0.7 20 ft  tan 26.6

S eq  1 
 3.51 ft
7.4 Establish Vertical Layout of Soil Reinforcements
The MBW units are 8 inches tall. The geogrid soil reinforcement spacing is listed in Table
E1-7.5. The upper layer of geogrid will be 8 inches below top of wall, and the bottom layer
of geogrid will be 8 inches above the leveling pad. The grade of geogrid to use at each
elevation will be determined by strength and connection requirements.
7.5 Calculate Factored Tensile Forces in the Reinforcement Layers
The factored horizontal stress, H, at any depth Z below the top of wall is equal to (after
equation 4-29):
σH = Kr [r (Z + Seq) γEV-MAX]
The maximum tension TMAX in each reinforcement layer per unit width of wall based on the
vertical spacing Sv (see Eq. 4-32a) is:
TMAX  σ H S v
The term Sv is equal to the vertical reinforcement spacing for a layer where vertically
adjacent reinforcements are equally spaced from the layer under consideration. In this case,
H, calculated at the level of the reinforcement, is at the center of the contributory height.
The contributory height is defined as the midpoint between vertically adjacent reinforcement
elevations, except for the top and bottom layers reinforcement. For the top and bottom layers

of reinforcement, Sv is the distance from top or bottom of wall, respectively, to the midpoint
between the first and second layer (from top or bottom of wall, respectively) of
reinforcement. Sv distances are illustrated in Figure 4-14.
The factored horizontal stress, vertical spacing, and maximum tension for all layers are
summarized in Table E1-7.5. Example calculation, for layer #3 follows.
For all layers: Kr = 0.283 r = 125 pcf

Seq = 3.51 ft EV-MAX = 1.35
For Layer #3: Z = 4.67 ft SV = 2.0 ft
σH = Kr [r (Z + Seq) γEV-MAX] = 0.283 [125 pcf (4.67 + 3.51 ft) (1.35)] = 391 lb/ft2
TMAX = H SV = 391 lb/ft2 (2.0 ft) = 781 lb/lft
For Layer #1: Z = 0.67 ft SV = 1.67 ft

SV-Top = 0 ft SV-Bottom = 1.67 ft ZAve = 0.835 ft
σH = Kr [r (ZAVE + Seq) γEV-MAX] = 0.283 [125 pcf (0.835 + 3.51 ft) (1.35)] = 207 lb/ft2
TMAX = H SV = 207 lb/ft2 (1.67 ft) = 346 lb/lft
Table E1-7.2 Maximum Tension in Geogrid Layers.

Layer Z SV H TMAX
# (ft) (ft) (lb/ft2) (lb/lft)
1 0.67 1.67 115 346
2 2.67 2.0 203 590
3 4.67 2.0 298 781
4 6.67 2.0 394 972
5 8.67 2.0 489 1163
6 10.67 2.0 585 1354
7 12.67 2.0 681 1545
8 14.67 2.0 776 1736
9 16.67 2.0 872 1927
10 18.67 1.33 951 1366
11 19.33 1.0 1006 1091

7.6 Calculate Soil Reinforcement Resistance
The nominal geosynthetic reinforcement strength, Tal, per Eq. 3-12, is equal to:
Tult Tult
Tal  
RF RFID  RFCR  RFD
The procedure and discussion on definition of nominal long-term reinforcement design

strength (Tal), for both steel and geosynthetic reinforcements, are presented in Section 3.5 of
this manual.
The factored soil resistance is the product of the nominal long-term strength and applicable
resistance factor, . The resistance factors for tensile rupture of MSE wall soil
reinforcements are summarized in Table 4-8. The resistance factor for geosynthetic
reinforcement is 0.90. The factored soil reinforcement tensile resistance, Tr, is (per Eq. 4-33)
equal to:
Tr =  Tal
The strength reduction factors, nominal resistance, and factored resistance for the three
grades of geogrids are summarized in Table E1-7.3.
Table E1-7.3 Geogrid Nominal and Factored Resistance.

Geogrid: GG-I GG-II GG-III
Tult (lb/ft) 3,000 6,000 9,000
Creep, RFCR 1.85 1.85 1.85
Durability, RFD 1.15 1.15 1.15
Installation, RFID 1.3 1.3 1.2
Tal (lb/ft) 1,085 2,169 3,525
Tr 976 1,952 3,173
7.7 Select Grade of and/or Number of Soil Reinforcement Elements at Each Level
The soil reinforcement vertical layout, the factored tensile force at each reinforcement level,
and the factored soil reinforcement resistance were defined in the previous three steps.
Suitable grades (strength) of reinforcement for the defined vertical reinforcement layout is
summarized in Table E1-7.4. The CRD for each layer is also listed.

Check this layout for pullout and connection resistance. Adjust layout if/as necessary.
Table E1-7.4 Geogrid Nominal and Factored Resistance.

Geogrid
Layer Z SV TMAX
Tr CDR
# (ft) (ft) (lb/lft) Grade
(lb/ft)
1 0.67 1.67 346 GG-I 976 2.82
2 2.67 2.0 590 GG-I 976 1.65
3 4.67 2.0 781 GG-I 976 1.25
4 6.67 2.0 972 GG-I 976 1.00
5 8.67 2.0 1163 GG-II 1,952 1.68
6 10.67 2.0 1354 GG-II 1,952 1.44
7 12.67 2.0 1545 GG-II 1,952 1.26
8 14.67 2.0 1736 GG-II 1,952 1.12
9 16.67 2.0 1927 GG-II 1,952 1.01
10 18.67 1.33 1366 GG-II 1,952 1.43
11 19.33 1.0 1091 GG-II 1,952 1.79
7.8 Internal Stability with Respect to Pullout Failure
Therefore, the required embedment length in the resistance zone (i.e., beyond the potential
failure surface) can be determined from (Eq. 4-36):
TMAX
Le   3 ft 1 m 
 F *  v C R c
where:
Le = Length of embedment in the resisting zone
TMAX = Maximum reinforcement tension
 = Resistance factor for soil reinforcement pullout, = 0.90
F* = Pullout resistance factor, = 0.45 for these geogrids
α = Scale correction factor, = 0.8 for these geogrids
σv = Average (see Figure E.7-2), nominal (i.e., unfactored) vertical stress at
the reinforcement level in the resistant zone
C = 2 for geogrid type reinforcement
Rc = Coverage ratio, = 1.0 for geogrid and 100% coverage

Figure E.7-2. Nominal vertical stress at the reinforcement level in the resistant zone,
beneath a sloping backfill (also presented as Figure 4-15).
Table E1-7.5 Pullout Check.

Available Required
Layer Z La TMAX ZP
Le Le CDR
# (ft) (ft) (lb/lft) (ft)
(ft) (ft)
1 0.67 10.28 7.72 346 7.74 0.55 14.0
2 2.67 9.22 8.78 590 9.47 0.77 11.4
3 4.67 8.16 9.84 781 11.21 0.86 11.4
4 6.67 7.09 10.91 972 12.94 0.93 11.8
5 8.67 6.03 11.97 1163 14.68 0.98 12.2
6 10.67 4.96 13.04 1354 16.41 1.02 12.8
7 12.67 3.90 14.10 1545 18.14 1.05 13.4
8 14.67 2.84 15.16 1736 19.88 1.08 14.1
9 16.67 1.77 16.23 1927 21.61 1.10 14.7
10 18.67 0.71 17.29 1366 23.35 0.72 23.9
11 19.33 0.36 17.64 1091 23.92 0.56 31.1

7.9 Check Connection Strength
The connection of the reinforcements with the facing, should be designed for TMAX for all
limit states. The resistance factors () for the connectors is the same as for the reinforcement
strength, i.e.,  = 0.90 for geogrids.
The nominal long-term connection strengths, Talc, based upon laboratory connection tests
between these MBW units and geogrids, as a function of geogrid grade and normal pressure,
are summarized in Table E1-7.6.
Table E1-7.6 Connection Strength Check.

Layer Geogrid TalcA alc TMAX
CDR
# Grade (lb/ft) (lb/ft) (lb/lft)
1 GG-I 533 480 346 1.39
2 GG-I 733 660 590 1.12
3 GG-I 933 840 781 1.08
4 GG-I 1133 1020 972 1.05
5 GG-II 1333 1200 1163 1.03
6 GG-II 1533 1380 1354 1.02
7 GG-II 1733 1560 1545 1.01
8 GG-II 1933 1740 1736 1.00
9 GG-II 2150 1935 1927 1.00
10 GG-II 2450 2205
1952B 1366 1.43
11 GG-II 2550 2295
1952B 1091 1.79
Notes:
A. Talc values previously established when Agency placed this system on its
approved wall systems list.
B. The Tr value limits factored connection strength.
7.10 Lateral Movements
The magnitude of lateral displacement depends on fill placement techniques, compaction

effects, reinforcement extensibility, reinforcement length, reinforcement-to-facing
connection details, and details of the wall facing. A rough estimate of probable lateral
displacements of simple MSE walls that may occur during construction can be estimated
based on empirical correlations (see Figure 2-15). It is assumed that experience with this
type of MBW unit facing and wall fill material have demonstrated lateral movements are
within acceptable limits.

7.11 Vertical Movement and Bearing Pads
Bearing pads are generally not used with MBW unit facings, and are not used with this
example problem. The wall height is 20 feet, and is below the recommended maximum
height of 32 ft without bearing pads (see 3.6.1).
Calculation of the external settlement was reviewed in Step 6.4. The reinforced wall fill is a
well graded, granular soil and, therefore, the internal movement will be negligible with good
compaction control during construction.
Facing elements are designed to resist the horizontal forces developed in Step 7. With the
modular concrete facing blocks (MBW), the maximum spacing between reinforcement layers
should be limited to twice the front to back width, i.e., 24 in. The maximum depth of facing
below the bottom reinforcement layer is 8 in., and is less than the MBW unit depth. The top
row of reinforcement is 8 in. below top of wall, and is less than 1.5 the block depth.
Sufficient inter-unit shear capacity exceeds the factored horizontal earth pressure at the
facing.
Step 9. Assess Overall/Global Stability
This design step is performed to check the overall, or global, stability of the wall. Overall
stability is determined using rotational or wedge analyses, as appropriate, to examine
potential failure planes passing behind and under the reinforced zone. Analyses can be
performed using a classical slope stability analysis method with standard slope stability
computer programs. This step is not detailed in this example calculation, see Chapter 9.
This design step is performed to check potential compound failure planes passing through the
reinforced soil zone. Compound stability is determined using rotational or wedge analyses,
as appropriate, performed with computer programs that directly incorporate reinforcement
elements in the analyses. This step is not detailed in this example calculation, see Chapter 9.

Step 11. Wall Drainage Systems
Subsurface and surface drainage are important aspects in the design and specifying of MSE
walls. The Agency should detail and specify drainage requirements for vendor designed
walls. Furthermore, the Agency should coordinate the drainage design and detailing (e.g.,
outlets) within its own designers and with the vendor. This step is not detailed in this
example calculation, see Chapter 5.

EXAMPLE E2
BEARING CHECK FOR EXAMPLE E1 MSE WALL
WITHOUT and WITH HIGH GROUNDWATER,
and WITH A SLOPING TOE
E2-1 INTRODUCTION
This example problem demonstrates the strength limit state bearing resistance analyses of an
MSE wall with various foundation conditions. A flat bearing surface with and without a high
groundwater condition, and a sloping toe without groundwater are examined. The MSE wall
configuration to be analyzed is shown in Figure E.2-1 (and in Figure E.1-1).
This MSE wall is (assumed to be) a “simple” structure and, therefore, is analyzed with the
load factors that typically control external stability analyses (see Figure 4-1). The design
steps used in these calculations follow the basic design steps presented in Table 4-3, of
which, the primary steps are presented in Table E1-1. Each of the steps and sub-steps are
sequential. Therefore, if the design is revised at any step or sub-step the previous
computations need to be re-examined. Each step and sub-step follow.
Figure E.2-1 Configuration of example problem E1.
FHWA NHI-10-025 Example E2 – Bearing Resistance

Table E.2-1. Primary Design/Analysis Steps
Step 3. Estimate Wall Embedment Depth, Design
Height(s), and Reinforcement Length
Step 4 Define unfactored loads
Step 5 Summarize Load Combinations, Load Factors,
and Resistance Factors
Step 11. Design Wall Drainage Systems
See Example E1 for Steps 1 – 11.

However, for these computations, bearing resistances are computed (for several cases) in lieu
of defined bearing resistances.
C Foundation soil, 'f = 30°, f = 125 pcf

C Factored bearing resistance of foundation soil
o For service limit consideration, qnf-ser = 7.5 ksf for 1-inch of total settlement
o For strength limit consideration, qnf-str – is to be determined
C Reinforced wall fill, 'r = 34°, r = 125 pcf, pH = 7.3, maximum size ¾-inch
C Retained backfill, 'b = 30°, b = 125 pcf
From Example E1:
Step 4. Define Unfactored Loads
Traffic Load
The traffic load is on the level surface of the retained backfill. For external stability, traffic
load for walls parallel to traffic and more than 1-ft behind the backface of the MSE wall is
represented by an equivalent height of soil, heq equal to 2.0 ft.

Unfactored Loads:
F1 = ½ b h2 Kab = ½ (125 pcf) (29 ft)2 (0.360) = 18,922 lb/lft = 18.92 k/lft
q = 2.0 ft (125 pcf) = 250 psf

F2 = q h Kab = 250 psf (29 ft) (0.360) = 2,610 lb/lft = 2.61 k/lft
V1 = r H L = 125 pcf (20 ft) (18 ft) = 45,000 lb/lft = 45.0 k/lft
V2 = ½ r L (h – H) = ½ (125 pcf) (18 ft) (29ft – 20ft) = 10,125 lb/lft = 10.12 k/lft
Step 5. Summarize Load Combinations, Load Factors, and Resistance Factors
The design requires checking Strength I limit state. This is a simple wall. Note that
examination of only the critical loading combination, as described in Section 4.2, is sufficient
for simple walls. Load factors typically used for MSE walls are listed in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.
Load factors applicable to this problem are listed in Table E2-5.1. Bearing resistance factor
for MSE walls is listed in Table E2-5.2

Load Factors
Load Combination
EV ES EH
Table E2-5.2. Bearing resistance factor

Item Resistance Factor
Bearing resistance b = 0.65

Step 6. Evaluate Bearing on Foundation
This step, 6.3, requires a different computation of the eccentricity value computed in Step 6.2
because different, i.e., maximum in lieu of minimum, load factor(s) are used. This is a
simple wall and, therefore, which load factor – minimum or maximum – is readily identified
for load factors for bearing check.
distribution. Maintain consistency with loads and load factors used in the eccentricity
calculation and corresponding bearing stress calculation.
σV 
V
L  2e B
For this wall with a broken backslope and traffic surcharge the factored bearing stress is
(see Example E1):
γ V  γ EV -MAX V2  γ EH-MAX FV1  γ LS FV2
q V-F  EV -MAX 1
L  2e B
81.65 k/lft
q V -F   6.55 ksf
18 ft  22.77 ft 
E2-1 CALCULATIONS
It is not obvious whether the strength or the service (i.e., settlement) limit state controls.
Therefore, check both.
2) (cont.)
Calculate e for service limit state:
FH1 9.67 ft   FH2 14.5 ft   V1 0  V2 3 ft   FV1  FV2 9 ft 

e b-ser 
V1  V2  FV1  FV2
e b-ser 
18.469.67 ft   2.5514.5 ft   45.000  10.123 ft   4.16  0.57 9 ft 
45.00  10.12  4.16  0.57 

e b-ser    2.38 ft
59.85 k 59.85 k
Calculate service limit state bearing stress:
1.00(45k/lft)  1.00(10.12k/lft)  (1.00)4.16 k/lft 59.85 k/lft

q v  service    4.52 ksf
18 ft  2(2.38 ft) 13.24 ft
The bearing stress of 4.52 ksf is less than the stated 7.5 ksf for a 1-inch total settlement.
Therefore, less than 1-inch of settlement is anticipated and service limit state is O.K.
Note: See FHWA Soils and Foundations reference manual, FHWA NHI-06-089
(Samtani and Nowatzki, 2006) for settlement analysis and bearing pressure versus
settlement plotting procedures.
3) Determine the nominal bearing resistance, qn, see Eq. 4-22.
The nominal bearing resistance for strength I (max) limit state, with N from Table 4-6,
for ´f = 30º is:
q n  c f N c  0.5 L' γ f N γ  0 N c  0.5 (12.46ft) (125 pcf) (22.4)  17.44 ksf
where L´ = 18 ft – 2 (2.77 ft) = 12.46 ft
4) Compute the factored bearing resistance, qR. The resistance factor, , for MSE walls is
equal to 0.65 (see Table E2-5.2). The factored bearing resistance (qR) is given (see Eq. 4-
23) as:
qR =  qn
For strength limit state:
qR = 0.65 (17.44 ksf) = 11.34 ksf

5) Compare the factored bearing resistance, qR, to the factored bearing stress, V-F, to check
that the resistance is greater.
For strength limit state:

qR 11.34 ksf
CDR Strength    1.73  O.K.
 V -F 6.55 ksf

E2-2 CALCULATIONS WITH GROUNDWATER NEAR SURFACE
Compute Strength I (max) limit state bearing resistance and CDR assuming groundwater is
12 ft below the ground surface, as illustrated in Figure E.2-2.
Figure E.2-2. Bearing groundwater influence terms for spread footing

(Note: Bf = L´ for MSE wall design).
With groundwater consideration, and no cohesion, the nominal bearing resistance (see Eq. 4-
22 and AASHTO 10.6.3.1.2a-1) is equal to:
q n  0.5 L' γ f N γ C w
The term Cw is defined in Table 10.6.3.1.2a-2 (AASHTO, 2007):
Coefficient Cw for Various Groundwater Depths

(after AASHTO Table 10.6.3.1.2a-2)
Dw Cw
0.0 0.5
Df 0.5
> 1.5 L' + Df 1.0
Note: Interpolate between the values shown for
intermediate positions of the groundwater table.

Calculations:
Given: Moist unit weight, m = 125 lb/ft3
Dw = 12 ft
The buoyant unit weight should be used to compute the overburden pressure if the
groundwater table is located with the potential failure zone.
1.5 L  D f  1.5 18 ft  22.77 ft   2 ft  20.69 ft
At Dw = Df = 2.0 ft Cw = 0.5

At Dw = 1.5 L' + Df = 20.7 ft Cw = 1.0
Interpolating to Dw = 12 ft
 12 ft  2 ft 
C w  0.5  0.5    0.77
 20.69 ft  2 ft 
The nominal bearing resistance for strength limit state, with Cw = 0.77, moist unit weight '
= 125 pcf, and N from Table 4-6, is:
q n  0.5 L' γ f N γ C w  0.5 (12.46ft) (125 pcf) (22.4) (0.77)  13,432 psf  13.43 ksf
The factored strength limit state bearing resistance is:
qR = 0.65 (13.43 ksf) = 8.73 ksf
The capacity to demand ratio is:

qR 8.73 ksf
 V -F 6.55 ksf

E2-3 CALCULATIONS WITH TOE SLOPE AND WITHOUT GROUNDWATER
Compute Strength I (max) limit state bearing resistance and CDR assuming with sloping toe
and no groundwater, as illustrated in Figure E.2-3, and with the following geometry:
B = L – 2 eB = 12.46 ft
b = 4 ft
Df = assume = 0
I = 18.4º (3H:1V)
Figure E.2-3. Bearing sloping toe terms.
For footings bearing near a slope the term N is replaced by Nq (AASHTO 10.6.3.1.2c). The
Nq term is taken from AASTHO Figure 10.6.3.1.2c-2. The nominal bearing resistance, for a
foundation soil with no cohesion, is equal to:
q n  0.5 L' γ f N γq
From AASTHO Figure 10.6.3.1.2c-2 an Nq value equal to approximately 18 is found for f
= 30º, b/B = 0.32, and  = 18.4º.

The nominal bearing resistance for strength limit state with Nq = 20 is:
q n  0.5 L' γ f N γq  0.5 (12.46 ft) (125 pcf) (18)  14,017 psf  14.02 ksf
The factored strength limit state bearing resistance is:
qR = 0.65 (14.02 ksf) = 9.11 ksf
The capacity to demand ratio is:

qR 9.11 ksf
 V -F 6.55 ksf

EXAMPLE E3
SEGMENTAL PRECAST PANEL MSE WALL WITH SLOPING BACKFILL
SURCHARGE
E3-1 INTRODUCTION
This example problem demonstrates the analysis of a MSE wall with a sloping backfill
surcharge. The MSE wall is assumed to include a segmental precast panel face with ribbed
steel strip reinforcements. The MSE wall configuration to be analyzed is shown in Figure
E3-1. The analysis is based on various principles that were discussed in Chapter 4. Table
E3-1 presents a summary of steps involved in the analysis. Each of the steps and sub-steps is
sequential and if the design is revised at any step or sub-step then all the previous
computations need to be re-visited. Each of the steps and the sub-steps in Table E3-1 is
explained in detail herein.
Table E3-1. Summary of steps in analysis of MSE wall with sloping backfill
Step Item
1 Establish project requirements
2 Establish project parameters
3 Estimate wall embedment depth and length of reinforcement
4 Estimate unfactored loads
5 Summarize applicable load and resistance factors
6 Evaluate external stability of MSE wall
6.1 Evaluation of sliding resistance
6.2 Evaluation of limiting eccentricity
6.3 Evaluation of bearing resistance
6.4 Settlement analysis
7 Evaluate internal stability of MSE wall
7.1 Estimate critical failure surface, variation of Kr and F* for internal stability
7.2 Establish vertical layout of soil reinforcements
7.3 Calculate horizontal stress and maximum tension at each reinforcement level
7.4 Establish nominal and factored long-term tensile resistance of soil reinforcement
7.5 Establish nominal and factored pullout resistance of soil reinforcement
7.6 Establish number of soil reinforcing strips at each level of reinforcement
8 Design of facing elements
9 Check overall and compound stability at the service limit state.
10 Design wall drainage system
FHWA NHI-10-025 Example E3 – Sloping backfill surcharge

2
1
Retained backfill
(above the behind
H He Reinforced backfill the reinforced
'r, γr backfill)
'f, γf
L
d
Leveling Foundation Soil
Pad 'fd, γfd
Figure E3-1. Configuration showing various parameters for analysis of a MSE wall with
sloping backfill (not-to-scale).
STEP 1. ESTABLISH PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
 Exposed wall height, He = 28 ft

 Length of wall = 850 ft
 Design life = 75 years
 Precast panel units: 5 ft wide x 5 ft tall x 0.5 ft thick
 Type of reinforcement: Grade 65 (Fy = 65 ksi), 1.969 in. x 0.157 in. (50 mm wide x 4
mm) thick galvanized steel ribbed strips with zinc coating of 3.386 mils (86 m).
 No seismic considerations
STEP 2. EVALUATE PROJECT PARAMETERS
 Reinforced backfill, 'r = 34°, r = 125 pcf, coefficient of uniformity, Cu = 7.0 and
meeting the AASHTO (2007) requirements for electrochemical properties
 Retained backfill, 'f = 30°, f = 125 pcf
 Foundation soil, 'fd = 30°, fd = 125 pcf
 Factored Bearing resistance of foundation soil

o For strength limit consideration, qnf-str = 10.50 ksf
Note: the above bearing resistance values are assumed values for the purpose of this
example problem. In actual designs, the geotechnical engineer should develop
appropriate project and wall specific values.
STEP 3. ESTIMATE DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT AND LENGTH OF

REINFORCEMENT
Based on Table C.11.10.2.2.-1 of AASHTO (2007), the minimum embedment depth = H/20
for walls with horizontal ground in front of wall, i.e., 1.4 ft for exposed wall height of 28 ft.
For this design, assume embedment, d = 2.0 ft. Thus, design height of the wall, H = He + d =
28 ft + 2.0 ft = 30 ft.
Due to the 2H:1V backslope, the initial length of reinforcement is assumed to be 0.8H or 24
ft. This length will be verified as part of the design process. The length of the reinforcement
is assumed to be constant throughout the height to limit differential settlements across the
reinforced zone because differential settlements could overstress the reinforcements.
STEP 4. ESTIMATE UNFACTORED LOADS
Tables E3-4.1 and E3-4.2 present the equations for unfactored loads and moment arms about
Point A shown in Figure E3-2. The moments are a product of the respective forces and
moment arms. Each force is assigned a designation representing the applicable load type as
per Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 of AASHTO (2007).
To compute the numerical values of various forces and moments, the parameters provided in
Step 2 are used. Using the values of the various friction angles, the coefficients of lateral
earth pressure for the retained fill is computed as follows:
Coefficient of active earth pressure per Eq. 3.11.5.3-1 of AASHTO (2007) is

sin 2   f 
Ka 
 sin 2  sin(  )
where per Eq. 3.11.5.3-2 of AASHTO (2007) the various parameters in above equation are as
follows:

2
 sin( f  ) sin( f  ) 
  1  
 sin(   ) sin(  ) 
 = friction angle between fill and wall taken as specified
 = angle (nominal) of fill to horizontal
 = angle of back face of wall to horizontal
'f = effective angle of internal friction of retained backfill
For the case of level backfill with vertical backface,  =  = 0° and  = 90°, the coefficient of
active earth pressure is given as follows:
Ka = (1-sin'f)/(1+sin'f)
For this example problem, compute the coefficient of active earth pressure for the retained
fill, Kaf, using  = 26.56° (for the 2:1 backslope), vertical backface,  = 90°, and  =  as
follows
2 2
 sin(30 o  26.56o ) sin(30 o  26.56 o )   (0.834)(0.060) 
  1    1    1.563
 o o o o  (0.894)(0.894) 
 sin( 90  26 . 56 ) sin( 90  26 . 56 )  
sin 2   f  sin 2 (90 o  30o ) 0.750

K af     0.537
 sin 2  sin(  ) 1.563(sin 90 o ) 2 [ sin(90o  26.56 o )] (1.563)(1.0)(0.894)
For the example problem, Tables E3-4.3 and E3-4.4 summarize the numerical values
unfactored forces and moments, respectively, based on the equations, various dimensions and
values of lateral earth pressure coefficients presented above. Refer to Figure E3-2 for
notations of various forces.
The unfactored forces and moments in Tables E3-4.3 and E3-4.4 form the basis of all
computations in this example problem. The unfactored forces and moments should be
multiplied by the appropriate load factors based on the load types identified in the second
column of the Tables E3-4.1 and E3-4.2 to perform the analysis for various load
combinations such as Strength I, Service I, etc.
The load factors for various load types relevant to this example problem are discussed in Step
5.

(2/3)L
L/2 FTV
FTH
(a)
(b)
Figure E3-2. Legend for computation of forces and moments (a) for external stability
analysis, (b) for internal stability analysis (not-to-scale).

Table E3-4.1. Equations of computing unfactored vertical forces and moments
Vertical Force LRFD Moment arm (Length units)
(Force/length units) Load Type @ Point A
V1=(γr)(H)(L) EV L/2
1
V2=   ( L)( L tan )(  f ) EV (2/3)L
2
FTV = (1/2)(γr)(h2)(Kaf)(sin) EH L
Note: h = H + Ltan
Table E3-4.2. Equations of computing unfactored horizontal forces and moments

Horizontal Force LRFD Moment arm (Length units)
(Force/length units) Load Type @ Point A
2
FTH = (1/2)(γr)(h )(Kaf)(cos) EH h/3
Note: h = H + Ltan
For this example problem, tan = 0.5, and h = 30 ft + 24 ft (0.5) = 42.00 ft.
Table E3-4.3. Unfactored vertical forces and moments

Moment Moment at
Value
Force Arm @ Moment Point A,
k/ft
Point A, ft k-ft/ft
V1 = 90.00 12.00 MV1 = 1080.00
V2 = 18.00 16.00 MV2 = 288.00
FTV = 26.48 24.00 MFTV = 635.44
Table E3-4.4. Unfactored horizontal forces and moments

Moment Moment at
Value
k/ft
Point A, ft k-ft/ft
FTH = 52.95 14.00 MFTH = 741.35

STEP 5. SUMMARIZE APPLICABLE LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTORS
Table E3-5.1 summarizes the load factors for the various LRFD load type shown in second
column of Tables E3-4.1 and E3-4.2. Throughout the computations in this example
problem, the forces and moments in Tables E3-4.1 and E3-4.2 should be multiplied by
appropriate load factors. For example, if computations are being done for Strength I
(maximum) load combination, the forces and moments corresponding to load V2 should be
multiplied by 1.35 which is associated with load type EV assigned to load V2.

Load Factors
Load Combination (after AASHTO, 2007 Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2)
EV EH
Strength I (maximum) 1.35 1.50
Strength I (minimum) 1.00 0.90
Service I 1.00 1.00
For computation of factored resistances during evaluation of strength limits states,

appropriate resistance factors have to be used. Table E3-5.2 summarizes the applicable
resistance factors. For service limit state, all resistance factors are equal to 1.0.

Resistance AASHTO (2007)
Item
Factors Reference
Sliding of MSE wall on foundation soil s = 1.00 Table 11.5.6-1
Bearing resistance b = 0.65 Table 11.5.6-1
Tensile resistance (for steel strips) t = 0.75 Table 11.5.6-1
Pullout resistance p = 0.90 Table 11.5.6-1
STEP 6. EVALUATE EXTERNAL STABILITY OF MSE WALL
The external stability of MSE wall is a function of the various forces and moments that are
shown in Figure E3-2a. In the LRFD context the forces and moments need to be categorized
into various load types. For this example problem, the primary load types are soil loads (EV
and EH).

6.1 Sliding Resistance at Base of MSE Wall
The purpose of these computations is to evaluate the sliding resistance at the base of the MSE
wall. Since the computations are related to sliding resistance, the beneficial contribution of
live load to resisting forces and moments is neglected. The computations for sliding
resistance at the base of the MSE wall are illustrated in Table E3-6.1. Note that sliding
resistance is a strength limit state check and therefore service limit state calculations are not
performed. Since the friction angle of foundation soil, fd, is less than the friction angle for
reinforced soil, r, the sliding check will be performed using fd. The critical values based on
max/min result in the extreme force effect and govern the sliding mode of failure. The
resistance to load ratio, CDR, based on critical values of max/min is 1.07 indicating that the
choice of 24 ft long reinforcement is justified because lesser length would result in CDR <
1.0 which is not acceptable.
Table E3-6.1. Computations for evaluation of sliding resistance of MSE wall

Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Lateral load on the MSE wall, Hm = FTH k/ft 79.43 47.66 N/A
Vertical load at base of MSE wall, VA1 = V1+V2 k/ft 145.80 108.00 N/A
Vertical load at base of MSE wall, VA2 = FTV k/ft 39.72 23.83 N/A
Total vertical load at base of MSE wall, VA=VA1+VA2 k/ft 185.52 131.83 N/A
Nominal sliding resistance at base of MSE wall, VNm1
k/ft 84.18 62.35 N/A
= tan('fd)( V1+V2)
Nominal sliding resistance at base of MSE wall, VNm2
k/ft 22.93 13.76 N/A
= tan('fd)( FTV)
Nominal sliding resistance at base of MSE wall, VNm
k/ft 107.11 76.11 N/A
= VNm1+VNm2
Factored sliding resistance at base of MSE wall, VFm1=
k/ft 84.18 62.35 N/A
s*VNm1
Factored sliding resistance at base of MSE wall, VFm2=
k/ft 22.93 13.76 N/A
s*VNm2
Factored sliding resistance at base of MSE wall, VFm=
k/ft 107.11 76.11 N/A
VFm1+VFm2
Is VFm > Hm? - Yes Yes N/A
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = VFm:Hm dim 1.35 1.60 N/A
CRITICAL VALUES BASED ON MAX/MIN
Minimum VF (VFmin) k/ft 85.28*
Maximum Hm (Hmmax) k/ft 79.43
Is VFmin > Hmmax? - Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = VFmin:Hmmax dim 1.07
Note: *85.28 = 62.35+22.93. This is to maintain consistency between the total inclined
lateral force and its components.

6.2 Limiting Eccentricity at Base of MSE Wall
The purpose of these computations is to evaluate the limiting eccentricity at the base of the
MSE wall. Since the computations are related to limiting eccentricity, the beneficial
contribution of live load to resisting forces and moments is neglected. The computations for
limiting eccentricity at the base of the MSE wall are illustrated in Table E3-6.2. Limiting
eccentricity is a strength limit state check and therefore service limit state calculations are not
performed. The critical values based on max/min result in the extreme force effect and
govern the limiting eccentricity mode of failure.
Table E3-6.2. Computations for evaluation of limiting eccentricity for MSE wall
Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Vertical load at base of MSE wall, VA1 = V1+V2 k/ft 145.80 108.00 N/A
Vertical load at base of MSE wall, VA2 = FTV k/ft 39.72 23.83 N/A
Total vertical load at base of MSE wall,
k/ft 185.52 131.83 N/A
VA=VA1+VA2
Resisting moments about Point A = MRA1
k-ft/ft 1846.80 1368.00 N/A
=MV1+MV2
Resisting moments about Point A = MRA2 = MFTV k-ft/ft 953.17 571.90 N/A
Total resisting moment @ Point A,
k-ft/ft 2799.97 1939.90 N/A
MRA=MRA1+MRA2
Overturning moments about Point A = MOA = MFTH k-ft/ft 1112.03 667.22 N/A
Net moment at Point A, MA = MRA - MOA k-ft/ft 1687.94 1272.68 N/A
Location of the resultant force on base of MSE wall
ft 9.10 9.65 N/A
from Point A, a = (MRA - MOA)/VA
Eccentricity at base of MSE wall, eL = L/2 – a ft 2.90 2.35 N/A
Limiting eccentricity, e = L/4 for strength limit state ft 6.00 6.00 N/A
Is the resultant within limiting value of eL? - Yes Yes N/A
Calculated eL/L - 0.12 0.10 N/A
Overturning moments about Point A, MOA-C k-ft/ft 1112.03
Resisting moments about Point A, MRA-C k-ft/ft 2321.17*
Net moment about Point A, MA-C = MRA-C - MOA-C k-ft/ft 1209.14
Vertical force, VA-C k/ft 147.72**
Location of resultant from Point A, anl = MA-C/VA-C ft 8.19
Eccentricity from center of wall base, eL=0.5*L - anl ft 3.81
Limiting eccentricity, e = L/4 ft 6.00
Is the limiting eccentricity criteria satisfied? - Yes
Effective width of base of MSE wall, B' = L-2eL ft 16.37
Calculated eL/L - 0.16
Notes: * 2321.17 = 1368.00 + 953.17; **147.72 = 108.00+39.72. This is to maintain
consistency between the total inclined lateral force and its components.

6.3 Bearing Resistance at base of MSE Wall
The bearing stress at the base of the MSE wall can be computed as follows:
V
v 
L  2e L
where ΣV = R = V1+V2+FTV is the resultant of vertical forces and the load eccentricity eL is
calculated by principles of statics using appropriate loads and moments with the applicable
load factors.
In LRFD, σv is compared with the factored bearing resistance when computed for strength
limit state and used for settlement analysis when computed for service limit state. The
various computations for evaluation of bearing resistance are presented in Table E3-6.3. The
Strength I (max) load combination results in the extreme force effect in terms of maximum
bearing stress and therefore governs the bearing resistance mode of failure. The Service I
load combination is evaluated to compute the bearing stress for settlement analysis. Since
the CDR ≈ 1.0 for Strength I (max) and Service I load combinations, shorter reinforcement
lengths are not recommended.
6.4 Settlement Analysis
a bearing stress of 7.50 ksf is 1.00 in. From Table E3-6.3, the bearing stress for Service I
limit state is 7.16 ksf. Therefore, the settlement will be less than 1.00 in.

Table E3-6.3. Computations for evaluation of bearing resistance for MSE wall
Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Vertical load at base of MSE wall, VAb1 = V1+V2 k/ft 145.80 108.00 108.00
Vertical load at base of MSE wall, VAb2 = FTV k/ft 39.72 23.83 26.48
Total vertical load at base of MSE wall, ΣV = R =
k/ft 185.52 131.83 134.48
VAb1+VAb2
Resisting moments about Point A, MRA1
k-ft/ft 1846.80 1368.00 1368.00
=MV1+MV2
Resisting moments about Point A, MRA2 = MFTV k-ft/ft 953.17 571.90 635.44
Total resisting moment @ Point A,
k-ft/ft 2799.97 1939.90 2003.44
MRA=MRA1+MRA2
Overturning moments @ Point A, MOA = MFTH k-ft/ft 1112.03 667.22 741.35
Net moment at Point A, MA = MRA - MOA k-ft/ft 1687.94 1272.68 1262.09
ft 9.10 9.65 9.39
from Point A, a = (MRA - MOA)/VA
Eccentricity at base of MSE wall, eL = 0.5*L – a ft 2.90 2.35 2.61
Limiting eccentricity, e = L/4 for strength limit states
ft 6.00 6.00 4.00
and e= L/6 for service limit state
Is the resultant within limiting value of e? - Yes Yes Yes
Effective width of base of MSE wall, B' = L-2eL ft 18.20 19.31 18.77
Bearing stress due to MSE wall =ΣV/(L-2eL) = v ksf 10.19 6.83 7.16
Factored bearing resistance, (qnf-str for strength) or
ksf 10.50 10.50 7.50
(qnf-ser for service) (given)
Is factored bearing stress less than the factored
- Yes Yes Yes
bearing resistance?
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = qnf:σv dim 1.03 1.54 1.05
Vertical force, ΣVC k/ft 147.72**
Location of resultant from Point A, a = MA-C/ ΣVC ft 8.19
Eccentricity from center of wall, eL = 0.5*L – a ft 3.81
Bearing stress, ΣVC / (L-2eL) = v-c ksf 9.02***
Factored bearing resistance, qnf-str (given) ksf 10.50
Is bearing stress < factored bearing resistance? dim Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = qnf-str:σv-c dim 1.16
Notes: * 2321.17 = 1368.00 + 953.17; **147.72 = 108.00+39.72; ***9.02=147.72/16.37.
This is to maintain consistency between the total inclined lateral force and its components.

STEP 7: EVALUATE INTERNAL STABILITY ANALYSIS OF MSE WALL
For the case of inextensible steel ribbed strips, the profile of the critical failure surface, the
variation of internal lateral horizontal stress coefficient, Kr, and the variation of the pullout
resistance factor, F*, are as shown in Figure E3-5 wherein other definitions such as
measurement of depths Z and Zp as well as heights H and H1 are also shown. It should be
noted that the variation of Kr and F* are with respect to depth Z that is measured from the top
of the reinforced soil zone. For the computation of Kr, the value of Ka is based on the angle
of internal friction of the reinforced backfill, r, and the assumption that the backslope angle
 = 0; thus, Ka = tan2(45° - 34°/2) = 0.283. Hence, the value of Kr varies from 1.7(0.283) =
0.481 at Z = 0 ft to 1.2(0.283) = 0.340 at Z = 20 ft. For steel strips, F*=1.2+log10Cu. Using
Cu = 7.0 as given in Step 2, F*= 1.2+log10(7.0) = 2.045 > 2.000. Therefore, use F*=2.000.
0.3H1
H 1.7 Ka Kr 2.000 F*
Z=0 Z=0
Z=20 ft 1.2 Ka Z=20 ft tan (1)

= 0.675
Zp Zp
(tan )( 0.3H )

H  H1= H + H
1  0.3 tan 
Zp at start of resistant zone, Zp-s= Z + Latan
Zp at end of resistant zone, Zp-e= Z + Ltan
Use average Zp over the resistance zone, Zp-ave, for computing pullout resistance
Zp-ave = Z + 0.5(Latan + Ltan) = Z + 0.5 tan (La + L)
Ka is computed assuming that the backslope angle is zero, i.e., = 0 per Article
C11.10.6.2.1 of AASHTO (2007)
Figure E3-5. Geometry definition, location of critical failure surface and variation of Kr and
F* parameters for steel ribbed strips.

Using the definition of depth Z as shown in Figure E3-5 the following vertical layout of the
soil reinforcements is chosen.
Z= 1.25 ft, 3.75 ft, 6.25 ft, 8.75 ft, 11.25 ft, 13.75 ft, 16.25 ft, 18.75 ft, 21.25 ft, 23.75 ft,
26.25 ft, and 28.75 ft.
The above layout leads to 12 levels of reinforcements. The vertical spacing was chosen
based on a typical vertical spacing, Sv, of approximately 2.5 ft that is commonly used in the
industry for steel ribbed strip reinforcement. The vertical spacing near the top and bottom of
the walls are locally adjusted as necessary to fit the height of the wall.
For internal stability computations, each layer of reinforcement is assigned a tributary area,
Atrib as follows
Atrib = (wp)(Svt)
where and wp is the panel width of the precast facing element and Svt is the vertical tributary
spacing of the reinforcements based on the location of the reinforcements above and below
the level of the reinforcement under consideration. The computation of Svt is summarized in
Table E4-7.1 wherein S vt  Z   Z  . Note that wp = 5.00 ft per Step 2.
Table E3-7.1. Summary of computations for Svt

Level Z (ft) Z  (ft) Z  (ft) Svt (ft)
1 1.25 0 1.25+0.5(3.75–1.25)=2.50 2.50
2 3.75 3.75-0.5(3.75–1.25)=2.50 3.75+0.5(6.25-3.75)=5.00 2.50
3 6.25 6.25-0.5(6.25-3.75)=5.00 6.25+0.5(8.75-6.25)=7.50 2.50
4 8.75 8.75-0.5(8.75-6.25)=7.50 8.75+0.5(11.25-8.75)=10.00 2.50
5 11.25 11.25-0.5(11.25-8.75)=10.00 11.25+0.5(13.75-11.25)=12.50 2.50
6 13.75 13.75-0.5(13.75-11.25)=12.50 13.75+0.5(16.25-13.75)=15.00 2.50
7 16.25 16.25-0.5(16.25-13.75)=15.00 16.25+0.5(18.75-16.25)=17.50 2.50
8 18.75 18.76-0.5(18.75-16.25)=17.50 18.75+0.5(21.25-18.75)=20.00 2.50
9 21.25 21.25-0.5(21.25-18.75)=20.00 21.25+0.5(23.75-21.25)=22.50 2.50
10 23.75 23.75-0.5(23.75-21.25)=22.50 23.75+0.5(26.25-23.75)=25.00 2.50
11 26.25 26.25-0.5(26.25-23.75)=25.00 26.25+0.5(28.75-26.25)=27.50 2.50
12 28.75 28.75-0.5(28.75-26.25)=27.50 30.00 2.50

The horizontal spacing of the reinforcements is based on the maximum tension (Tmax) at each
level of reinforcements which requires computation of the horizontal stress, σH, at each
reinforcement level. The reinforcement tensile and pullout resistances are then compared
with Tmax and an appropriate reinforcement pattern is adopted. This section demonstrates the
calculation of horizontal stress, σH, and maximum tension, Tmax.
The horizontal stress, σH, at any depth within the MSE wall is based on only the soil load as
summarized in Table E3-7.2.
σH = σH-soil + σH-surcharge
Table E3-7.2. Summary of load components leading to horizontal stress

Load Component Load Type Horizontal Stress
Soil load from reinforced mass, σv-soil EV σH-soil = [Krσv-soil]γP-EV
Surcharge load due to backslope, σ2 EV σH-surcharge = [Krσ2]γP-EV
Using the unit weight of the reinforced soil mass and heights Z and S as shown in Figure E3-
2b , the equation for horizontal stress at any depth Z within the MSE wall can be written as
follows (also see Chapter 4):
σH = Kr (r Z) γP-EV + Kr (r S) γP-EV = Kr [r (Z + S) γP-EV]
Once the horizontal stress is computed at any given level of reinforcement, the maximum
tension, Tmax, is computed as follows:
Tmax = (σH)(Atrib)
where Atrib is the tributary area for the soil reinforcement at a given level as discussed in
Section 7.2
The computations for Tmax are illustrated at z = 8.75 ft which is Level 4 in the assumed
vertical layout of reinforcement. Assume Strength I (max) load combination for illustration
purposes and use appropriate load factors from Table E3-5.1.
 At Z = 8.75 ft, the following depths are computed

Z  = 7.50 ft (from Table E3-7.1)
Z  = 10.00 ft (from Table E3-7.1)

 Obtain Kr by linear interpolation between 1.7Ka = 0.481 at Z = 0.00 ft and 1.2Ka =
0.340 at Z = 20.00 ft as follows:
At Z  = 7.50 ft, Kr(Z-)= 0.340 + (20.00 ft – 7.50 ft)(0.481-0.340)/20.00 ft = 0.428
At Z  = 10.00 ft, Kr(Z+)= 0.340 + (20.00 ft – 10.00 ft)(0.481-0.340)/20.00 ft = 0.411
 Compute σH-soil = [Kr σv-soil]γP-EV as follows:

γP-EV = 1.35 from Table E3-5.1
At Z  = 7.50 ft,
v-soil(Z-) = (0.125 kcf)(7.50 ft) = 0.94 ksf
σH-soil(Z-) = [Kr(Zp-)σv-soil(z-)]γP-EV = (0.428)(0.94 ksf)(1.35) = 0.54 ksf
At Z  = 10.00 ft,
v-soil(Z+) = (0.125 kcf)(10.00 ft) = 1.25 ksf

σH-soil(Z+) = [Kr(Zp+)σv-soil(z+)]γP-EV = (0.411)(1.25 ksf)(1.35) = 0.69 ksf
σH-soil = 0.5(0.54 ksf + 0.69 ksf) = 0.62 ksf

 Compute σH-surcharge = [Kr σ2]γP-EV as follows:
σ2 = (1/2)(0.7Htan)(f) (from Figure E3-2b)
σ2 = (1/2)(0.7*30 ft)[tan (26.56°)](0.125 kcf) = 0.656 ksf
At Z  = 7.50 ft,
σH-surcharge = [Kr(Z-) σ2]γP-EV = (0.428)(0.656 ksf)(1.35) = 0.38 ksf
At z  = 10.00 ft and Z p = 15.29 ft,
σH-surcharge = [Kr(Z+) σ2]γP-ES = (0.411)(0.656 ksf)(1.35) = 0.36 ksf
σH-surcharge = 0.5(0.38 ksf + 0.36 ksf) = 0.37 ksf
 Compute σH = σH-soil + σH-surcharge as follows:

σH = 0.62 ksf + 0.37 ksf = 0.99 ksf
 Based on Table E3-7.1, the vertical tributary spacing at Level 4 is Svt = 2.50 ft
 The panel width, wp, is 5.00 ft (given in Step 1)
 The tributary area, Atrib, is computed as follows:

Atrib = (2.50 ft)(5.00 ft) = 12.50 ft2

 The maximum tension at Level 4 is computed as follows:
Tmax = (σh)(Atrib) = (0.99 ksf)(12.50 ft2) = 12.37 k for panel of 5-ft width
Using similar computations, the various quantities can be developed at other levels of
reinforcements and load combinations.
The nominal tensile resistance of galvanized steel ribbed strip soil reinforcement is based on
the design life and estimated loss of steel over the design life during corrosion.
As per Step 1, the soil reinforcement for this example is assumed to be Grade 65 (Fy = 65
ksi), 1.969 in. x 0.157 in. (50 mm wide x 4 mm) thick galvanized steel ribbed strips with zinc
coating of 3.386 mils (86 m). As per Step 2, the reinforced backfill meets the AASHTO
(2007) requirements for electrochemical properties. For this reinforced backfill, the basis for
calculating the thickness losses due to corrosion is as follows per Article 11.10.6.4.2a of
AASHTO (2007):
Zinc loss = 0.58 mil for first 2 years and 0.16 mil per year thereafter
Steel loss = 0.47 mil/year/side
Based on the above corrosion rates, the following can be calculated:
Life of zinc coating (galvanization) = 2 years + (3.386 – 2*0.58)/0.16 ≈ 16 years
As per Step 1, the design life is 75 years. The base carbon steel will lose thickness for 75
years – 16 years = 59 years at a rate of 0.47 mil/year/side. Therefore, the anticipated
thickness loss is calculated as follows:
ER = (0.47 mil/year/side) (59 years) (2 sides) = 55.46 mils = 0.055 in., and
EC = 0.157 in. – 0.055 in. = 0.102 in.
Based on a 1.969 wide strip, the cross-sectional area at the end of 75 years will be equal to
(1.969 in.) (0.102 in.) = 0.200 in2.
For Grade 65 steel with Fy = 65 ksi, the nominal tensile resistance at end of 75 year design
life will be Tn = 65 ksi (0.200 in2) = 13.00 k/strip. Using the resistance factor, t = 0.75 as
listed in Table E3-5.2, the factored tensile resistance, Tr = 13.00 k/strip (0.75) = 9.75 k/strip.

The nominal pullout resistance, Pr, of galvanized steel ribbed strip soil reinforcement is based
on various parameters in the following equation:
Pr = (F*)(2b)(Le)[(σv)(γP-EV)]
For this example problem, the following parameters are constant at levels of reinforcements:
b = 1.969 in. = 0.164 ft
 = 1.0 for inextensible reinforcement per Table 11.10.6.3.2-1 of AASHTO (2007)
The computations for Pr are illustrated at z = 8.75 ft which is Level 4 as measured from top
of the wall. Assume Strength I (max) load combination for illustration purposes and use
appropriate load factors from Table E3-5.1.
 Compute effective (resisting) length, Le, as follows:

Since Z < H1/2, active length La = 0.3(H1) and Le = L – La = L – 0.3(H1)
H1= H + H
(tan )(0.3H ) (0.5)(0.3 x 30 ft )
H    5.29 ft
1  0.3 tan  1  0.3 (0.5)
H1= H + H = 30.00 ft + 5.29 ft = 35.29 ft
Active length, La = 0.3(35.29 ft) = 10.59 ft
Effective (resisting) length, Le = 24.00 ft – 10.59 ft = 13.41 ft
 Compute (σv)(γP-EV)
As per Figure E3-2b, σv = r(Zp-ave)
Zp-ave = Z+0.5 tan (La + L) = 8.75 ft + 0.5[tan(26.56°)](10.59 ft + 24.00 ft) = 17.40 ft
Per Article 11.10.6.3.2 of AASHTO (2007), use unfactored vertical stress for pullout
resistance. Thus,
γP-EV = 1.00
σv(γP-EV) = (0.125 kcf)(17.40 ft) (1.00) = 2.175 ksf
 Obtain F* at Z =8.75 ft
Obtain F* by linear interpolation between 2.000 at Z = 0 and 0.675 at Z = 20.00 ft as
follows:
F* = 0.675 + (20.00 ft – 8.75 ft)(2.000 – 0.675)/20 ft = 1.420
 Compute nominal pullout resistance as follows:

Pr = (F*)(2)(b)(Le)[(σv-soil)(γP-EV)]

Pr = (1.0)(1.420)(2)(0.164 ft)(13.41 ft)(2.175 ksf) = 13.58 k/strip
 Compute factored pullout resistance as follows:

Prr = Pr = (0.90)(13.58 k/strip) = 12.23 k/strip
Based on Tmax, Tr and Prr, the number of strip reinforcements at any given level of
reinforcements can be computed as follows:
 Based on tensile resistance considerations, the number of strip reinforcements, Nt, is

computed as follows:
Nt = Tmax/Tr
 Based on pullout resistance considerations, the number of strip reinforcements, Np, is

Np = Tmax/Prr
Using the Level 4 reinforcement at Z = 8.75 ft, the number of strip reinforcements can be
 Tmax = 13.13 k for panel of 5-ft width, Tr = 9.75 k/strip, Prr = 12.23 k/strip
 Nt = Tmax/Tr = (13.13 k for panel of 5 ft width)/(9.75 k/strip) = 1.35 strips for panel of
5-ft width
 Np = Tmax/Prr = (13.13 k for panel of 5 ft width)/(12.23 k/strip) = 1.07 strips for panel
of 5-ft width
 Since Nt > Np, tension breakage is the governing criteria and therefore the governing
value, Ng, is 1.35. Round up to select 2 strips at Level 4 for each panel of 5 ft width.
The computations in Sections 7.4 to 7.6 are repeated at each level of reinforcement. Table
E3-7.3 presents the computations at all levels of reinforcement for Strength I (max) load

combination. The last column of Table E3-7.3 provides horizontal spacing of the reinforcing
strips which is obtained by dividing the panel width, wp, by the governing number of strips,
Ng. Similar computations can be performed for Strength I (min) and Service I load
combination but they will not govern the design because the load factors for these two load
combinations are less than those for Strength I (max) load combination. The facing design
(Step 8) may necessitate more reinforcement per level.
Note to users: All the long-form step-by-step calculations illustrated in Step 8 were based on
hand-calculations in which numbers were rounded to the third or fourth significant digit as
appropriate in each step. Table E3-7.3 was generated using a spreadsheet in which numbers
at all calculation steps were not rounded. Thus, the end result in Table E3-7.3 may be
somewhat different when compared to long-form hand calculations. However, the difference
should be less than 0.2 in most cases.
Table E3-7.3. Summary of internal stability computations for Strength I (max) load
combination
Z Zp-ave H Tmax F* Le p(Pr) s(Tn) Np Nt Ng Sh

Level k/5 ft
wide
ft dim ksf panel dim ft k/strip k/strip - - - ft
1 1.25 9.90 0.52 6.46 1.917 13.41 9.40 9.75 0.7 0.7 2 2.50
2 3.75 12.40 0.69 8.63 1.751 13.41 10.76 9.75 0.8 0.9 2 2.50
3 6.25 14.90 0.85 10.58 1.586 13.41 11.70 9.75 0.9 1.1 2 2.50
4 8.75 17.40 0.99 12.35 1.420 13.41 12.23 9.75 1.0 1.3 2 2.50
5 11.25 19.90 1.12 13.96 1.254 13.41 12.36 9.75 1.1 1.4 2 2.50
6 13.75 22.19 1.23 15.40 1.089 14.25 12.70 9.75 1.2 1.6 2 2.50
7 16.25 24.31 1.33 16.59 0.923 15.75 13.05 9.75 1.3 1.7 2 2.50
8 18.75 26.44 1.41 17.60 0.757 17.25 12.76 9.75 1.4 1.8 2 2.50
9 21.25 28.56 1.52 18.98 0.675 18.75 13.33 9.75 1.4 1.9 3 1.67
10 23.75 30.69 1.66 20.77 0.675 20.25 15.50 9.75 1.3 2.1 3 1.67
11 26.25 32.81 1.81 22.56 0.675 21.75 17.79 9.75 1.3 2.3 3 1.67
12 28.75 34.94 1.95 24.36 0.675 23.25 20.24 9.75 1.2 2.5 3 1.67
Note 1: Based on pullout and tension breakage considerations only 1 strip is required at Level 1 and 2.
However, a minimum 2 strips at a horizontal spacing not exceeding 2.5 ft should be provided as per the
criteria in Chapter 4.

STEP 8: DESIGN OF FACING ELEMENTS
The precast facing elements must be designed as structural elements with appropriate
connection strength as discussed in Chapter 4. Depending on the design of the facing panel,
the number of strips at each level may have to be increased.
STEP 9: CHECK OVERALL AND COMPOUND STABILITY AT SERVICE LIMIT

STATE
From Step 2, it is given that the foundation soil is dense clayey sand that has f = 30°, f =
125 pcf. Furthermore, the ground in front of the wall is horizontal and the foundation soil
has no water table. Therefore, based on observation, overall stability is adequate. For actual
projects, overall stability should be investigated at the Service I load combination and a
resistance factor of 0.65.
STEP 10: DESIGN WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Drains are detailed on construction drawings. For a MSE wall with sloping backfill, the
drainage system for the MSE wall must be carefully integrated with the other hillside drain
systems as appropriate.

EXAMPLE E4
SEGMENTAL PRECAST PANEL MSE WALL WITH LEVEL BACKFILL AND
LIVE LOAD SURCHARGE
E4-1 INTRODUCTION
This example problem demonstrates the analysis of a MSE wall with a level backfill and live
load surcharge. The MSE wall is assumed to include a segmental precast panel face with
steel grid (bar mat) reinforcements. The MSE wall configuration to be analyzed is shown in
Figure E4-1. The analysis is based on various principles that were discussed in Chapter 4.
Table E4-1 presents a summary of steps involved in the analysis. Each of the steps and sub-
steps is sequential and if the design is revised at any step or sub-step then all the previous
computations need to be re-visited. Each of the steps and the sub-steps in Table E4-1 is
explained in detail herein. Practical considerations are presented in Section E4-2 after the
illustration of the step-by-step procedures.
Table E4-1. Summary of steps in analysis of MSE wall with level backfill and live
load surcharge
Step Item
7.6 Establish number of soil reinforcing elements at each level of reinforcement
FHWA NHI-10-025 Example E4 – Level backfill with LL

Traffic Surcharge
Roadway
Surface
H He Reinforced backfill Retained backfill

'r, γr 'f, γf
L
d
Leveling Foundation Soil
Pad 'fd, γfd
Figure E4-1. Configuration showing various parameters for analysis of a MSE wall with
level backfill and live load surcharge (not-to-scale).
 Exposed wall height, He = 23.64 ft

 Length of wall = 850 ft
 Design life = 75 years
 Type of reinforcement: Grade 65 (Fy = 65 ksi), steel bar mat with W15 and W11 wires.
Assume wires to be galvanized with zinc coating of 3.386 mils (86 m).
 No seismic considerations
 Reinforced backfill, 'r = 34°, r = 125 pcf, coefficient of uniformity, Cu = 7.0 and
 Retained backfill, 'f = 30°, f = 125 pcf
 Foundation soil, dense clayey sand with 'fd = 30°, fd = 125 pcf
 Live load surcharge, heq = 2 ft of soil per Table 3.11.6.4-2 of AASHTO (2007)

REINFORCEMENT
for walls with horizontal ground in front of wall, i.e., 1.2 ft for exposed wall height of 23.64
ft. For this design, assume embedment, d = 2.0 ft. Thus, design height of the wall, H = He +
d = 23.64 ft + 2.0 ft = 25.64 ft.
Due to the level backfill, the minimum initial length of reinforcement is assumed to be 0.7H
or 18 ft. This length will be verified as part of the design process. The length of the
reinforcement is assumed to be constant throughout the height to limit differential settlements
across the reinforced zone because differential settlements could overstress the
reinforcements.
Point A shown in Figure E4-2. The moments are a product of the respective forces and
moment arms. Each force is assigned a designation representing the applicable load type as
per Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 of AASHTO (2007).
earth pressure are as follows:
Kar = (1 - sin34°)/(1 + sin34°) = 0.283

Kaf = (1 - sin30°)/(1 + sin30°) = 0.333
For the example problem, Tables E4-4.3 and E4-4.4 summarize the numerical values
notations of various forces.

A
(a)
(b)
Figure E4-2. Legend for computation of forces and moments (not-to-scale).

5.

LRFD Moment arm
Vertical Force
Load Type (Length units)
(Force/length units)
@ Point A
V1 = (γr)(H)(L) EV L/2
VS = (γf)(heq)(L) = (q)L LL L/2
Note: heq is the equivalent height of soil such that q = (γf)(heq)

Horizontal Force LRFD Moment arm
(Force/length) Load Type (Length units)
@ Point A
F1 = ½(Kaf)(γf)H2 EH H/3
F2 = (Kaf)[(γf)(heq)](H) LL H/2

Moment Moment at
Value
k/ft
Point A, ft k-ft/ft
V1 = 57.69 9.00 MV1 = 519.21
Vs = 4.50 9.00 MVs = 40.50
Note: Vs is based on heq of 2 ft per Table 3.11.6.4-1 of
AASHTO (2007).

Moment Moment at
Value
k/ft
Point A, ft k-ft/ft
F1 = 13.68 8.55 MF1 = 116.94
F2 = 2.13 12.82 MF2 = 27.36

Table E4-5.1 summarizes the load factors for the various LRFD load type shown in second
column of Tables E4-4.1 and E4-4.2. Throughout the computations in this example
problem, the forces and moments in Tables E4-4.1 and E4-4.2 should be multiplied by
appropriate load factors. For example, if computations are being done for Strength I
(maximum) load combination, the forces and moments corresponding to load V1 should be
multiplied by 1.35 which is associated with load type EV assigned to load V1.

Load Factors
EV EH LL
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00


Item
Factors Reference
Bearing resistance b = 0.65 Table 11.5.6-1
Tensile resistance (for steel bar mats) t = 0.65 Table 11.5.6-1
The external stability of MSE wall is a function of the various forces and moments shown in
Figure E4-2. In the LRFD context the forces and moments need to be categorized into
various load types. The primary load types for this example problem are soil loads (EV, EH)
and live load (LL).

performed. Since the friction angle of foundation soil, 'fd, is less than the friction angle for
reinforced soil, 'r, the sliding check will be performed using 'fd. The critical values based
on max/min result in the extreme force effect and govern the sliding mode of failure.

Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Lateral load on the MSE wall, Hm = F1+F2 k/ft 24.26 16.05 NA
Vertical load at base of MSE wall without LL
k/ft 77.88 57.69 NA
surcharge = V1
k/ft 44.96 33.31 NA
= tan('fd)(V1)
Sliding resistance at base of MSE wall, VFm= s*VNm k/ft 44.96 33.31 NA
Is VFm > Hm? - Yes Yes NA
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = VFm:Hm dim 1.85 2.08 NA
Minimum VFm (VFmmin) k/ft 33.31
Is VFmmin > Hmmax? - Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = VFmmin:Hmmax dim 1.37

Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Total vertical load at base of MSE wall without LL,
k/ft 77.88 57.69 N/A
VA = V1
Resisting moments about Point A without LL
k-ft/ft 700.93 519.21 N/A
surcharge= MRA = MV1
Overturning moments about Point A = MOA =
k-ft/ft 223.30 153.13 N/A
MF1+MF2
Net moment about Point A = MA = MRA – MOA k-ft/ft 477.64 366.08 N/A
ft 6.13 6.35 N/A
from Point A, a = MA/VA
Eccentricity at base of MSE wall, eL = L/2 – a ft 2.87 2.65 N/A
Limiting eccentricity, e = L/4 for strength limit state ft 4.50 4.50 N/A
Is the resultant within limiting value of e? - Yes Yes N/A
Calculated eL/L - 0.16 0.15 N/A
Vertical force, VA-C k/ft 57.69*
Calculated eL/L - 0.22
Note: *519.21 and 57.69 are consistent values based on the mass of reinforced soil block
For bearing resistance computations, the effect of live load is included since it creates larger
bearing stresses. The bearing stress at the base of the MSE wall can be computed as follows:
V
v 
L  2e L
where ΣV = R = V1 + VS is the resultant of vertical forces and the load eccentricity eL is

calculated by principles of statics using appropriate loads and moments with the applicable
load factors.
In LRFD, σv is compared with the factored bearing resistance when computed for strength
limit state and used for settlement analysis when computed for service limit state. The

various computations for evaluation of bearing resistance are presented in Table E4-6.3. The
Strength I (max) load combination results in the extreme force effect in terms of maximum
bearing stress and therefore governs the bearing resistance mode of failure. The Service I
load combination is evaluated to compute the bearing stress for settlement analysis.
Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Vertical load at base of MSE wall including LL on
k/ft 85.76 65.57 62.19
top, ΣV = R = V1 + VS
Resisting moments @ Point A on the MSE wall,
k-ft/ft 771.81 590.09 559.71
MRA = MV1+MVS
Overturning moments @ Point A on the MSE wall,
k-ft/ft 223.30 153.13 144.30
MOA = MF1+MF2
Location of Resultant from Point A, a = MA/ΣV ft 6.40 6.66 6.68
Eccentricity from center of wall base, eL = 0.5*L – a ft 2.60 2.34 2.32
ft 4.50 4.50 3.00
and e= L/6 for service limit state
Is the resultant within limiting value of eL? - Yes Yes Yes
Bearing stress due to MSE wall =ΣV/(L-2eL) = v ksf 6.70 4.92 4.66
Bearing resistance, (qnf-str for strength) or (qnf-ser for
ksf 10.50 10.50 7.50
service) (given)
Is bearing stress less than the bearing resistance? - Yes Yes Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = qnf:σv dim 1.57 2.13 1.61
Vertical force, ΣVC k/ft 65.57*
Location of resultant from Point A, a = MA-C/ΣVC ft 5.59
Eccentricity from center of wall base, eL = 0.5*L – a ft 3.41
Bearing stress, ΣVC / (L-2eL) = v-c ksf 5.86
Bearing resistance, qnf-str (given) ksf 10.50
Is bearing stress < bearing resistance? dim Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = qnf-str:σv-c dim 1.79
Note: *590.09 and 65.57 are consistent values based on the mass of reinforced soil block

a bearing stress of 7.50 ksf is 1.00 in. From Table E1-6.3, the bearing stress for Service I
limit state is 4.66 ksf. Therefore, the settlement will be less than 1.00 in.
For the case of inextensible steel bar mats, the profile of the critical failure surface, the
variation of internal lateral horizontal stress coefficient, Kr, and the variation of the pullout
resistance factor, F*, are as shown in Figure E4-5 wherein other definitions such as
measurement of depth, Z, and height, H, are also shown. It should be noted that the variation
of Kr and F* are with respect to depth Z that is measured from top of the reinforced soil zone.
The value of Ka is based on the angle of internal friction of the reinforced backfill, r, which
is equal to Ka = 0.283 calculated in Step 4. Thus, the value of Kr varies from 2.5(0.283) =
0.707 at Z=0 to 1.2(0.283) = 0.340 at Z =20 ft. The value of F* is a function of the
transverse wire configuration and is calculated later.
2.5 Ka Kr Z=0 20(t/St) F*

Z=0
Z
Z=20 ft 1.2 Ka Z=20 ft 10(t/St)
z z
Note: In this example problem, the backfill is level, i.e., =0. Therefore, the Kr and
F* profiles start at Z = 0 where Z is the depth below the top of the reinforced soil
zone as shown in the figure.
F* parameters for steel bar mats.

Z = 1.87 ft, 4.37 ft, 6.87 ft, 9.37 ft, 11.87 ft, 14.37 ft, 16.87 ft, 19.37 ft, 21.87 ft, and 24.37 ft
based on a typical vertical spacing, Sv, of approximately 2.5 ft that is commonly used in the
industry for steel grid (bar mat) reinforcement. The vertical spacing near the top and bottom
of the walls are locally adjusted as necessary to fit the height of the wall.
Atrib as follows
Atrib = (wp)(Svt)
where wp is the panel width of the precast facing element and Svt is the vertical tributary
Table E4-7.1 wherein S vt  z   z  . Note that wp = 5.00 ft per Step 1.

1 1.87 0 1.87+0.5(4.37–1.87)=3.12 3.12
2 4.37 4.37-0.5(4.37–1.87)=3.12 4.37+0.5(6.87-4.37)=5.62 2.50
3 6.87 6.87-0.5(6.87-4.37)=5.62 6.87+0.5(9.37-6.87)=8.12 2.50
4 9.37 9.37-0.5(9.37-6.87)=8.12 9.37+0.5(11.87-9.37)=10.62 2.50
5 11.87 11.87-0.5(11.87-9.37)=10.62 11.87+0.5(14.37-11.87)=13.12 2.50
6 14.37 14.37-0.5(14.37-11.87)=13.12 14.37+0.5(16.87-14.37)=15.62 2.50
7 16.87 16.87-0.5(16.87-14.37)=15.62 16.87+0.5(19.37-16.87)=18.12 2.50
8 19.37 19.37-0.5(19.37-16.87)=18.12 19.37+0.5(21.87-19.37)=20.62 2.50
9 21.87 21.87-0.5(21.87-19.37)=20.62 21.87+0.5(24.37-21.87)=23.12 2.50
10 24.37 24.37-0.5(24.37-21.87)=23.12 25.64 2.52

The horizontal stress, σH, at any depth within the MSE wall is based on only the soil load as
summarized in Table E4-7.2.
σH = σH-soil + σH-surcharge

Load Component Load Type Horizontal Stress
Soil load from reinforced mass, σv-soil EV σH-soil = [Krσv-soil]γP-EV
Surcharge traffic live load, q EV σH-surcharge = [Krq]γP-EV
Using the unit weight of the reinforced soil mass and heights Z and heq, the equation for
horizontal stress at any depth Z within the MSE wall can be written as follows (also see
Chapter 4):
σH = Kr (r Z) γP-EV + Kr (r heq) γP-EV = Kr [r (Z + heq) γP-EV]
Tmax = (σH)(Atrib)
where Atrib is the tributary area for the soil reinforcement at a given level as discussed in
Section 7.2.
The computations for Tmax are illustrated at zo = 9.37 ft which is Level 4 in the assumed

Z  = 8.12 ft (from Table E4-7.1)
Z  = 10.62 ft (from Table E4-7.1)

 Obtain Kr by linear interpolation between 1.7Ka = 0.707 at Z = 0 and 1.2Ka = 0.340 at
Z = 20.00 ft as follows:
At Z  = 8.12 ft, Kr(z-)= 0.340 + (20.00 ft – 8.12 ft)(0.707-0.340)/20.00 ft = 0.558
At Z  = 10.62 ft, Kr(z+)= 0.340 + (20.00 ft – 10.62 ft)(0.707-0.340)/20.00 ft = 0.512
 Compute σH-soil = [kr σv-soil]γP-EV as follows:

At Z  = 8.12 ft,
v-soil(Z-) = (0.125 kcf)(8.12 ft) = 1.02 ksf
σH-soil(Z-) = [Kr(z-)σv-soil(z-)]γP-EV = (0.558)(1.02 ksf)(1.35) = 0.76 ksf
At Z  = 10.62 ft,
v-soil(Z+) = (0.125 kcf)(10.62 ft) = 1.33 ksf

σH-soil(Z+) = [Kr(z+)σv-soil(z+)]γP-EV = (0.512)(1.33 ksf)(1.35) = 0.92 ksf
 Compute σH-surcharge = [Kr q] γP-EV as follows:

q = (γf)(heq) = (0.125 kcf)(2.00 ft) = 0.25 ksf
At Z  = 8.12 ft, σH-surcharge(Z-) = [Kr(Z-) q] γP-EV = (0.558)(0.25 ksf)(1.35) = 0.19 ksf
At Z  = 10.62 ft, σH-surcharge(Z+) = [Kr(Z+) q] γP-EV = (0.512)(0.25 ksf)(1.35) = 0.17 ksf

 Compute σH = σH-soil + σH-surcharge as follows:

σH = 0.84 ksf + 0.18 ksf = 1.02 ksf

Atrib = (2.50 ft)(5.00 ft) = 12.50 ft2

Tmax = (σh)(Atrib) = (1.02 ksf)(12.50 ft2) = 12.75 k/panel of 5-ft width

The nominal tensile resistance of galvanized steel bar mat soil reinforcement is based on the
design life and estimated loss of steel over the design life during corrosion.
The nominal diameters, D, of W15 and W11 wires are as follows:
For W15 wires, D = 0.437 in. = 11.10 mm = 11,100 m

For W11 wires, D = 0.374 in. = 9.50 mm = 9,500 m
As per Step 2, the reinforced backfill meets the AASHTO (2007) requirements for
electrochemical properties. For this reinforced backfill, the basis for calculating the
thickness losses due to corrosion is as follows per Article 11.10.6.4.2a of AASHTO (2007):
diameter and area after 75 years for W15 and W11 is calculated as follows:
For W15 wires

D75 = 0.437 in. – (0.47 mil/year/side) (59 years) (2 sides)/1000 = 0.437 in. – 0.056 in.
D75 = 0.381 in.
Based on a 0.381 in. diameter wire, the cross-sectional area at the end of 75 years will be
equal to ()(0.381 in.)2/4 = 0.1142 in2/wire
For W11 wires

D75 = 0.374 in. – (0.47 mil/year/side) (59 years) (2 sides) = 0.374 in. – 0.056 in.
D75 = 0.318 in.

Based on a 0.318 in. diameter wire, the cross-sectional area at the end of 75 years will be
equal to ()(0.318 in.)2/4 = 0.0795 in2/wire
For Grade 65 steel with Fy = 65 ksi, the nominal tensile resistance, Tn, and factored tensile
resistance, Tr, for the W15 and W11 wires will be as follows:
For W15 wires

Tn = 65 ksi (0.1142 in2) = 7.42 k/wire.
Using the resistance factor, t = 0.65 as listed in Table E4-5.2, the factored tensile resistance,
Tr = 7.42 k/wire (0.65) = 4.82 k/wire.
For W11 wires

Tn = 65 ksi (0.0795 in2) = 5.17 k/wire.
Using the resistance factor, t = 0.65 as listed in Table E4-5.2, the factored tensile resistance,
Tr = 5.14 k/wire (0.65) = 3.36 k/wire.
The nominal pullout resistance, Pr, of galvanized steel bar mat (grid) reinforcement is based
Pr = (F*)(2b)(Le)[(σv-soil)(γP-EV)]
In the above equation, the contribution of live load is not included as per Figure E4-2b.
Since the steel bar mat has welded connections, it can be considered inextensible with  = 1.
Assume a W11 transverse wire which has a nominal diameter of 0.374 in. The transverse
spacing of transverse wires, St, is varied depending on the level of reinforcement to optimize
the design from an economical perspective. For this example problem, assume that the
spacing of the transverse wires, St = 6 in., 12 in. and 18 in. Based on these spacing, the value
of t/St is as follows:
For, St = 6 in., t/St = 0.374 in./6 in. = 0.0623

For, St = 12 in., t/St = 0.374 in./12 in. = 0.0312
For, St = 18 in., t/St = 0.374 in./18 in. = 0.0208

Based on the value of t/St, the F* parameter varies from 20(t/St) at z = 0 ft to 10(t/St) at z ≥
20 ft and greater as shown in Figure E4-5. For the three value of t/St the variation of F* is as
follows:
For t/St = 0.0623, F* = 1.2460 at Z = 0 ft and F* = 0.623 at Z ≥ 20 ft

Assume bar mat width, b = 1 ft for computing pullout resistance on a per foot width basis.
The actual bar mat width will be computed based on comparison of the pullout resistance
with Tmax.
For this example problem, assume the layout of longitudinal and transverse wires as shown
in Table E4-7.3. The number of longitudinal wires and thus the width of the bar mats will be
determined in Section 7.6.
Table E4-7.3. Assumed bar mat configuration for internal stability analysis
Level Longitudinal wire Transverse wire Spacing of transverse wires, St
1 to 4 W11 W11 6 in.
5 to 7 W15 W11 12 in.
8 to 10 W15 W11 18 in.
The computations for Pr are illustrated at z = 9.37 ft which is Level 4 as measured from top
 Obtain F* at z = 9.37 ft by linear interpolation between 1.2460 at Z = 0 and 0.623 at

Z = 20 ft as follows:
F* = 0.623 + (20.00 ft – 9.37 ft)(1.246 – 0.623)/20 ft = 0.955
 Compute effective length Le as follows:

Since Z < H/2, Le = L – 0.3(H)
Le = 18 ft – 0.3(25.64 ft) = 10.31 ft
 Compute (σv-soil)(γP-EV)
resistance. Thus,
γP-EV = 1.00
(σv-soil)(γP-EV) = (0.125 kcf)(9.37 ft)(1.00) = 1.171 ksf

Pr = (1.0)(0.955)(2)(1.00 ft)(10.31 ft)(1.171 ksf) = 23.06 k/ft

Prr = Pr = (0.90)(23.06 k/ft) = 20.75 k/ft
7.6 Establish number of longitudinal wires at each level of reinforcement
Based on Tmax, Tr and Prr, the number of longitudinal wires at any given level of
 Assume spacing of the longitudinal wires, Sl = 6 in. = 0.5 ft
 Based on tensile resistance considerations, the number of longitudinal, Nt, is

Nt = Tmax/Tr
 Based on pullout resistance considerations, the number of longitudinal wires, Np, is

Np = 1 + (Tmax/Prr)/(Sl)
Using the Level 4 reinforcement at Z = 9.37 ft, the number of W11 longitudinal wires for 5 ft
wide panel can be computed as follows:
 Tmax = 12.75 k/panel of 5 ft width, Tr = 3.36 k/wire, Prr = 20.75 k/ft
 Nt = Tmax/Tr = (12.75 k/panel of 5 ft width)/(3.36 k/wire) = 3.8 longitudinal

wires/panel of 5 ft width
 Np = 1 + (Tmax/Prr)/(Sl) = 1 + [(12.75 k/panel of 5 ft width)/(20.75 k/ft)]/(0.5 ft) = 2.2

longitudinal wires/panel

value, Ng, is 3.8. Select 4 longitudinal wires at Level 4 for each panel of 5 ft width.
Thus, the steel bar mat configuration at Level 4 is 4W11 + W11x0.5' which means a bar mat
with 4 W11 longitudinal wires spaced at 0.5 ft on centers with W11 transverse wires spaced
at 0.5 ft on centers.
E4-7.4 presents the computations at all levels of reinforcement for Strength I (max) load
combination. Similar computations can be performed for Strength I (min) and Service I load
combination but they will not govern the design because the load factors for these two load
combinations are less than those for Strength I (max) load combination.
combination
Z H Tmax F* Le p(Pr) s(Tn) Np Nt Ng Bar Mat

Level k/5 ft
wide
ft ksf panel dim ft k/ft k/wire - - - -
1 1.87 0.40 6.25 1.188 10.31 5.16 3.38 3.4 1.9 4 4W11+W11x0.5'
2 4.37 0.67 8.36 1.110 10.31 11.25 3.38 2.5 2.5 3 3W11+W11x0.5'
3 6.87 0.86 10.80 1.033 10.31 16.47 3.38 2.3 3.2 4 4W11+W11x0.5'
4 9.37 1.02 12.77 0.955 10.31 20.75 3.38 2.2 3.8 4 4W11+W11x0.5'
5 11.87 1.14 14.26 0.438 10.31 12.06 4.84 3.4 2.9 4 4W15+W11x1'
6 14.37 1.22 15.23 0.399 11.24 14.50 4.84 3.1 3.1 4 4W15+W11x1'
7 16.87 1.26 15.71 0.360 12.74 17.41 4.84 2.8 3.2 4 4W15+W11x1'
8 19.37 1.28 16.03 0.214 14.24 13.27 4.84 3.4 3.3 4 4W15+W11x1.5'
9 21.87 1.37 17.10 0.208 15.74 16.12 4.84 3.1 3.5 4 4W15+W11x1.5'
10 24.37 1.51 19.05 0.208 17.24 19.66 4.84 2.9 3.9 4 4W15+W11x1.5'

connection strength as discussed in Chapter 4.

STATE
From Step 2, it is given that the foundation soil is dense clayey sand that has fd = 30°, fd =
STEP 10: DESIGN WALL DRAINAGE SYSTESM
See Chapter 5 for wall drainage considerations.
E4-2 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Following is a general list of practical considerations from a geotechnical and structural

viewpoint:
 Attempt should be made to not vary the bar mat configuration too much because that
increases the possibility of inadvertent mixing of bar mats and use of wrong bar mat at a
given level.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM E5
BRIDGE ABUTMENT SUPPORTED ON SPREAD FOOTING ON TOP OF AN MSE
WALL WITH SEGMENTAL PRECAST PANEL FACING
E5-1 INTRODUCTION
This example problem demonstrates the analysis of a bridge abutment supported on a spread
footing on top of an MSE wall with segmental precast panel facing. A typical configuration
of such a bridge abutment is shown in Figure E5-1. The analysis of a true bridge abutment is
based on various principles that were discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. Table E5-1 presents a
summary of steps involved in the analysis of a bridge abutment supported on spread footing.
Each of the steps and sub-steps is sequential and if the design is revised at any step or sub-
step then all the previous computations need to be re-visited. Each of the steps and the sub-
steps in Table E5-1 is explained in detail herein. Practical considerations for implementation
of a true abutment system are presented in Section E5-2 after the illustration of the step-by-
step procedures.
NOTE: A bridge abutment is a complex structure and should be analyzed very

carefully since the performance of the bridge and its approach system will be
affected. This example problem presents a typical case that may not be
representative of all possible configurations, e.g., skewed bridge abutment,
integral abutments, extensible reinforcements or other features may require
additional considerations. The example problem is presented herein to
demonstrate the formulation of various equations in the LRFD context for
complex geometries. The formulations may have to be modified for project-
specific bridge abutment configurations.
FHWA NHI-10-025 Example E5 – Spread Footing Bridge Abutment

Table E5-1. Summary of steps in analysis of a true bridge abutment
Step Item
6 Evaluate external stability of spread footing

cf bf
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5
Bridge Superstructure Bridge Approach
Joint
LL
h3 DL
F2 Spread footing backfill above Plane XY
h Bearing '2, γ2
h2 Pad
h1
X Y
H'
H Ha Reinforced backfill Retained backfill

'1, γ1 '3, γ3
L
d
Leveling Pad
Foundation Soil
'fd, γfd
Figure E5-1. Configuration showing various parameters for analysis of a bridge abutment
supported on spread footing on top of an MSE wall (not-to-scale).

 Abutment wall height, Ha = 23 ft (measured from finished ground to bottom of spread

footing as shown in Figure E5-1)
 Length of wall at abutment = 120 ft
 Design life = 100 years (since the abutment application is considered critical)
 Type of reinforcement: Grade 65 (Fy = 65 ksi), 1.969 in. x 0.157 in. (50 mm wide x 4
mm) thick galvanized steel ribbed strips with zinc coating of 3.386 mils (86 m).
 Cast-in-place spread footing
 No approach slab (therefore, consider live load)
Figure E5-1 shows the typical configuration of a true bridge abutment.
Bridge loading parameters (see Figure E5-1):

 Nominal (unfactored) Dead Load reaction, DL = 10.60 k/ft
 Nominal (unfactored) Live Load reaction, LL = 5.70 k/ft
 Nominal (unfactored) lateral friction force, F2, at the bearing level = 0.82 k/ft
Spread footing configuration (see Figure E5-1):

 Footing base width, bf = 10.75 ft with the following values
o b1= 1.50 ft, b2= 1.50 ft, b3= 1.50 ft, b4= 1.00 ft, b5= 5.25 ft
 Distance between toe of footing and backface of MSE panels, cf = 0.5 ft
 Height of footing, h = 10.35 ft with the following values
o h1 = 1.50 ft, h2 = 3.85 ft, h3 = 5.00 ft
 Bearing pad height, hb = 0.08 ft included in h3 dimension
Soil Properties (see Figure E5-1):

 Reinforced backfill, '1 = 34°, 1 = 125 pcf, coefficient of uniformity, Cu = 7.0 and
 Random backfill behind spread footing, '2 = 34°, 2 = 125 pcf
 Retained backfill, '3 = 30°, 3 = 125 pcf
Other relevant parameters:

 Spread footing concrete, c = 150 pcf
 Foundation soil, 'fd = 30°, fd = 120 pcf, clayey sand with no water table

 Factored Bearing resistance of MSE wall (for use in analysis of spread footing on top
of MSE wall)
o For service limit considerations, qnm-ser = 4.0 ksf for < ½-inch settlement
o For strength limit considerations, qnm-str = 7.0 ksf
 Live load on bridge approach, heq = 2-ft of soil per Table 3.11.6.4-1 of AASHTO
(2007)
 No seismic considerations.

REINFORCEMENT
for abutment walls with horizontal ground in front of wall, i.e., 2.3 ft for abutment height of
23 ft. For this design, assume embedment, d = 2.5 ft. Thus, design height of the wall, H = Ha
+ d = 23 ft + 2.5 ft = 25.5 ft.
Due to the large surcharges the length of the reinforcements for bridge abutment applications
will be longer than the minimum value of 0.7H for walls with level backfill without
surcharge(s). A good starting point for length of reinforcements for bridge abutment
applications is assuming them to be approximately 1.0H rounded to the nearest higher
number. Since in this case H=25.5 ft, the length of reinforcement for this example problem
is assumed to be 26 ft. This length will be verified as part of the design process. The length
of the reinforcement is assumed to be constant throughout the height to limit differential
settlements across the reinforced zone because differential settlements could overstress the
reinforcements.

Points A and B shown in Figure E5-2. The moments are a product of the respective forces
and moment arms. Each force is assigned a designation representing the applicable load type
as per Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 of AASHTO (2007).
earth pressure are as follows:
Ka1 = (1 - sin34°)/(1 + sin34°) = 0.283

Ka2 = (1 - sin34°)/(1 + sin34°) = 0.283
Ka3 = (1 - sin30°)/(1 + sin30°) = 0.333
For the example problem, Tables E5-4.3 and E5-4.4 summarize the numerical values of
notations of various forces. The height of equivalent soil surcharge to represent live load,
heq, will be different for analysis of footing and MSE wall block since the height of the
footing is less than 20 ft. In subsequent computations, the notation heqF is used for heq for
analysis of footing versus heqM for analysis of MSE block. In this example problem, the
height of the footing, h, is 10.35 ft. Based on Table 3.11.6.4-1 of AASHTO (2007), heqF =
2.96 ft. For analysis of MSE wall, heqM = 2 ft since the height of MSE wall, H, is greater
than 20 ft.
5.

cf bf
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5
K' V K F
E E' s1
Joint
heq G q= γ2 heq
D D' LL M' M
h3 2, γ2
F2 DL V3
h Fs1
h2 hb V0
V2 F1
h/2
h1 V1 h/3
X C A J I Y
3, γ3
FA 2ef
L1
1, γ1
H FS2 F3
V4
45° + 1/2 F4
H/2
H/3
d B
Figure E5-2. Legend for computation of forces and moments (not-to-scale).

Vertical Force LRFD Moment arm (Length units)
(Force/length units) Load Type @ Point A @ Point B
b5 b5
V0=(γ2)(h2+h3)(b5) EV  b f  b 5   b f  c f  b 5 
2 2
bf b
V1=(γc)(bf)(h1) DC cf  f
2 2
b b b b  b3  b4
V2=(γc)(b2+b3+b4)(h2) DC b1  2 3 4 c f  b1  2
2 2
b4 b
V3=(γc)(b4)(h3) DC  b1  b 2  b 3 c f  4  b1  b 2  b 3
2 2
V4=(γ1)(H)(L) EV - L/2
V5=(γ2)(h)(L) EV - L/2
VS=(γ2)(heqF)(L) = qL LS - L/2
b 4  b5 b  b5
VS1=(γ2)(heqF)(b4+b5) LS  b1  b 2  b 3 cf  4  b1  b 2  b 3
2 2
DL DC b1 + b2 cf + b1 + b2
LL LL b1 + b2 cf + b1 + b2
Notes:
1. Forces V5 and VS are needed later (see Figures E5-3 and E5-4).
2. The load DL can include both “DC” and “DW” type of loads. As a simplification, herein
DL is assumed to include both and a “DC” load factor is used.

Horizontal Force LRFD Moment arm (Length units)
(Force/length) Load Type @ Point A @ Point B
2
F1 = 1/2 (Ka2)(γ2)h EH h/3 (h/3) + H
F2 FR h1 + h2 + hb h1 + h2 + hb + H
F3 = (Ka3)[(γ2)(h)](H) EH - H/2
F4 = ½(Ka3)(γ3)H2 EH - H/3
FS1=(Ka2)[(γ2)(heqF)](h) LS h/2 (h/2) + H
FS2=(Ka3)[(γ2)(heqM)](H) LS - H/2
H
Based on
(for external stability)
FA = F1 + F2 + FS1 each -
H – (L1/3)
component
(for internal stability)

Moment Moment Moment at Moment at
Value
Force Arm @ Arm @ Moment Point A, Point B,
k/ft
Point A, ft Point B, ft k-ft/ft k-ft/ft
V0 = 5.81 8.13 8.63 MV0 = 47.19 50.09
V1 = 2.42 5.38 5.88 MV1 = 13.00 14.21
V2 = 2.31 3.50 4.00 MV2 = 8.09 9.24
V3 = 0.75 5.00 5.50 MV3 = 3.75 4.13
V4 = 82.88 13.00 MV4 = 1077.38
V5 = 33.64 13.00 MV5 = 437.29
Vs = 9.62 13.00 MVs = 125.06
Vs1 = 2.31 7.63 8.13 MVs1 = 17.63 18.79
DL = 10.60 3.00 3.50 MDL = 31.80 37.10
LL = 5.70 3.00 3.50 MLL = 17.10 19.95
Notes:
1. Vs and Vs1 is computed based on heqF = 2.96 ft since h = 10.35 ft

Moment Moment Moment at Moment at
Value
Force Arm @ Arm @ Moment Point A, Point B,
k/ft
Point A, ft Point B, ft k-ft/ft k-ft/ft
F1 = 1.89 3.45 28.95 MF1 = 6.53 54.80
F2 = 0.82 5.43 30.93 MF2 = 4.43 25.21
F3 = 11.00 12.75 MF3 = 140.21
F4 = 13.55 8.50 MF4 = 115.15
FS1 = 1.08 5.18 30.68 MFS1 = 5.60 33.21
FS2 = 2.13 12.75 MFS2 = 27.09
FA = * 25.50 MFA = FA (25.50)
Notes:
1. FA = F1 + F2 + FS1 and each of the components of FA is a different load type and hence
has a different load factor.
2. FS1 is computed based on heqF = 2.96 ft since h = 10.35 ft
3. FS2 is computed based on heqM = 2 ft since H > 20 ft

Table E5-5.1 summarizes the load factors for the various LRFD load type shown in the
second column of Tables E5-4.1 and E5-4.2. Throughout the computations in this
example problem, the forces and moments in Tables E5-4.1 and E5-4.2 should be
multiplied by appropriate load factors. For example, if computations are being done for
Strength I (maximum) load combination, the forces and moments corresponding to load V2
should be multiplied by 1.25 which is associated with load type DC assigned to load V2.

Load Factors
Load
(after AASHTO, 2007 Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2)
Combination
EV DC LL/LS ES EH FR
Strength I
1.35 1.25 1.75 1.50 1.50 1.00
(maximum)
Strength I
1.00 0.90 1.75 0.75 0.90 1.00
(minimum)
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00


Item
Factors Reference
Sliding of cast-in-place spread footing on MSE wall s = 0.80 Table 10.5.5.2.2-1
Bearing resistance of MSE wall b = 0.65 Table 11.5.6-1
Tensile resistance (for steel strips) t = 0.75 Table 11.5.6-1

STEP 6. EVALUATE EXTERNAL STABILITY OF SPREAD FOOTING
6.1 Limiting Eccentricity at base of Spread Footing
Since the computations are related to limiting eccentricity, the beneficial contribution of live
load to resisting forces and moments is neglected. Limiting eccentricity is a strength limit
state check and therefore only the strength limits state calculations are necessary. However,
service limit state calculations are also included since some of the results will be needed later
in internal stability analysis. The critical values from strength limit state calculations based
on max/min result in the extreme force effect and govern the limiting eccentricity mode of
failure.
Table E5-6.1. Computations for evaluation of limiting eccentricity for spread footing
Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Sum of overturning moments about Point A
k-ft/ft 24.03 20.11 16.56
MOA = MF1+MFs1 +MF2
Sum of resisting moments about Point A
k-ft/ft 134.50 98.16 103.82
MRA = MV0+MV1+MV2+MV3+MDL
Sum of vertical forces from the footing
k/ft 27.94 20.28 21.89
VA =V0+V1+V2+V3+DL
Location of resultant from Point A, anl = MA/VA ft 3.95 3.85 3.99
Eccentricity from center of footing, ef = 0.5*bf - anl ft 1.42 1.53 1.39
Limiting eccentricity, e = bf/4 for Strength limit state
ft 2.69 2.69 1.79
and e = bf/6 for service limit state
Is the limiting eccentricity criteria satisfied? - Yes Yes Yes
Resisting moments about Point A, MRA-C k-ft/ft 98.16
Vertical force, VA-C k/ft 20.28
Eccentricity from center of footing, ef = 0.5*bf - anl ft 1.72
Limiting eccentricity, e = bf/4 ft 2.69

6.2 Sliding Resistance at base of Spread Footing
The purpose of these computations is to evaluate the sliding resistance at the base of the
spread footing. Since the computations are related to sliding resistance, the beneficial
contribution of live load to resisting horizontal forces is neglected. Note that sliding
resistance is a strength limit state check and therefore only the strength limits state
calculations are necessary. However, service limit state calculations are also included since
some of the results will be needed later in internal stability analysis. Since the friction angle
of reinforced soil, '1, is same as the friction angle for random fill above base of footing, '2,
the sliding check will be performed using '1='2=34o. The critical values based on max/min
result in the extreme force effect and govern the sliding mode of failure.
Table E5-6.2. Computations for evaluation of sliding resistance for spread footing
Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Sum of horizontal forces on footing that contribute to
k/ft 5.55 4.41 3.79
sliding = FA = F1+FS1+F2
Sum of vertical forces from the footing
VA =V0+V1+V2+V3+DL =
k/ft 27.94 20.28 21.89
Nominal sliding resistance, VN = VA*tan('1) k/ft 18.85 13.68 14.76
Factored sliding resistance, VF =s*VN k/ft 15.08 10.94 11.81
Is VF > FA? - Yes Yes Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = VF:FA dim 2.72 2.48 3.12
Minimum VF (VFmin) k/ft 10.94
Maximum FA (FAmax) k/ft 5.55
Is VFmin > FAmax? - Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = VFmin:FAmax dim 1.97
6.3 Bearing Resistance at base of Spread Footing
The purpose of these computations is to evaluate the bearing resistance at the base of the
spread footing. Since the computations are related to bearing resistance, the contribution of
live load is included to create the extreme force effect and maximize the bearing stress. The
bearing stress is compared with bearing resistance to ensure that the footing is adequately
sized. Later on, the bearing stress is also used in internal stability computations. Similarly,
later the value of dimension L1 that defines the incremental lateral pressures due to lateral
load FA (see Figure E5-2) will be needed and hence has been computed in Table E5-6.3.

Table E5-6.3. Computations for evaluation of bearing resistance for spread footing
Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Sum of overturning moments about Point A = MOA
k-ft/ft 24.03 20.11 16.56
=MF1+MFs1 +MF2
Sum of resisting moments about Point A = MRA =
k-ft/ft 195.28 158.94 138.56
MV0+MV1+MV2+MV3+MDL+MLL+MVS1
Factored net moment at Point A, MA = MRA - MOA = k-ft/ft 171.26 138.84 122.00
Sum of vertical forces from the footing for bearing
k/ft 41.96 34.30 29.90
stress analysis=VAb=V0+V1+V2+V3+DL+LL+VS1
Location of resultant from Point A for bearing stress
ft 4.08 4.05 4.08
analysis, awl = MA/VAb
Eccentricity from center of footing, ef = 0.5*bf - awl ft 1.29 1.33 1.29
Limiting eccentricity, e = bf/4 for strength limit states
ft 2.69 2.69 1.79
and e= bf/6 for service limit state
Is the resultant within limiting value of ef? - Yes Yes Yes
Effective width of spread footing, bf'=bf -2ef = ft 8.16 8.10 8.16
Bearing stress, σv = VAb / (bf-2ef) ksf 5.14 4.24 3.66
Factored bearing resistance, qR (given) ksf 7.00 7.00 4.00
Is bearing stress < factored bearing resistance? dim Yes Yes Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = qR:σv dim 1.36 1.65 1.09
Depth of influence for the lateral force at base of
ft 16.29 16.17 16.29
footing, L1 = {cf + (bf - 2ef)} tan(45°+34°/2)
Vertical force, VAb-C k/ft 34.30
Location of resultant from Point A, awl = MA-C/VA-C ft 3.93
Eccentricity from center of footing, ef = 0.5*bf - anl ft 1.44
Limiting eccentricity, e = bf/4 ft 2.69
Effective width of spread footing, bf'=bf - 2ef ft 7.87
Bearing stress, σv-c = VAb-C / (bf-2ef) ksf 4.36
Factored bearing resistance, qR (given) ksf 7.00
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = qR:σv-c dim 1.61

The external stability of MSE wall is a function of the various forces and moments above
plane XY in Figure E5-2. In the LRFD context the forces and moments need to be
categorized into various load types. The primary load types are soil loads (EV, EH), live
load (LL), and permanent loads (DC, DW). The principle of superposition shown in Figure
11.10.10.1-1 of AASHTO (2007) is used in achieving the separation of load types as well as
performing external stability computations of the MSE wall. This separation of various load
types will also permit a proper evaluation of the internal stability of the MSE wall.
The separation of the loads by principle of superposition is primarily achieved by use of

uniform loads and concentrated loads. The uniform loads are used to represent soil and live
loads while the concentrated loads are used to represent permanent bridge loads due to the
bridge superstructure and the concrete spread footing. Since LL is treated differently in the
computations of limiting eccentricity, sliding resistance and bearing resistance, Figures E5-3
and E5-4 show separation of various load types without and with live load components,
respectively. The equations shown in these figures are for computing unfactored forces and
moments. The relevant LRFD load type (e.g., “EV”, “LL”, etc.) are shown in the figures to
permit computations of factored forces and moments using the appropriate load factors as
identified in Table E5-5.1 in Step 5.
It should be noted that use of principle of superposition results in an approximate

representation of a very complex system. A case can conceivably be made for further
separation of forces. However, a more refined system of forces is not justified given that the
behavior of most elements of the system is designed to be within elastic range. One case
where the approximations shown in Figure E5-3 and E5-4 may not be applicable is that of
integral bridge abutments. In such specialized cases, additional forces may need to be
considered depending on the actual abutment configuration.

Uniform Loads + Permanent Bridge Loads
PnL = VA– hγ2(bf+cf)

h SOIL “EV” V5
“EV”
A
anL FA
cf bf
V4 Fs2 F3
H SOIL “EV”
F4
B B
Not-To-Scale
Summary of relevant equations
FA = F1 + F2 + FS1
VA = V0 + V1 + V2 + V3 + DL
MRA = MV0 + MV1 + MV2 + MV3 + MDL
MOA = MF1 + MF2 + MFS1
MA = MRA – MOA
Location of PnL from Point A, anL = MA/VA
Eccentricity of PnL from center of footing, ef = 0.5*bf – anl
Note: See Figure E5-2 and Table E5-4.1 and E5-4.2 for additional information related to
notations for various forces and moments and associated LRFD load types.
Figure E5-3. Superposition of load effects without Live Loads on MSE Wall.

Uniform Loads + Permanent Bridge Loads
heqF LIVE “LS” VS PwL = VAb–(h+heqF) γ2(bf+cf)
Location of PwL = VAb–hγ2(bf+cf)-γ2heqF(bf+cf)
Pwl for bf – 2ef
h SOIL “EV” V5
“EV” “LS”
A
FA
awL
cf bf - 2ef
V4 Fs2 F3
H SOIL “EV”
1H:2V
F4
B B
Not-To-Scale
Summary of relevant equations
FA = F1 + F2 + FS1
VAb = V0 + V1 + V2 + V3 + DL + LL + VS1
MRAb = MV0 + MV1 + MV2 + MV3 + MDL+ MLL+ MVS1
MOAb = MF1 + MF2 + MFS1
MAb = MRAb – MOAb
Location of PwL from Point A, awL = MAb/VAb
Eccentricity of PwL from center of footing, ef = 0.5*bf - awl
Note: See Figure E5-2 and Table E5-4.1 and E5-4.2 for additional information related to
notations for various forces and moments and associated LRFD load types.
Figure E5-4. Superposition of load effects with Live Loads on MSE Wall.
eccentricity is a strength limit state check. However, in Table E5-7.1, the calculations are
also performed for service limit state to obtain the effective footing width which will be used
to determine the equivalent uniform (Meyerhof) bearing stress in Step 7.3 that will be
compared to limiting bearing resistance from serviceability considerations (see Step 2).

Item (Refer to Figure E5-2 for block CDMJ). The
top 13 rows in this table are related to computation Str I Str I
Unit Ser I
of Pwl, PnL, awL and anL values that will also be used (max) (min)
in internal stability calculations.
Unfactored soil weight in block CDMJ in the
k/ft 14.55 14.55 14.55
abutment footing area = (h)[(bf+cf)*2] 
Load factor for soil weight in block CDMJ
dim 1.35 1.00 1.00
[Load Type "EV"]
Factored soil weight in block CDMJ in the abutment
k/ft 19.65 14.55 14.55
footing area
Unfactored LL weight on block CDMJ in the
k/ft 4.16 4.16 4.16
abutment footing area = (bf+cf)*q =(bf+cf)*(γ2)(heqF)
Load factor for LL on block CDMJ
dim 1.75 1.75 1.00
[Load Type "LS"]
Factored LL weight on block CDMJ in the abutment
k/ft 7.28 7.28 4.16
footing area
Vertical weight due to soil weight and LL in block
k/ft 26.93 21.84 18.72
CDMJ
Vertical weight from abutment footing including
k/ft 41.96 34.30 29.90
soil on heel and LL = VAb
Vertical weight from abutment footing including
k/ft 27.94 20.28 21.89
soil on heel and no LL = VA
Net load, P, on base of spread footing from the
k/ft 15.03 12.46 11.18
bridge (with consideration of LL), PwL
Net load, P, on base of spread footing from the
k/ft 8.29 5.72 7.33
bridge (no consideration of LL), PnL
Moment arm of net load PnL from Point B,
ft 4.45 4.35 4.49
Lp = anl + cf
Resisting moment at Point B due to net load P, MPnL
k-ft/ft 36.93 24.89 32.90
= PnL(Lp)
Vertical load at base of MSE wall without LL, VB =
k/ft 165.58 122.24 123.84
V4+V5 + PnL
Resisting moments about Point B without LL
k-ft/ft 2081.72 1539.56 1547.56
surcharge= MRB =MV4+MV5+MPnL
Overturning moments about Point B = MOB =
k-ft/ft 666.03 454.90 448.67
MFS3+MF3+MF4 +MFA (For MFA See Note 1)
ft 8.55 8.87 8.87
from Point B, b =(MRB - MOB)/VB
Eccentricity at base of MSE wall, eL = L/2 – b ft 4.45 4.13 4.13
Limiting eccentricity, e = L/4 for strength limit
ft 6.50 6.50 4.33
states and e= L/6 for service limit state
Overturning moments about Point B, MOB-C k-ft/ft 666.03

Resisting moments about Point B, MRB-C k-ft/ft 1539.56
Net moment about Point A, MB-C = MRB-C - MOB-C k-ft/ft 873.53
Vertical force, VB-C k/ft 122.24
Location of resultant from Point B, b = MB-C/VB-C ft 7.15
Eccentricity from center of footing, eL = L/2 - b ft 5.85
Note 1: MFA = (FA)(H) = (F1 + F2 + FS1)(H) and each of the components of FA is a different
load type and hence has a different load factor.
performed. Since the friction angle of foundation soil, ′fd, is less than the friction angle for
reinforced soil, 1, the sliding check will be performed using ′fd.

Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Lateral load on the MSE wall, Hm =
k/ft 46.08 30.22 NA
F1+F2+F3+F4+FS1+FS2
Vertical load at base of MSE wall without LL
k/ft 165.58 122.24 NA
surcharge = V4+V5+PnL
k/ft 95.60 70.57 NA
= tan(′fd)(V4+V5+PnL)
Factored sliding resistance at base of MSE wall, VFm=
k/ft 95.60 70.57 NA
s*VNm
Is VFm > Hm? - Yes Yes NA
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = VFm:Hm dim 2.07 2.34 NA
Minimum VFm (VFmmin) k/ft 70.57
Is VFmmin > Hmmax? - Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = VFmmin:Hmmax dim 1.53
bearing stresses. Figure E5-4 is used for bearing resistance computations. The bearing stress

at the base of the MSE wall is due to the effect of (1) net bridge load, and (2) the MSE wall.
Each of these two components is briefly discussed below and their computation is illustrated
in Table E5-7.3 in conjunction with Figure E5-4.
Component 1: The net bridge load on the footing is assumed to include live load and is
denoted as PwL which is assumed to be centered on bf – 2ef. The stress due to net bridge load
Pwl is diffused at 1H:2V distribution through the height of the MSE wall. Thus, the vertical
stress at the base of the MSE wall due to the net bridge load, Pwl is as follows:
PwL
 v  footing 
b f  2e f    c f  H 
 2
Component 2: The MSE wall by itself will create a certain bearing stress at its base due to
the effect of other loads, i.e. the effect of V4, V5, VS, FS2, F3, F4, and FA. The bearing stress
due to these loads is as follows:
V
v 
L  2e L
where ΣV = V4 + V5 + VS and the load eccentricity eL is calculated by principles of statics

using appropriate loads and moments with the applicable load factors.
Total equivalent uniform (Meyerhof) bearing stress: The total equivalent uniform
(Meyerhof) bearing stress at the base of the MSE wall is obtained as follows:
 v max   v   v  footing
In LRFD, σvmax is then compared with the factored bearing resistance when computed for
strength limit state and used for settlement analysis when computed for service limit state.
The various computations for evaluation of bearing resistance are presented in Table E5-7.3.
It is critical that the settlement under σvmax be evaluated because the performance of the
bridge will be directly affected by the settlement at the back of the MSE wall. Settlement is
evaluated at Service I Limit State. Note that due to the reinforced MSE wall the settlement of
the spread footing on top of the MSE wall is assumed to be very small, i.e. negligible if the
footing is sized such that the bearing stress is less than 4 ksf under Service I load
combination. Conservatively, all the settlement at the base of the MSE wall is assumed to
occur at the spread footing level, i.e. the MSE wall is assumed to be a rigid block.

Str I Str I
Item Unit Ser I
(max) (min)
Component 1: Bearing Stress due to PwL acting
over bf-2ef and distributed 1H:2V through the
MSE wall height
Base width of stress distribution based on 1H:2V
ft 21.41 21.35 21.41
distribution and Pwl acting on bf'= bf-2ef
Bearing stress due to PwL ksf 0.70 0.58 0.52
Component 2: Bearing stress due to MSE wall
Vertical load at base of MSE wall including LL on
k/ft 174.13 133.35 126.13
top, V = V4+V5+VS
Resisting moments @ Point B on the MSE wall,
k-ft/ft 2263.65 1733.52 1639.72
MRB = MV5+MVS+MV4
Overturning moments @ Point B on the MSE wall,
k-ft/ft 571.95 389.77 379.11
MOB = MFS2+MF3+MF4
Net moment at Point B, MB = MRB - MOB k-ft/ft 1691.70 1343.74 1260.61
Location of Resultant from Point B, b = MB/V ft 9.72 10.08 9.99
Eccentricity from center of wall, eL = 0.5*L – b ft 3.28 2.92 3.01
ft 6.50 6.50 4.33
and e = L/6 for service limit state
Factored bearing stress due to MSE wall = V/(L-2eL) ksf 8.96 6.62 6.31
Total bearing stress due to Component 1 + 2 = σvmax ksf 9.66 7.20 6.83
Factored bearing resistance, qR (given) ksf 15.00 15.00 7.00
Is σvmax < qR? - Yes Yes Yes
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = qR:σvmax dim 1.55 2.08 1.02
CRITICAL VALUES BASED ON MAX/MIN FOR COMPONENT 2
Overturning moments about Point B, MOB-C k-ft/ft 571.95
Resisting moments about Point B, MRB-C k-ft/ft 1733.52
Net moment about Point B, MB-C = MRB-C - MOB-C k-ft/ft 1161.57
Vertical force, VBb-C k/ft 133.35
Location of resultant from Point B, b = MB-C/VBb-C ft 8.71
Eccentricity from center of wall, eL = 0.5*L – b ft 4.29
Bearing stress, σv-c = VBb-C / (L-2eL) ksf 7.65
Compute critical total bearing stress
Total bearing stress due to Component 1+2=σvmax-C ksf 8.35
Factored bearing resistance, qR (given) ksf 15.00
Capacity:Demand Ratio (CDR) = qR:σvmax-C dim 1.80

The quantity cf + bf (=11.25 ft), is greater than H/3 (25.5/3=8.5 ft). Therefore, the modified
shape of the maximum tensile force line (i.e., critical failure surface) shown in Figure 5-1 of
Chapter 5 has to be used. For the case of inextensible steel ribbed strips, the profile of the
critical failure surface, the variation of internal lateral horizontal stress coefficient, Kr, and
the variation of the pullout resistance factor, F*, are as shown in Figure E5-5 wherein other
definitions such as measurement of depths Z and z are also shown. It should be noted that
the variation of Kr and F* are with respect to depth z that is measured from top of the spread
footing while the critical failure surface is with respect to depth z that is measured from top
of coping. The value of Ka is based on the angle of internal friction of the reinforced
backfill, 1, which is equal to Ka1 = 0.283 calculated in Step 4. Thus, the value of Kr varies
from 1.7(0.283) = 0.481 at z = 0 to 1.2(0.283) = 0.340 at z =20 ft. For steel strips,
F*=1.2+log10Cu. Using Cu = 7.0 as given in Step 2, F*= 1.2+log10(7.0) = 2.045 > 2.000.
Therefore, use F*=2.000.
cf bf
Finished grade 1.7 Ka Kr z=0 2.0 F*
z=0
h
H'/2
z'
z=20 ft 1.2 Ka z=20 ft tan (1)
0.3H' = 0.675
H' H Z
Active Resistant
H'/2 Zone Zone
1
0.6
z=H' z=H'
L
z z
Notes:
 Z is measured below bottom of footing; z is measured from top of finished grade
 H is measured from top of leveling pad to bottom of spread footing
 z = Z + h; z' = H – (cf + bf)/0.6
 Within height z' the length of the reinforcement in the active zone is La = cf + bf
F* parameters for steel ribbed strips.

8.2 Establish vertical layout of soil reinforcements and tributary areas
Z= 1.12 ft, 2.35 ft, 4.81 ft, 7.27 ft, 9.73 ft, 12.19 ft, 14.65 ft, 17.11 ft, 19.57 ft, 22.03 ft,
24.49 ft.
based on a typical vertical spacing, Sv, of 2.46 ft that is commonly used in the industry for
steel ribbed strip reinforcement. The vertical spacing near the top and bottom of the walls
are locally adjusted as necessary to fit the height of the wall.
Atrib as follows
Atrib = (wp)(Svt)
where and wp is the panel width of the precast facing element and Svt is the vertical tributary
Table E5-8.1 wherein S vt  Z   Z  . Note that wp = 10.00 ft per Step 2.

Z  (ft) Z  (ft)
Level Z (ft) Svt (ft)
1 1.12 0 1.12+0.5(2.35–1.12)=1.735 1.735
2 2.35 2.35-0.5(2.35–1.12)=1.735 2.35+0.5(4.81-2.35)=3.58 1.845
3 4.81 4.81-0.5(4.81-2.35)=3.58 4.81+0.5(7.27-4.81)=6.04 2.460
4 7.27 7.27-0.5(7.27-4.81)=6.04 7.27+0.5(9.73-7.27)=8.50 2.460
5 9.73 9.73-0.5(9.73-7.27)=8.50 9.73+0.5(12.19-9.73)=10.96 2.460
6 12.19 12.19-0.5(12.19-9.73)=10.96 12.19+0.5(14.65-12.19)=13.42 2.460
7 14.65 14.65-0.5(14.65-12.19)=13.42 14.65+0.5(17.11-14.65)=15.88 2.460
8 17.11 17.11-0.5(17.11-14.65)=15.88 17.11+0.5(19.57-17.11)=18.34 2.460
9 19.57 19.57-0.5(19.57-17.11)=18.34 19.57+0.5(22.03-19.57)=20.80 2.460
10 22.03 22.03-0.5(22.03-19.57)=20.80 22.03+0.5(24.49-22.03)=23.26 2.460
11 24.49 24.49-0.5(24.49-22.03)=23.26 25.50 2.240

The horizontal stress, σH, at any depth within the MSE wall is based on the following
components each of which is summarized in Table E5-8.2.
σH = σH-soil + σH-surcharge + σH-footing + ΔσH

Load
Load Component Horizontal Stress
Type
Soil load, σv-soil EV σH-soil = [Kr σv-soil]γP-EV
Surcharge traffic live load, q EV σH-surcharge = [Krq]γP-EV = [Kr(r heqM)]γP-EV
Vertical footing load, Δσv-footing ES* σH-footing = [Kr Δσv-footing]γP-ES
Horizontal surcharge, FA ES* ΔσH = (2FA/L1)γP-ES at zo=0 ; ΔσH =0 at zo=L1
*As per Article 3.116 of AASHTO (2007 with 2009 Interims), the value of ES may be 1.50
or 1.00 based on how the horizontal stresses are computed. First, compute horizontal
stresses by using factored loads and use ES=1.0 since the horizontal stresses are based on
factored loads. Second, compute horizontal stresses by using nominal loads and then apply
ES=1.50. Choose horizontal stresses that are larger from the two approaches as per Article
3.116. of AASHTO (2007 with 2009 Interims).
Using the unit weight of the reinforced soil mass and heights Z, h, and heqM, the equation for
horizontal stress at any depth Z within the MSE wall can be written as follows (also see
Chapter 4):
σH = Kr (r Z) γP-EV + Kr (r h) γP-EV + Kr (r heqM) γP-EV + Kr (Δσv-footing) γP-ES + (σH) γP-ES
σH = Kr [r (Z + h + heqM) γP-EV + (Δσv-footing) γP-ES] + (σH) γP-ES
Tmax = (σH)(Atrib)
where Atrib is the tributary area for the soil reinforcement at a given level as discussed earlier.

The computations for Tmax are illustrated at Z = 7.27 ft which is Level 4 in the assumed
 At Z=7.27 ft, the following depths are computed

z = Z + h = 7.27 ft + 10.35 ft = 17.62 ft
Z  = 6.04 ft (from Table E5-8.1)
Z  = 8.50 ft (from Table E5-8.1)
z   Z   h = 6.04 ft + 10.35 ft = 16.39 ft
z   Z   h = 8.50 ft + 10.35 ft = 18.85 ft
 Obtain Kr by linear interpolation between 1.7Ka = 0.481 at z = 0.00 ft and 1.2Ka =

0.339 at z = 20.00 ft as follows:
At z  = 16.39 ft, Kr(z-)= 0.339 + (20.00 ft – 16.39 ft)(0.481-0.340)/20.00 ft = 0.365
At z  = 18.85 ft, Kr(z+)= 0.339 + (20.00 ft – 18.85 ft)(0.481-0.340)/20.00 ft = 0.348
 Compute σH-soil = [kr σv-soil]γP-EV due to soil surcharge as follows:

At z  = 16.39 ft,
v-soil(z-) = (0.125 kcf)(16.39 ft) = 2.05 ksf
σH-soil(z-) = [Kr(z-)σv-soil(z-)]γP-EV = (0.365)(2.05 ksf)(1.35) = 1.01 ksf
At z  = 18.85 ft,
v-soil(z+) = (0.125 kcf)(18.85 ft) = 2.36 ksf
σH-soil(z+) = [Kr(z+)σv-soil(z+)]γP-EV = (0.348)(2.36 ksf)(1.35) = 1.11 ksf
 Compute σH-surcharge = [Kr q] γP-EV due to traffic (live load) surcharge as follows:
q = (γf)(heqM) = (0.125 kcf)(2.00 ft) = 0.25 ksf
At z  = 16.39 ft, σH-surcharge(z-) = [Kr(z-) q] γP-EV = (0.365)(0.25 ksf)(1.35) = 0.12 ksf
At z  = 18.85 ft, σH-surcharge(z+) = [Kr(z+) q] γP-EV = (0.348)(0.25 ksf)(1.35) = 0.12 ksf

 Compute σH-footing = [Kr Δσv-footing] γP-ES as follows:
PwL
 v  footing 
b f  2e f    c f  Z 
 2
Method A: Use factored loads and γP-ES = 1.00
From Table E5-6.3, bf -2ef = 8.16 ft
From Step 2, cf = 0.5 ft
From Table E5-7.1, PwL = 15.03 k/ft
From Table E5-8.1, Z  = 6.04 ft and Z  = 8.50 ft
Using above values
Δσv-footing(Z-) = 1.29 ksf and Δσv-footing(Z+) = 1.16 ksf
γP-ES = 1.00 since the factored loads were used.
σH-footing(Z-) = [Kr(Z-)Δσv-footing(Z-)] γP-ES = (0.365)(1.29 ksf)(1.00) = 0.47 ksf
σH-footing(Z+) = [Kr(Z+)Δσv-footing(Z+)] γP-ES = (0.348)(1.16 ksf)(1.00) = 0.40 ksf
σH-footing = 0.5(0.47 ksf + 0.40 ksf) = 0.44 ksf
Method B: Use nominal loads and γP-ES = 1.50

From Table E5-6.3, bf -2ef = 8.16 ft
From Step 2, cf = 0.5 ft
From Table E5-7.1, PwL = 11.18 k/ft
Using above values
Δσv-footing(Z-) = 0.96 ksf and Δσv-footing(Z+) = 0.87 ksf
γP-ES = 1.50 since the nominal loads were used.
σH-footing(Z-) = [Kr(Z-)Δσv-footing(Z-)] γP-ES = (0.365)(0.96 ksf)(1.50) = 0.53 ksf
σH-footing(Z+) = [Kr(Z+)Δσv-footing(Z+)] γP-ES = (0.348)(0.87 ksf)(1.50) = 0.45 ksf
σH-footing = 0.5(0.53 ksf + 0.45 ksf) = 0.49 ksf
Use σH-footing = 0.49 ksf
 Compute ΔσH = (2FA/L1)γP-ES at Z = 0 ; ΔσH = 0 at Z = L1 as follows:
Method A: Use factored loads and γP-ES = 1.00

From Table E5-6.3, L1 = 16.29 ft
From Table E5-6.2, FA = 5.55 k/ft
γP-ES = 1.00 since the factored loads were used.
At Z  = 6.04 ft
ΔσH(Z-) = [(2)(5.55 k/ft)/16.29 ft)][16.29 ft – 6.04 ft)/16.29 ft)] [1.00] = 0.43 ksf
At Z  = 8.50 ft
ΔσH(Z+) = [(2)(5.55 k/ft)/16.29 ft)][16.29 ft – 8.50 ft)/16.29 ft)] [1.00] = 0.33 ksf
ΔσH = 0.5(0.43 ksf + 0.33 ksf) = 0.38 ksf
Method B: Use nominal loads and γP-ES = 1.50

From Table E5-6.3, L1 = 16.29 ft
From Table E5-6.2, FA = 3.79 k/ft
γP-ES = 1.50 since the nominal loads were used.
At Z  = 6.04 ft
ΔσH(Z-) = [(2)(3.79 k/ft)/16.29 ft)][16.29 ft – 6.04 ft)/16.29 ft)] [1.50] = 0.44 ksf
At Z  = 8.50 ft
ΔσH(Z+) = [(2)(3.79 k/ft)/16.29 ft)][16.29 ft – 8.50 ft)/16.29 ft)] [1.50] = 0.33 ksf
ΔσH = 0.5(0.44 ksf + 0.33 ksf) = 0.39 ksf
Use ΔσH = 0.39 ksf
 Using values calculated above, compute σH = σH-soil + σH-surcharge + σH-footing + ΔσH as

follows:
σH = 1.06 ksf + 0.12 ksf + 0.49 ksf + 0.39 ksf = 2.06 ksf

Atrib = (2.46 ft)(10.00 ft) = 24.60 ft2

Tmax = (σH)(Atrib) = (2.06 ksf)(24.60 ft2) = 50.7 k/panel of 10 ft width

The nominal tensile resistance of galvanized steel ribbed strip soil reinforcement is based on
the design life and estimated loss of steel over the design life during corrosion.
As per Step 1, the soil reinforcement for this example is assumed to be Grade 65 (Fy = 65
ksi), 1.969 in. x 0.157 in. (50 mm wide x 4 mm) thick galvanized steel ribbed strips with zinc
coating of 3.386 mils (86 m). As per Step 2, the reinforced backfill meets the AASHTO
(2007) requirements for electrochemical properties. For this reinforced backfill, the basis for
calculating the thickness losses due to corrosion is as follows per Article 11.10.6.4.2a of
AASHTO (2007):
thickness loss is calculated as follows:
ER = (0.47 mil/year/side) (84 years) (2 sides) = 78.96 mils = 0.079 in., and
EC = 0.157 in. – 0.079 in. = 0.078 in.
Based on a 1.969 wide strip, the cross-sectional area at the end of 100 years will be equal to
(1.969 in.) (0.078 in.) = 0.154 in2.
For Grade 65 steel with Fy = 65 ksi, the nominal tensile resistance at end of 100 year design
life will be Tn = 65 ksi (0.154 in2) = 10.00 k/strip. Using the resistance factor, t = 0.75 as
listed in Table E5-5.2, the factored tensile resistance, Tr = 10.00 k/strip (0.75) = 7.50 k/strip.

The nominal pullout resistance, Pr, of galvanized steel ribbed strip soil reinforcement is based
For this example problem, the following parameters are constant at levels of reinforcements:
b = 50 mm = 1.97 in. = 0.164 ft
 = 1.0 for inextensible reinforcement per Table 11.10.6.3.2-1 of AASHTO (2007)
The computations for Pr are illustrated at Z = 7.27 ft which is Level 4 as measured from top
 At Z = 7.27 ft, z = Z + h = 7.27 ft + 10.35 ft = 17.62 ft
 Obtain F* at z =17.62 ft by linear interpolation between 2.000 at z = 0 and 0.675 at

z=20 ft as follows:
F* = 0.675 + (20.00 ft – 17.62 ft)(2.000 – 0.675)/20 ft = 0.832

z' = H – (cf + bf)/0.6 = 25.5 ft – (0.5 ft + 10.75 ft)0.6 = 6.75 ft
Since Z > z', Le = L – [0.6(H – Z)]
Le = 26 ft – 0.6(25.5 ft – 7.27 ft) = 15.06 ft
 Per Article 11.10.6.3.2 use unfactored vertical stress for pullout resistance. Thus,
γP-EV = 1.00. Thus, compute (σv-soil)(γP-EV) = (0.125 kcf)(17.62 ft) (1.00) = 2.20 ksf

Pr = (1.0)(0.832)(2)(0.164 ft)(15.06 ft)(2.20 ksf) = 9.04 k/strip

Prr = Pr = (0.90)(9.04 k/strip) = 8.14 k/strip

Based on Tmax, Tr and Prr, the number of strip reinforcements at any given level of
 Based on tensile resistance considerations, the number of strip reinforcements, Nt, is

Nt = Tmax/Tr
 Based on pullout resistance considerations, the number of strip reinforcements, Np, is

Np = Tmax/Prr
Using the Level 4 reinforcement at Z = 7.27 ft, the number of strip reinforcements can be
 Tmax = 50.7 k/panel of 10 ft width, Tr = 7.50 k/strip, Prr = 8.14 k/strip
 Nt = Tmax/Tr = (50.7 k/panel of 10 ft width)/(7.50 k/strip) = 6.8 strips/panel of 10 ft

width
 Np = Tmax/Prr = (50.7 k/panel of 10 ft width)/(8.14 k/strip) = 6.2 strips/panel of 10 ft

width
value, Ng, is 6.8. Round up to select 7 strips at Level 4 for each panel of 10 ft width.
E5-8.3 presents a summary of the computations at all levels of reinforcement for Strength I
(max) load combination. The last column of Table E5-8.3 provides horizontal spacing of the
reinforcing strips which is obtained by dividing the panel width, wp, by the governing
number of strips, Ng. Similar computations can be performed for Strength I (min) and
Service I load combination but they will not govern the design because the load factors for
these two load combinations are less than those for Strength I (max) load combination.

combination
Z Kr H Tmax F* Le p(Pr) s(Tn) Np Nt Ng Sh

k/10 ft
Level wide
ft dim ksf panel dim ft k/strip k/strip ft
1 1.12 0.399 2.30 39.86 1.240 14.75 7.74 7.50 5.1 5.3 6 1.7
2 2.35 0.391 2.22 41.00 1.158 14.75 8.01 7.50 5.1 5.5 6 1.7
3 4.81 0.373 2.14 52.65 0.995 14.75 8.21 7.50 6.4 7.0 8 1.3
4 7.27 0.356 2.05 50.46 0.832 15.06 8.15 7.50 6.2 6.7 7 1.4
5 9.73 0.339 1.99 48.87 0.675 16.54 8.27 7.50 5.9 6.5 7 1.4
6 12.19 0.339 1.97 48.39 0.675 18.01 10.12 7.50 4.8 6.4 7 1.4
7 14.65 0.339 1.97 48.52 0.675 19.49 12.14 7.50 4.0 6.5 7 1.4
8 17.11 0.339 2.02 49.63 0.675 20.97 14.34 7.50 3.5 6.6 7 1.4
9 19.57 0.339 2.14 52.55 0.675 22.44 16.73 7.50 3.1 7.0 8 1.3
10 22.03 0.339 2.26 55.54 0.675 23.92 19.29 7.50 2.9 7.4 8 1.3
11 24.49 0.339 2.38 53.22 0.675 25.39 22.04 7.50 2.4 7.1 8 1.3
Facing panels for true bridge abutment applications require special attention and project
specific design. As per Article 11.10.11 of AASHTO (2007), due to the relatively high
bearing pressures near the panel connections, the adequacy and nominal capacity of panel
connections should be determined by conducting pullout and flexural tests on full-sized
panels.

STATE
From Step 2, it is given that the foundation soil is dense clayey sand that has fd = 30°, fd =

STEP 11: DESIGN WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
See Chapters 5 and 6 for wall drainage considerations. For a true bridge abutment, the
drainage system for the MSE wall must be carefully integrated with the other bridge drain
systems, such as the deck drainage. Often storm drain pipes are placed through the MSE
wall backfill in true bridge abutments. Every attempt must be made to relocate these drain
features behind the reinforced backfill.
E5-2 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The design of a true bridge abutment is a complex process. The actual detailing of the
abutment is particularly important given that a number of disciplines ranging from
geotechnical, structural, hydraulics, roadway, utilities and aesthetics have specific
requirements at abutment locations. All relevant input must be sought and incorporated into
the project plans and specifications. Following is a general list of practical considerations
from a geotechnical and structural viewpoint:
1. As noted in Article 11.10.11 of AASHTO (2007), the governing density, length, and
cross-section of the soil reinforcements in Table E-4-8.3 shall be carried on the
wingwalls of a minimum horizontal distance equal to 50 percent of the height of the
abutment. Since the height of the abutment is 25.5 ft, the minimum horizontal
distance along the wing wall is therefore 25.5 ft/2 = 12.5 ft. This dimension is greater
than cf + bf = 0.5 ft + 10.75 ft = 11.25 ft. Thus, the 2-way reinforcement is equal in
both directions under the full width of the spread footing which provides a consistent
bearing resistance across the footing.
2. Use of an approach slab is redundant for a true bridge abutment since the MSE wall
and the spread footing above it settle as a unit. However, some agencies require the
use of approach slab in which case special details may be necessary. Depending on
the design of the approach slab system, live load may be omitted on the bridge
approaches.
3. Commonly bridge abutments on spread footings on top of MSE walls are stand alone
abutments with wing walls. Assuming that the wing walls are part of the MSE wall
system, there will be 2-way reinforcement within the length of reinforcement
perpendicular to the abutment face. It is preferable that reinforcement is not placed
on top of each other in the zone of 2-way reinforcement. The overlapping
reinforcement should be separated by 3 in. to 6 in. of soil or some multiple of

compacted fill height. This may be achieved by appropriately stepping of the leveling
pad between the abutment face wall and the wing walls.
4. To prevent adverse stress concentrations at the reinforcement connections, the

minimum vertical clearance between the bottom of the footing and the top level of
reinforcement should be 1 ft.
5. In the height h1 and h2 shown in Figure E5-1, a false panel can be placed to cover the
step in the footing. Often the coping is extended up in this area. Styrofoam or similar
lightweight material which is fairly impermeable is placed in this area to minimize
lateral loads on the coping or MSE panel and prevent migration of moisture into the
backfill at the corrosion critical panel-reinforcement connection location.

EXAMPLE E6
TRAFFIC BARRIER IMPACT LOADING ON
SEGMENTAL PRECAST PANEL MSE WALL WITH
STEEL GRID REINFORCEMENT
E6-1 INTRODUCTION
This example problem is an extension of Example Problem E4, and demonstrates the analysis
of a MSE wall with a traffic barrier impact load. The MSE wall is assumed to include a
segmental precast panel face with steel grid (bar mat) reinforcements. The MSE wall
configuration to be analyzed is shown in Figure E4-1.
The analysis is based on various principles that were discussed in Section 7.3. Table E6-1
presents a summary of steps involved in this traffic barrier analysis. The analysis uses the
reinforcement spacing and sizing developed in Example E4. Practical considerations are
presented in Section E6-2 after the illustration of the step-by-step procedures.
Table E6-1. Summary of additional steps for traffic barrier impact load on
a MSE wall with level backfill and live load surcharge
Step Item
7.5 Check/eEstablish nominal and factored pullout resistance of soil reinforcement
7.6 Check/establish number of soil reinforcing elements at each level of reinforcement
Traffic barrier impact affects the internal stability of the reinforced soil wall. Therefore, only
internal loads are discussed below. See Example E4 for external loads.
The coefficients of active lateral earth pressure for internal stability is:
Kar = (1 - sin34°)/(1 + sin34°) = 0.283
FHWA NHI-10-025 Example E6 – Traffic Barrier Impact Loading

Table E4-5.1 summarizes the load factors for the various LRFD load type.
Table E6-5.1. Applicable load factors

Load Factors
Load
(after Tables 3.4.1-1 and 3.4.1-2 (AASHTO, 2007))
Combination
EV LL CT
Strength I
P = 1.35 1.75 –
(maximum)
Extreme II P = 1.35 0.50 1.00
For computation of factored resistances during evaluation of extreme limits states,

appropriate resistance factors have to be used. Article 11.5.7 Extreme Event Limit
(AASHTO, 2007) states: The applicable load combinations and load factors specified in
Table 3.4.1-1 shall be investigated. Unless otherwise specified, all resistance factors shall
be taken as 1.0 when investigating the extreme limit state. Table E6-5.2 summarizes the
applicable resistance factors.
Table E6-5.2. Summary of applicable resistance factors for evaluation

of extreme limit states
Item
Factors Reference
Tensile resistance Strength Limit State t = 0.65 Table 11.5.6-1
(for steel bar mats) Extreme Limit State t = 1.0 Article 11.5.7
Pullout resistance Strength Limit State p = 0.90 Table 11.5.6-1
Extreme Limit State t = 1.0 Article 11.5.7
Only the upper two layers of soil reinforcement are examined for the traffic barrier impact.
Tensile and pullout resistance are checked.
The following vertical layout of the top three soil reinforcements was chosen in Problem E4.
Z = 1.87 ft, 4.37 ft, and 6.87 ft,

Atrib as follows:
Atrib = (wp)(Svt)
where wp is the panel width of the precast facing element and Svt is the vertical tributary
Table E6-7.1 wherein S vt  z   z  . Note that wp = 5.00 ft per Step 2.

1 1.87 0 1.87+0.5(4.37–1.87)=3.12 3.12
2 4.37 4.37-0.5(4.37–1.87)=3.12 4.37+0.5(6.87-4.37)=5.62 2.50
3 6.87 6.87-0.5(6.87-4.37)=5.62
The computations for Tmax are computed for Level 1 and 2 Reinforcements, at zo = 1.87 ft
and 4.37 ft, respectively. Extreme Event II load combination is used, with appropriate load
factors from Table E6-5.1. The maximum load at a given level is:
Tmax  σ H A trib  γ CT (TCT )
where Atrib = tributary area for the soil reinforcement at a given level
TCT = tensile load for the impact loading
The impact loads vary between reinforcement tensile rupture design and pullout design.
Therefore, two maximum loads must be computed for traffic barrier impact loading – Tmax-R
and Tmax-PO. For tensile rupture check, the upper layer of soil reinforcement is designed for a
rupture impact load of 2,300 lb/lft of wall; and the second layer is designed with a rupture
impact load of 600 lb/lft. Pullout is resisted over a greater length of wall than the
reinforcement rupture loads. Therefore, for pullout, the upper layer of soil reinforcement is
designed for a pullout impact load of 1,300 lb/lft of wall; and the second layer is designed
with a pullout impact load of 600 lb/lft.

Top Layer (Level 1):
Z  = 0 ft (from Table E6-7.1)
Z  = 3.12 ft (from Table E6-7.1)

At Z  = 0 ft, Kr(z-)= 0.707
At Z  = 3.12 ft, Kr(z+)= 0.340 + (20.00 ft – 3.12 ft)(0.707-0.340)/20.00 ft = 0.650
 Compute σH = kr [ r (Z + heq)]γP-EV per EQ 4-34, as follows:

At Z  = 0
σH(Z-) = Kr(z-) [r (Z(z-) + heq ] γP-EV = (0.707)[ 125 pcf (0 + 2)](1.35) = 239 psf
At Z  = 3.12 ft,
σH-soil(Z+) = Kr(z+) [r (Z(z+) + heq ] γP-EV = (0.650)[ 125 pcf (3.12 + 2)](1.35) = 562 psf
σH = 0.5(239 psf + 562 psf) = 400 psf
 The panel width, wp, is 5.00 ft (given in Step 1, Example E4)

Atrib = (3.12 ft)(5.00 ft) = 15.60 ft2
 The maximum tension at Level 1 with the 2,300 lb/lft impact load is computed as
follows:
Tmax-R = (σH)(Atrib) + CT (2,300 wp) = (400 psf)(15.60 ft2) + 1.0 [2,300 lb/ft (5 ft)]
= 6,240 + 11,500 = 17.74 k/panel of 5-ft width
Second Layer (Level 2):

Z  = 3.12 ft (from Table E6-7.1)
Z  = 3.12 ft (from Table E6-7.1)

At Z  = 3.12 ft, Kr(z-)= 0.340 + (20.00 ft – 3.12 ft)(0.707-0.340)/20.00 ft = 0.650
At Z  = 5.62 ft, Kr(z+)= 0.340 + (20.00 ft – 5.62 ft)(0.707-0.340)/20.00 ft = 0.604
 Compute σH = kr [ r (Z + heq)]γP-EV per EQ 4-34, as follows:

At Z  = 3.12 ft,
σH(Z-) = Kr(z-) [r (Z(z-) + heq ] γP-EV = (0.650)[ 125 pcf (3.12 + 2)](1.35) = 562 psf
At Z  = 5.62 ft,
σH-soil(Z+) = Kr(z+) [r (Z(z+) + heq ] γP-EV = (0.604)[ 125 pcf (5.62 + 2)](1.35) = 777 psf
σH = 0.5(562 psf + 777 psf) = 670 psf
 The panel width, wp, is 5.00 ft (given in Step 1, Example E4)

Atrib = (2.50 ft)(5.00 ft) = 12.50 ft2
 The maximum tension at Level 2 with the 600 lb/lft impact load is computed as
follows:
Tmax-R = (σH)(Atrib) + CT (600 wp) = (670 psf)(12.50 ft2) + 1.0 [600 lb/ft (5 ft)]
7.4 Establish factored long-term tensile resistance of soil reinforcement for extreme
event
The nominal tensile resistance of galvanized steel bar mat soil reinforcement is based on the
design life and estimated loss of steel over the design life during corrosion – see Example E4
for corrosion loss calculations.

For W11 wires
Tn = 65 ksi (0.0795 in2) = 5.17 k/wire.
Using the extreme event resistance factor, t = 1.0 as listed in Table E6-5.2, the factored
tensile resistance, Tr = 5.17 k/wire (1.0) = 5.17 k/wire.
The nominal pullout resistance, Pr, of galvanized steel bar mat (grid) reinforcement is based
Pr = (F*)(2b)(Le)[(σv)(γP-EV)]
Where σv =  (Z + heq)
Since the steel bar mat has welded connections, it can be considered inextensible with  = 1.
Assume a W11 transverse wire which has a nominal diameter of 0.374 in. The transverse
spacing of transverse wires, St, is equal to 6 in. for the top two layers of reinforcement, as
determined in Example Problem E4.
For, St = 6 in., t/St = 0.3748 in./6 in. = 0.0623
Based on the value of t/St, the F* parameter varies from 20(t/St) at z = 0 ft to 10(t/St) at z ≥
20 ft and greater.
Assume bar mat width, b = 1 ft for computing pullout resistance on a per foot width basis.
The actual bar mat width will be computed based on comparison of the pullout resistance
with Tmax. The number of longitudinal wires and thus the width of the bar mats will be
determined in Example E4..
The computations for Pr are for the top two layers at z = 1.87 and 4.37, respectively. For
pullout, the upper layer of soil reinforcement be designed for a pullout impact load of 1,300
lb/lft (19.0 kN/m) of wall; and the second layer be designed with a pullout impact load of 600
lb/lft (8.8 kN/m).

Top Layer (Level 1)
 Obtain F* at z = 1.87 ft by linear interpolation between 1.247 at Z = 0 and 0.623 at Z
= 20 ft as follows:
F* = 0.623 + (20.00 ft – 1.87 ft)(1.247 – 0.623)/20 ft = 1.189

The pullout resistance of the soil reinforcement to the impact load is resisted over the
full-length of the reinforcements (i.e., L).
Therfore, Le = L = 18 ft
resistance. Thus,
γP-EV = 1.00
(σv-soil + heq)(γP-EV) = (125 pcf)(1.87 ft + 2 ft)(1.00) = 484 psf

Pr = (1.0)(1.189)(2)(1.00 ft)(18 ft)(484 psf) = 20,717 lb/ft

Prr = Pr = (1.0)(20.72 k/ft) = 20.72 k/ft
 The maximum pullout tension at Level 1 with the 600 lb/lft impact load and H from
Step 7.3 is computed as follows:
Tmax-PO = (σH)(Atrib) + CT (1,300 wp) = (400 psf)(15.60 ft2) + 1.0 [1,300 lb/ft (5 ft)]
Second Layer (Level 2)

 Obtain F* at z = 4.37 ft by linear interpolation between 1.247 at Z = 0 and 0.623 at Z
= 20 ft as follows:
F* = 0.623 + (20.00 ft – 4.37 ft)(1.247 – 0.623)/20 ft = 1.111

The pullout resistance of the soil reinforcement to the impact load is resisted over the
full-length of the reinforcements (i.e., L).
Therfore, Le = L = 18 ft

resistance. Thus,
γP-EV = 1.00
(σv-soil + heq)(γP-EV) = (125 pcf)(4.37 ft + 2 ft)(1.00) = 796 psf

Pr = (1.0)(1.111)(2)(1.00 ft)(18 ft)(796 psf) = 31,836 lb/ft

Prr = Pr = (1.0)(31.84 k/ft) = 31.84 k/ft
 The maximum pullout tension at Level 2 with the 600 lb/lft impact load and H from
Step 7.3 is computed as follows:
Tmax-PO = (σH)(Atrib) + CT (600 wp) = (670 psf)(12.50 ft2) + 1.0 [600 lb/ft (5 ft)]
7.6 Establish number of longitudinal wires at each level of reinforcement
Based on Tmax-R, Tr, Tmax-PO, and Prr, the number of longitudinal wires at any given level of
 Based on tensile resistance considerations, the number of longitudinal, Nt, is

Nt = Tmax-R/Tr
 Based on pullout resistance considerations, the number of longitudinal wires, Np, is

Np = 1 + (Tmax-PO/Prr)/(Sl)
Top Layer (Level 1) Reinforcement at Z = 1.87 ft, the number of W11 longitudinal wires
for 5 ft wide panel can be computed as follows:
 Tmax-R = 17.74 k/panel of 5-ft width, Tr = 5.17 k/wire

 Nt = Tmax-R/Tr = (17.74 k/panel of 5-ft width)/(5.17 k/wire) = 3.4 longitudinal
wires/panel of 5-ft width
 Np = Tmax-PO/Prr = 1 + [(12.74 k/panel of 5-ft width)/(20.72 k/ft)]/(0.5 ft)

= 1 + 1.4 = 2.4 longitudinal wires/panel
value, Ng, is 4.0. Select 4 longitudinal wires at Level 1 for each panel of 5-ft width.
Thus, the Strength I steel bar mat configuration at Level 1 of 4W11 + W11x0.5' is
sufficient for the Extreme Event II traffic barrier loading.
Second Layer (Level 2) Reinforcement at Z = 4.37 ft, the number of W11 longitudinal wires
for 5 ft wide panel can be computed as follows:
 Tmax-R = 11.38 k/panel of 5-ft width, Tr = 5.17 k/wire,
 Nt = Tmax-R/Tr = (11.38 k/panel of 5-ft width)/(5.17 k/wire) = 2.2 longitudinal

wires/panel of 5-ft width
 Np = Tmax-PO/Prr = 1 + [(11.38 k/panel of 5-ft width)/(31.84 k/ft)]/(0.5 ft)

= 1 + 0.87 = 1.7 longitudinal wires/panel
value, Ng, is 4.0. Select 3 longitudinal wires at Level 2 for each panel of 5-ft width.
Thus, the Strength I steel bar mat configuration at Level 2 of 3W11 + W11x0.5' is
sufficient for the Extreme Event II traffic barrier loading.
connection strength as discussed in Chapter 4. The upper facing panel should be separated
from the barrier slab with 1 to 2 in. of expanded polystyrene (see Figure 5-2(b)). The
distance should be adequate to allow the barrier and slab to resist the impact load in sliding
and overturning without loading the facing panel.

EXAMPLE E7
SEGMENTAL PRECAST PANEL MSE WALL WITH SEISMIC LOADING
E7-1 INTRODUCTION
This example problem demonstrates the analysis of the Example #4 MSE wall for earthquake
loading. The MSE wall has a level backfill and live load surcharge, and is assumed to
include a segmental precast panel face with steel grid (bar mat) reinforcements. The MSE
wall configuration to be analyzed is shown in Figure E4-1. The analysis is based on various
principles that were discussed in Chapter 7. Table E7-1 presents a summary of steps
involved in the analysis. Each of the steps and sub-steps is sequential and if the design is
revised at any step or sub-step then all the previous computations need to be re-visited. Each
of the steps and the sub-steps in Table E7-1 is explained in detail herein.
Table E7-1. Summary of steps in analysis of MSE wall with seismic loading
Step Item
GENERAL
1 Complete static analysis/design
EXTERNAL STABILITY
1 Establish initial wall design based on static loading
2 Establish seismic hazard, and estimate peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral
acceleration at 1-second, S1.
3 Establish site effects
4 Determine maximum accelerations, kmax, and peak ground velocity (PVG)
5 Obtain an average peak ground acceleration, kav, within the reinforced soil zone
6 Determine the total (static + dynamic) thrust PAE, using one of the following two
methods
1 Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) formulation
2 Generalized Limit Equilibrium (GLE) slope stability
7 Determine the horizontal inertial force, PIR, of the total reinforced wall mass
8 Check sliding stability
 if sliding stability is met, go to Step 11
 if sliding stability is not met, go to Step 9
9 Determine the wall yield seismic coefficient, ky, where wall sliding is initiated.
10 Determine the wall sliding displacement based on the following relationships between
d, ky/kmax, kmax, PGV, and site location
11 Evaluate the limiting eccentricity and bearing resistance
12 If Step 11 criteria are not met, adjust the wall geometry and repeat Steps 6 to 11, as
needed
13 If Step 11 criteria are met, assess acceptability of amount of sliding displacement
FHWA NHI-10-025 Example E7 – Seismic Loading

INTERNAL STABILITY
1 Compute the internal dynamic force, Pi, of the active wedge
2 Compute maximum combined factored loads in the soil reinforcements
3 Check tensile resistance of soil reinforcements
4 Check pullout resistance of the soil reinforcements
5 Check connection resistance
GENERAL
STEP 1. COMPLETE STATIC ANALYSIS/DESIGN
Initial wall design based upon static loading was established in Example E4.
Table E7-2 summarizes the load factors for the various LRFD load type, including seismic
(extreme event I), shown in second column of Tables E4-4.1 and E4-4.2. Throughout the
computations in this example problem, the forces and moments in Tables E4-4.1 and
E4-4.2 should be multiplied by appropriate load factors.
Table E7-2. Summary of applicable load factors

Load Factors
EV EH LS EQ
Extreme Event I p p EQ = 1.00 1.00
Strength I (maximum) p = 1.35 p = 1.50 1.75 –
Strength I (minimum) p = 1.00 p = 0.90 1.75 –
Service I 1.00 1.00 1.00 –
For computation of factored resistances during evaluation of extreme event I limits states,
appropriate resistance factors have to be used. Table E7-3 summarizes the applicable
resistance factors.
Table E7-3. Summary of applicable combined static/earthquake resistance factors

Item
Factors Reference
Bearing resistance b = 1.00 Article 10.5.5.3.3
Tensile resistance (for steel bar mats) t = 0.85 Table 11.5.6-1

EVALUATE XTERNAL STABILITY ANALYSIS OF MSE WALL
STEP 1. ESTABLISH INITIAL WALL DESIGN
Initial wall design based upon static loading was established in Example E4.
STEP 2. ESTABLISH SEISMIC HAZARD, AND ESTIMATE PEAK GROUND

ACCELERATION (PGA) AND SPECTRAL ACCELERATION AT 1-
SECOND, S1.
The USGS Seismic Design Parameters CD (Version 2.10) {provided with AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Specifications) was used to determine these design parameters. An assumed location
of Latitude 40.66 and Longitude –111.51 was used for this design example. The following
parameters were established:
 PGA = 0.206 g
 S1 at 1.0 sec Period = 0.177 g
STEP 3. ESTABLISH SITE EFFECTS
From the assumed location (Latitude and Longitude) and the USGS Seismic Design
Parameters CD (Version 2.10). The following Site Class was found.
 Site Class B
From AASHTO Table 3.10.3.2-1, and using Site Class B and PGA = 0.206g, the Fpga value at
zero-period on acceleration spectrum is established.
 Fpga = 1.00
From AASHTO Table 3.10.3.2-3, and using Site Class B and S1 = 0.177g, Fv value is
established.
 Fv = 1.0
STEP 4. DETERMINE MAXIMUM ACCELERATIONS, kmax, AND PEAK

GROUND VELOCITY (PVG)
With Equation 7-1:

kmax = Fpga (PGA) = 1.00 (0.206 g) = 0.206 g

With Equation 7-2:
PGV (in/sec) = 38 Fv S1 = 38 (1.0) (0.177 g) = 6.726
STEP 5. OBTAIN AN AVERAGE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION, kav,

WITHIN THE REINFORCED SOIL ZONE
The average peak ground acceleration, using a wall height dependent reduction factor, ,
within the reinforced soil zone, using Equation7-3, is equal to:
kav =  kmax
For Site Class B and using Equation 7-4 the wall height factor, , is equal to:
   Fv S 1       1.0  0.177g   
  120% 1  0.01H 0.5    1   120% 1  0.01 25.64 ft 0.5    1 
   k max       0.206g   
 = 1.0245
Therefore,
kav =  kmax = 1.024 (0.206g) = 0.211g
STEP 6. DETERMINE THE TOTAL (STATIC + DYNAMIC) THRUST PAE
The total (static + dynamic) thrust PAE, may be determined using one of the following two
methods
1 Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) formulation
2 Generalized Limit Equilibrium (GLE) slope stability
The M-O formulation is used for this design example.
Assumptions:
 kv = 0
 kh = kmax = 0.206g

With the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) formulation (see Equation 7-5):
PAE  0.5 K AE   f h 2
where h is the wall height along the vertical plane within the reinforced soil mass as shown
below (and in Figure 7-1), b is the unit weight of the retained backfill and KAE is obtained as
per Equation 7-6, as follows.
h
H
h/2
tan I (0.5H )
h H ; where I is the backfill slope angle
1  0.5 tan I 
tan 0 0.5 25.64
h  25.64   25.64 ft
1  0.5 tan 0
Per Equation 7-6, KAE is equal to:
cos 2 ( 'b    90  )
K AE 
2
 sin('b  ) sin('b    I ) 
cos  cos 2 (90  ) cos(  90    ) 1  
 cos(  90    ) cosI  90   
 
with

 k   0.206 g 
ξ  tan 1  h   tan 1    11.64
 1 k v   1-0 
 = angle of wall friction = lesser of the angle of friction for the reinforced soil mass ('r)
and the retained backfill ('b) = 30
I = the backfill slope angle = β = 0
'b = angle of internal friction for retained backfill = 30
 = the slope angle of the face = 90
cos 2 ( 30  11.64  90  90)

K AE  2
 sin(30  30) sin(30  11.64  0) 
cos 11.64 cos (90  90) cos(30  90  90  11.64)1 
2

 cos(30  90  90  11.64) cos0  90  90 
cos 2 (18.36) 0.9008

K AE    0.4782
0.7320 1  0.6042
2 2
 sin(60) sin(18.36) 
cos 11.64 cos(41.64)1  
 cos(41.64) 
Therefore
 
PAE  0.5 K AE  γ b h 2  0.5 0.4782  125 lb/ft 3 25.64 ft   19.65 k/lft
2
STEP 7 DETERMINE THE HORIZONTAL INERTIA FORCE, PIR
Determine the horizontal inertial force, PIR, of the total reinforced wall mass with Equation 7-7,
as follows:
PIR = 0.5(kav)(W)
where W is the weight of the full reinforced soil mass and any overlying permanent slopes
and/or permanent surcharges within the limits of the reinforced soil mass. The inertial force is
assumed to act at the centroid of the mass used to determine the weight W.
W = 25.64 ft (18 ft) (125 pcf) = 57.68 k/lft

PIR = 0.5(kav)(W) = 0.5 (0.211 g) (57.68 k/lft) = 6.09 k/lft
STEP 8 CHECK SLIDING STABILITY
From page 7-6, check the sliding stability using a resistance factor, , equal to 1.0 and the full,
nominal weight of the reinforced zone and any overlying permament sucharges. If the sliding
stability is met, the design is satisfactory and go to Step 11. If not, go to Step 9.
Compute the total horizontal force, THF, for M-O Method as follows:
THF = Horizontal component of PAE + PIR + EQ(qLS)(H)(KAE) + other horizontal nominal

forces due to surcharges (with load factor =1.0)
where, EQ is the load factor for live load in Extreme Event I limit state and qLS is the
intensity of the live load surcharge.
THF = PAE cos+ PIR + EQ(qLS)

= 19.65 k/lft (cos 30) + 6.09 k/lft + 0.5(0.25 ksf)(25.64 ft)(0.4785) =
= 17.02 k/lft + 6.09 k/lft + 1.53 k/lft
= 24.64 k/lft
Compute the sliding resistance, R, as follows:
R = V (
where  is the minimum of tan'r, tan'f or (for continuous reinforcement) tan (as discussed in
Section 4.5.6.a) and V is the summation of the vertical forces as follows:

V = W + PAEsin + permanent nominal surcharge loads within the limits of the reinforced
soil mass
V = W + PAEsink/lft + 19.65 k/lft (sin 30) = 57.68 + 9.84 = 67.52 k/lft
R = V (k/lft (tan 30) = 38.98 k/lft
The sliding stability capacity to demand (CDR) ratio is calculated as:
CDRsliding = R / THF = 38.98 k/lft / 24.64 k/lft = 1.58 > 1.0  O.K., and go to Step 11

STEP 11. EVALUATE ECCENTRICITY AND BEARING RESISTANCE
Evaluate the limiting eccentricity and bearing resistance. Include all applicable loads for
Extreme Event I. For the M-O method, add other applicable forces to PAE. Check the limit
states using the following criteria:
1. For limiting eccentricity, for foundations on soil and rock, the location of the resultant of the
applicable forces should be within the middle two-thirds of the wall base for EQ = 0.0 and
within the middle eight-tenths of the wall base for EQ = 1.0. Interpolate linearly between
these values as appropriate.
2. For bearing resistance compare the bearing pressure to the nominal bearing resistance (i.e.,
use a resistance factor of 1.0) based on full width of the reinforced zone.

Table E7-4. Computations for evaluation of limiting eccentricity for MSE wall
Extreme Event I
Item Unit
(p = max) (p = min)
k/ft 77.88 57.69
VA = V1
PAE sin k/ft 9.84 9.84
Resisting moments about Point A without LL
k-ft/ft 878.05 696.33
surcharge = MRA = M1V1 + L (PAE sin
Total thrust seismic overturning moment about Pt A
k-ft/ft 218.16 218.16
= PAE coshk/ft (cos 30) (25.64/2 ft)
LL component overturning moment about Point A =
k-ft/ft 19.65 19.65
1.53k/ft (25.64/2 ft)
Inertial force, PIR overturning moment about Pt A =
max: 6.09 k/lft (1.35)(25.64/2 ft) k-ft/ft 105.36 78.04
min: 6.09 k/lft (1.00)(25.64/2 ft)
Overturning moment, MOA (static + seismic) k-ft/ft 343.17 315.85
Net moment about Point A = MA = MRA – MOA k-ft/ft 534.88 380.48
ft 6.10 5.63
from Point A, a = MA/(VA + PAE sin
Eccentricity at base of MSE wall, eL = L/2 – a ft 2.9 3.37
Limiting eccentricity, e = 0.40L for extreme event I
ft 6.60 6.60
limit state
Is the resultant within limiting value of e? - Yes Yes
Calculated eL/L - 0.16 0.19
Vertical force, VA-C = V1 + PAE sin k/ft 67.52
Limiting seismic eccentricity, e = 0.4L ft 7.20
11.2 Bearing Resistance at Base of MSE Wall
bearing stresses. For seismic bearing resistance compare the bearing pressure to the nominal
bearing resistance (i.e., use a resistance factor of 1.0) based on full width of the reinforced zone.
Therefore, seismic bearing stress at the base of the MSE wall can be computed as follows:

v 
V
L  2e
where ΣV = R = V1 + VS + PAE sinis the resultant of vertical.
Table E7-5. Computations for evaluation of seismic bearing resistance

(see Table E4-6.3. for static values0
Extreme
Item Unit Event I
(p = max)
Static Vertical load at base of MSE wall including
k/ft 80.13
LL on top, ΣV = R = V1 + VS
Seismic Vertical load at base of MSE wall, PAE sin k/ft 9.84
k/ft 89.97
VA = R = V1 + VS + PAE sin
Resisting moments about Point A = MRA
k-ft/ft 898.03
= MV1 + MV5 + MPV
Overturning moments about Point A = MOA
k-ft/ft 343.17
= MF1 + MF2 + MFIR
Net moment at Point A, MA = MRA - MOA k-ft/ft 554.86
Location of the resultant force on MSE block from
ft 6.17
Point A, a = (MRA – MOA)/VA
Eccentricity at base of MSE block, eL = L/2 - a ft 2.83
Limiting eL ft 4.50
Is the resultant within limiting value of eL? ft YES
Effective width of base of MSE wall, B' = L – 2e ft 12.34
Bearing stress due to MSE wall =ΣV/(B') = v ksf 7.29
Bearing resistance (10.50 ksf given in E4 for static
resistance, seismic / static = 1.0/0.65, therefore, ksf 16.15
seismic resistance = 16.15 ksf)
Is bearing stress less than the bearing resistance? – YES

EVALUATE INTERNAL STABILITY ANALYSIS OF MSE WALL
STEP 1. COMPUTE INTERNAL DYNAMIC FORCE, Pi
For internal stability, the active wedge is assumed to develop an internal dynamic force, Pi, that
is equal to the product of the mass in the active zone and the wall height dependent average
seismic coefficient, kav. Pi is computed as:
Pi = kav Wa
Wa is the soil weight of the active zone as shown by shaded area in Figure E7-1.
Wa = [0.3H(H/2) + 0.5(0.3H)(H/2)] r
Wa = [0.3 (25.64 ft)2(1/2) + 0.5(0.3)(25.64 ft)2(1/2)] 125 pcf
Wa = [98.61 ft2 + 49.31 ft2 ] 125 pcf = 18.49 k/lft
Pi = 0.211g (18.49 k) = 3.90 k/lft
The inertial force is distributed to the n number of reinforcement layers equally as follows.
From Example E4, n = 10.
Pi 3.90 k / lft
Tmd    0.39 k / lft  1.95 k / 5 ft panel width
n 10
STEP 2. COMPUTE MAXIMUM FACTORED LOADS IN THE

REINFORCEMENTS
The load factor for seismic forces is equal to 1.0. The total factored load applied to the
reinforcement on a load per unit of wall width basis is determined as follows, with Tmax the
factored static load applied to the reinforcements determined using the appropriate equations in
Chapters 4 and 6.
Ttotal  Tmax  Tmd
Ttotal for each layer of reinforcement is listed in Table E7-6, with Tmax from Table E4-7.4

Figure E7-1. Seismic internal stability for inextensible reinforcements.
(from Figure 4-9 and Figure 7-5)

STEP 3. CHECK TENSILE RESISTANCE OF THE SOIL REINFORCEMENTS
As listed in Table E7-3, the resistance factor for metallic bar mats while evaluating tensile
failure under combined static and earthquake loading is equal to 0.85.
Ttotal for each layer of reinforcement is listed in Table E7-6, with Tmax and Ng from Table E4-
7.4.
Table E7-6. Summary of tensile resistance computations for

Extreme Event I load combination
Z H Tmax Tmd Ttotal Tn Bar  Tn) Ng

Level  Ng CDR
Mat
ft ksf kips/ 5 ft panel k/wire k/5’ panel
1 1.87 0.40 6.25 1.95 8.20 5.17 0.85 4W11 4 17.58 2.14
2 4.37 0.67 8.36 1.95 10.31 5.17 0.85 3W11 3 13.18 1.28
3 6.87 0.87 10.80 1.95 12.75 5.17 0.85 4W11 4 17.58 1.38
4 9.37 1.03 12.77 1.95 14.72 5.17 0.85 4W11 4 17.58 1.19
5 11.87 1.15 14.26 1.95 16.21 7.42 0.85 4W15 4 25.23 1.56
6 14.37 1.23 15.23 1.95 17.18 7.42 0.85 4W15 4 25.23 1.47
7 16.87 1.26 15.71 1.95 17.66 7.42 0.85 4W15 4 25.23 1.43
8 19.37 1.27 16.03 1.95 17.98 7.42 0.85 4W15 4 25.23 1.40
9 21.87 1.37 17.10 1.95 19.05 7.42 0.85 4W15 4 25.23 1.32
10 24.37 1.51 19.05 1.95 21.00 7.42 0.85 4W15 4 25.23 1.20
Capacity to demand ratios (CDR) are greater than 1.00, therefore, tensile resistance under
seismic loading is adequate for all layers of soil reinforcement.

STEP 4. CHECK PULLOUT RESISTANCE OF THE SOIL REINFORCEMENTS
The seismic tensile and total tensile loads are summarized below in Table E7-7. The static
factor pullout resistance values listed below, in terms of k/lft, are from Table E4-7.4.
For seismic loading conditions, the value of F*, the pullout resistance factor, is reduced to 80
percent of the value used for static design, unless dynamic pullout tests are performed to directly
determine the F* value. Therefore, the static values listed must be reduced by 80% to determine
seismic pullout resistance.
The pullout resistance factor is equal to 0.9 and to 1.20 for static and for seismic conditions,
respectively. Therefore, the factored static values listed must be multiplied by a ratio of 1.20/0.9
to determine factored seismic pullout resistance.
Ttotal is presented in terms of kips per 5-foot panel width. Therefore, the static pullout values
listed must be multiplied by 5 to go from a per foot to a per panel basis.
Table E7-7. Summary of pullout computations for

Extreme Event I load combination
Static x Seismic
Z H Tmax Tmd Ttotal  Pr x x  Pr
Level 1.20 CDR
80% 5 ft
ft ksf kips/ 5 ft panel k/ft /0.9 k/5’ panel
1 1.87 0.44 6.25 1.95 8.20 5.16 0.8 1.33 5 27.52 3.36
2 4.37 0.67 8.36 1.95 10.31 11.25 0.0 1.33 5 60.00 5.82
3 6.87 0.87 10.80 1.95 12.75 16.47 0.8 1.33 5 87.84 6.89
4 9.37 1.03 12.77 1.95 14.72 20.75 0.8 1.33 5 110.7 7.52
5 11.87 1.15 14.26 1.95 16.21 12.06 0.8 1.33 5 64.32 3.97
6 14.37 1.23 15.23 1.95 17.18 14.50 0.8 1.33 5 77.33 4.50
7 16.87 1.26 15.71 1.95 17.66 17.41 0.8 1.33 5 92.85 5.26
8 19.37 1.27 16.03 1.95 17.98 13.27 0.8 1.33 5 70.77 3.94
9 21.87 1.37 17.10 1.95 19.05 16.12 0.8 1.33 5 85.97 4.51
10 24.37 1.51 19.05 1.95 21.00 19.66 0.8 1.33 5 104.8 4.99
Capacity to demand ratios (CDR) are greater than 1.00, therefore, pullout resistance under
seismic loading is adequate for all layers of soil reinforcement.

STEP 5: CHECK CONNECTION RESISTANCE
connection strength as discussed in Chapter 4. For the Extreme Event I limit state the
connection, at each level, must be designed to resist the total (static + seismic) factored load,
Ttotal. The factored long-term connection strength, Tac, must be greater than Ttotal. The
resistance factor for combined static and seismic loads for steel grid reinforcement is 0.85 (the
static resistance factor is 0.65).

EXAMPLE E8
REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE DESIGN – ROAD WIDENING
E8-1 INTRODUCTION
A 0.6 mile (1 km) long, 16.5 ft (5 m) high, 2.5H:1V side slope road embankment in a suburban
area is to be widened by one lane. At least a 20 ft (6.1 m) width extension is required to allow
for the additional lane plus shoulder improvements. A 1H:1V reinforced soil slope up from the
toe of the existing slope will provide 25 ft (7.6 m) width to the alignment. The following
provides the steps necessary to perform a preliminary design for determining the quantity of
reinforcement to evaluate the feasibility and cost of this option. The reader is referred to the
design steps in section 9.2 to more clearly follow the meaning of the design sequence.
STEP 1. SLOPE DESCRIPTION
a. Geometric and load requirements
• H = 16.5 ft (5 m)
• β = 45o
• q = 200 psf (10 kPa) (for dead weight of pavement section) + 2% road grade
b. Performance requirements
• External Stability:
Sliding Stability: FSmin = 1.3
Overall slope stability and deep seated: FSmin = 1.3
Dynamic loading: no requirement
Settlement: analysis required
• Compound Failure: FSmin = 1.3
• Internal Stability: FSmin = 1.3
FHWA NHI-10-025 RSS Design Examples

STEP 2. ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF FOUNDATION SOILS
• Review of soil borings from the original embankment construction indicates

foundation soils consisting of stiff to very stiff, low-plasticity, silty clay with
interbedded seams of sand and gravel. The soils tend to increase in density and
strength with depth.
• γd = 121 lb/ft3 (19 kN/m3), ωopt = 15%, cu = 2000 psf (96 kPa), ´= 28o, and c= 0
• At the time of the borings, dw = 6.6 ft (2 m) below the original ground surface.
STEP 3. PROPERTIES OF REINFORCED AND EMBANKMENT FILL
The existing embankment fill is a clayey sand and gravel. For preliminary evaluation,
the properties of the embankment fill are assumed for the reinforced section as follows:
• U.S. Sieve Size Percent passing

4 in. (100 mm) 100
¾ in. (20 mm) 99
No. 4 (4.75 mm) 63
No. 20 (0.425 mm) 45
No. 200 (0.075 mm) 25
PI (of fines) = 10
Gravel is durable
pH = 7.5
• γr = 133 lb/ft3 (21 kN/m3), ωopt = 15 %
• ' = 33o, c' = 0
• Soil is relatively inert, based on neutral pH tests for backfill and geology of area.
STEP 4. DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR REINFORCEMENT

For preliminary analysis use default values.
• Long-Term Allowable Strength for Geosynthetic Reinforcement:

Tal = TULT/RF
• Pullout Factor of Safety: FSPO = 1.5

STEP 5. CHECK UNREINFORCED STABILITY
Using STABL4M, a search was made to find the minimum unreinforced safety factor and
to define the critical zone. Both rotational and wedge stability evaluations were performed
with Figure E8-1 showing the rotational search. The minimum unreinforced safety factor
was 0.68 with the critical zone defined by the target factor of safety FSR as shown in Figure
E8-1b. Remember that the critical zone from the unreinforced analysis roughly defines the
zone needing reinforcement.
STEP 6. CALCULATE TS FOR THE FSR
From the computer runs, obtain FSU, MD, and R for each failure surface within the critical
zone and calculate TS from equation 9-1 as follows. (Note: with minor code modification,
this could easily be done as part of the computer analysis.)
a. Calculate the total reinforcement tension TS, required:
Ts  1.3  FS U 
MD
R
Evaluating all of the surfaces in the critical zone indicates maximum total tension
TS-MAX = 3400 lb/ft (49.6 kN/m) for FSU = 0.89 as shown in Figure 9-11c.
a. Checking TS-MAX by using the design charts in Figure 9-5:
 tanr  1  tan33 

f  tan 

1

  tan     26.5
 FSR   1.3 
From Figure 9-5, K ≈ 0.14

and,
H = H + q/γr + 0.3 ft (for 2% road grade)
= 16.5 ft + (200 psf ÷ 133 lb/ft3) + 0.3 ft = 18.3 ft (5.6 m)
then,
 
TSMAX  0.5 K γ r H'2  0.5 0.14  133 lb/ft 3 18.3 ft   3120 lb/ft (46.5 kN/m)
2
The evaluation using Figure 9-5 appears to be in reasonably good agreement with the
computer analysis for this simple problem.

(1 m = 3.28 ft)
9.5 ft
17.4 ft
(1 m = 3.28 ft)
Figure E8-1. Unreinforced stability analysis results.

Ts-max = 0.89
3400 lb/ft (49.6 kN/m)
R = 41 ft (12.5 m)
4.9 ft (1.5 m)
(1 m = 3.28 ft)
For R = 41 ft, Md = 340 kip-ft/ft
Figure E8-1. Unreinforced stability analysis results (continued).
c. Determine the distribution of reinforcement.
Since H < 20 ft (6 m), use a uniform spacing. Due to the cohesive nature of the
reinforced fill, maximum compaction lifts of 8 in. (200 mm) are recommended.
d. As discussed in the design section, to avoid wrapping the face and surficial stability
issues, use Sv = 16 in. (400 mm) reinforcement spacing; therefore, N = 16.5 ft / 1.33 ft
= 12.4, use 12 layers with the bottom layer placed after the first lift of embankment fill.
TS MAX 3400 lb / ft
Tmax    283 lb / ft
N 12

(Note: Other reinforcement options such as using short secondary reinforcements at
every lift with spacing and strength increased for primary reinforcements may be
considered and evaluated in order to select the most cost-effective final design.)
e. Since this is a simple structure, rechecking Ts above each layer or reinforcement is

not performed.
f. For preliminary analysis of the required reinforcement lengths, the critical zone
found in the computer analysis (Figure 9-11b) could be used to define the limits of
the reinforcement. This is especially true for this problem since the sliding failure
surface with FS ≥ 1.3 encompasses the rotational failure surface with FS ≥ 1.3.
From direct measurement at the bottom and top of the sliding surface in Figure E8-
1b, the required lengths of reinforcement are:
Lbottom = 17.4 ft (5.3 m)

Ltop = 9.5 ft (2.9 m)
Check length of embedment beyond the critical surface Le and factor of safety
against pullout.
Since the most critical location for pullout is the reinforcement near the top of the
slope (depth Z = 8 in. {200 mm}), subtract the distance from the critical surface to
the face of the slope in Figure E8-1c (i.e., 4.9 ft) from Ltop. This gives Le at top =
4.6 ft (1.4 m).
Assuming the most conservative assumption for pullout factors F* and α from
Chapter 3, Section 3.4 gives F* = 0.67 tan  and α = 0.6
Therefore,
FS  
   
L e F * α σ v C 4.6 ft 0.67 tan 33 0.6 0.67 ft 133 lb/ft 3  200 psf 2
Tmax 283 lb/ft
FSPO  2.4  1.5 required

Check the length requirement using Figure 9-5.
For LB, use min from foundation soil
 tan 28  
 ' f  tan 1    22.2 
 1 . 3 
From Figure 9-5: LB/H = 0.96

thus, LB = 18.3 ft (0.96) = 17.6 ft (5.4 m)
For LT, use min from reinforced fill
 tan 33  
 ' f  tan 1    26.5 
 1 .3 
From Figure 9-5: LT/ H = 0.52
thus, LT = 18.3 ft (0.52) = 9.5 ft (2.9 m)
The evaluation again, using Figure 9-5, is in good agreement with the computer
analysis.
g. This is a simple structure and additional evaluation of design lengths is not required.
For a preliminary analysis, and a fairly simple problem, Figure 9-5 or any number of
proprietary computer programs could be used for a rapid evaluation of TS-MAX and Tmax.
In summary, 12 layers of reinforcement are required with a long-term allowable

material strength Tal of 284 lb/ft (4.14 kN/m) and an average length of 13.4 ft (4 m)
over the full height of embankment.
E8-2. COMPUTER-AIDED SOLUTION
Users of this manual will likely use a computer program(s) to work though reinforced slope
design. Before using any program, users should be very familiar with the method of analysis
used in the computer program. One method of checking the results produced by the software is
to work through examples of problems with known solutions. Users are encouraged to use the
previous two examples in evaluating and gaining familiarity with computer software. For
example, Design Example E8 is contained as an input file in the program ReSSA and a step-
by-step tutorial of this example is located on the software developer’s web page:
http://www.geoprograms.com/.

EXAMPLE E9
REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE DESIGN – HIGH SLOPE FOR NEW ROAD
CONSTRUCTION
E9-1 INTRODUCTION
An embankment will be constructed to elevate an existing roadway that currently exists at the
toe of a slope with a stable 1.6H: 1V configuration. The maximum height of the proposed
embankment will be 62 ft (19 m) and the desired slope of the elevated embankment is
0.84H:1.0V. A geogrid with an ultimate tensile strength of 6,850 lb/ft (100 kN/m) based on
ASTM D6637 wide width method is desired for reinforcing the new slope. A uniform
surcharge of 250 lb/ft2 (12 kPa) is to be used for the traffic loading condition. Available
information indicated that the natural foundation soils have a drained friction angle of 34o and
effective cohesion of 250 lb/ft2 (12 kPa). The fill to be used in the reinforced section will have
a minimum friction angle of 34o.
The reinforced slope design must have a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for slope stability.
The minimum design life of the new embankment is 75 years.
Determine the number of layers, vertical spacing, and total length required for the reinforced
section.
STEP 1. GEOMETRIC AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR DESIGN
a. Slope description:
• Slope height, H = 62 ft (19 m)
• Reinforced slope angle, θ = tan-1(1.0/0.84) = 50o
• Existing slope angle, β = tan-1(0.61/1.0) = 31.4o
• Surcharge load, q = 250 psf (12.5 kN/m2)
b. Performance requirements:
• External stability
- Sliding: FS ≥ 1.5
- Deep seated (overall stability): FS ≥ 1.5
- Dynamic loading: no requirement
- Settlement: analysis required

• Internal stability
Slope stability: FS ≥ 1.5
STEP 2. ENGINEERING PROPERTIES OF THE NATURAL SOILS IN THE SLOPE
For this project, the foundation and existing embankment soils have the following strength
parameters:
 = 34o, c = 250 psf (12 kPa)
Depth of water table, dw = 1.5 m below base of embankment
STEP 3. PROPERTIES OF AVAILABLE FILL
The fill material to be used in the reinforced section was reported to have the following
properties:
γ = 120 pcf (18.8 kN/m3),  = 34o, c = 0
STEP 4. REINFORCEMENT PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT
Allowable tensile force per unit width of reinforcement, Tal, with respect to service life and
durability requirements:
Tal = TULT/RF and RF = RFID x RFCR x RFD
For the proposed geogrid to be used in the design of the project, the following factors are
used:
RFD = durability factor of safety = 1.25.
RFID = construction damage factor of safety = 1.2.
RFCR = creep reduction factor = 3.0.
Note: A FS = 1.5 will be applied to the geogrid reinforcement in stability analysis.
Reduction factors were determined by the owner based on evaluation of project conditions
and geogrid tests and field performance data submitted by the manufacturer. Therefore:
Tal 
6850 lb/ft  1520 lb/ft (22 kN/m)
1.251.23
Pullout Resistance: FS = 1.5 for granular soils with a 3 ft (1 m) minimum length in the
resisting zone.

STEP 5. CHECK UNREINFORCED STABILITY
The unreinforced slope stability was checked using the rotational slip surface method, as
well as the wedge shaped failure surface method, to determine the limits of the reinforced
zone and the required total reinforcement tension to obtain a factor of safety of 1.5.
The proposed new slope was first analyzed without reinforcement using a hand solution
(e.g., the FHWA Soils and Foundations Reference Manual, {Samtani and Nowatzki,
2006}) or computer programs such as STABL4M, ReSSA, XSTABL, or RSS. The
computer program calculates factors of safety (FS) using the Modified Bishop Method for
circular failure surface. Failure is considered through the toe of the slope and the crest of
the new slope as shown in the design example Figure E9-1a. Note that the minimum factor
of safety for the unreinforced slope is less than 1.0. The failure surfaces are forced to exit
beyond the crest until a factor of safety of 1.5 or more is obtained. Several failure surfaces
should be evaluated using the computer program.
Next, the Janbu Method for wedge shaped failure surfaces is used to check sliding of the
reinforced section for a factor of safety of 1.5, as shown on the design example Figure E9-
1a. Based on the wedge shaped failure surface analysis, the limits of the critical zone to be
reinforced are reduced to 46 ft (14 m) at the top and 56 ft (17 m) at the bottom for the
required factor of safety.
STEP 6. CALCULATE TS FOR FSR = 1.5
a. The total reinforcement tension TS required to obtain a FSR = 1.5 is then evaluated for
each failure surface. The most critical surface is the surface requiring the maximum
reinforced tension TS-MAX. An evaluation of all the surfaces in the critical zone
indicated TS-MAX = 66.7 kips/ft (1000 kN/m) and is determined as:
MD M
TS  FSR  FSU   1.5  FSU  D
D R
The most critical circle is where the largest TS = TS-MAX. As shown on the design
example Figure 9-12a, TS-MAX is obtained for FSU = 0.935.
For this surface, MD = 14,827 kips-ft/ft (67,800 kN-m/m) as determined stability analysis.
D = R for geosynthetics = radius of critical circle
R = 125.6 ft (38.3 m)
14827 k  ft/ft
TS MAX  1.5  0.935  66.7 kips/ft (1000 kN/m)
125.6 ft

Reinforcement alternatives:
From computer program: Simplified distribution:
TBottom = 67 – 31.3 = 35.7kips/ft TBottom = ½ Ts-max = 33.5 kips/ft
TMiddle = 31.3 - 10 = 21.3 kips/ft TMiddle = 1/3 Ts-max = 22.3 kips/ft
TTop = 10 kips/ft TTop = 1/6 Ts-max = 11.2 kips/ft
Figure E9-1. Unreinforced stability analysis results.

b. Check using chart design procedure:
For θ = 50o, and

f = tan-1 (tan r /FSR) = tan-1(tan 34o/1.5) = 24.2o
Force coefficient, K = 0.21 (from Figure 9-5a) and,
H = H + q/γr = 62 ft + (250 psf)/(120 pcf) = 64 ft

then,
TS-MAX = 0.5 Kγr(H)2 = 0.5(0.21)(120 pcf) (64 ft)2

= 52 kips/ft (766 kN/m)
Values obtained from both procedures are comparable within 25 percent. Since the
chart procedure does not include the influence of water, use TS-MAX = 1000 kN/m.
c. Determine the distribution of reinforcement
Based on the overall embankment height divide the slope into three reinforcement
zones of equal height as in equations 9-4 through 9-6.
Tbottom = ½ TS-MAX =(½)(67 k/ft) = 33.5 kips/ft (500 kN/m)
Tmiddle = 1/3 TS-MAX =(1/3)(67 k/ft) = 22.3 kips/ft (330 kN/m)
Ttop = 1/6 TS-MAX =(1/6)(67 k/ft) = 11.2 kips/ft (170 kN/m)
d. Determine reinforcement vertical spacing Sv
TS MAX 67 k / ft
Minimum number of layers, N    44.7
Tallowable 1.5 k / ft
33.5 k/ft
Distribute at bottom 1/3 of slope: NB   22.3 use 23 layers
1.5 k/ft
22.3 k/ft
At middle 1/3 of slope: NM   15 layers
1.5 k/ft
11.2 k/ft
At upper 1/3 of slope: NT   7.5 use 8 layers
1.5 k/ft

Total number of layers: 46 > 44.7 OK
Vertical spacing:
Total height of slope = 62 ft (19 m)
Height for each zone = 62 ft / 3 = 21 ft (6.3 m)
Required spacing:
At bottom 1/3 of slope:

62 ft
Srequired   0.91ft, use 8 in. spacing
23 layers
At middle 1/3 of slope:

62 ft
Srequired   1.4 in., use18 in spacing
15 layers
At top 1/3 of slope:

62 ft
Srequired   2.6 ft, use 24 in. spacing
8 layers
Provide 6 ft length of secondary reinforcement layers in the upper 1/3 of the slope,
between primary layers (based on primary reinforcement spacing at a 16 in. vertical
spacing.
e. The reinforcement tension required within the middle and upper 1/3 of the unreinforced
slope is then calculated using the slope stability program to check that reinforcement
provided is adequate as shown in the design example Figure E9-1b.
Top 2/3 of slope: TS-MAX = 31.3 k/ft < N · Tal = 23 layers x 1.5 k/ft = 34.5 kips/ft OK
Top 1/3 of slope: TS-MAX = 10 k/ft < N · Ta = 8 layers x 1.5 k/ft = 12 kips /ft OK
f. Determine the reinforcement length required beyond the critical surface for the entire
slope from Figure E9-1a, used to determine Tmax as,
Le 
Tmax FS

1520 k / ft 1.5 
26.4 ft
F *  v C  

0.8 tan 34 0.66 120 pcf  Z 2 Z

At depth Z, from the top of the crest, Le is found and compared to the available length
of reinforcement that extends behind the TDESIGN failure surface, as determined by the
sliding wedge analysis:
Z = 2 ft, Le = 13.2 ft, available length, Le = 17 ft OK

Z > 8 ft, Le = 3.0 ft, available length, Le = > 16 ft OK
Further checks of Z are unnecessary.
Checking the length using Figure 9-5b for f = 24°
LT/H́ = 0.65 → LT = 42 ft
LB/H́ = 0.80 → LB = 51 ft
Results from both procedures check well against the wedge failure analysis in step 5a.
Realizing the chart solution does not account for the water table use top length LT = 46
ft (14 m) and bottom length LB = 56 ft (17 m) as determined by the computer analyses
in step 5a.
g. The available reinforcement strength and length were checked using the slope stability
program for failure surfaces extending beyond the TS-MAX failure surface and found to
be greater than required.
STEP 7. CHECK EXTERNAL STABILITY
a. Sliding Stability.
The external stability was checked using the computer program for wedge shaped
failure surfaces. The FS obtained for the failure surface outside the reinforced section,
defined with a 46 ft (14 m) length at the top and a 56 ft (17 m) length at the bottom,
was 1.5.

b. Deep Seated Global Stability.
The overall deep-seated failure analysis indicated that a factor of safety of 1.3 exists for
failure surfaces extending outside the reinforced section (as shown in the design
example Figure E9-1b). This is due to the grade at the toe of the slope that slopes down
into the lake. The factor of safety for deep-seated failure does not meet requirements.
Therefore, the reinforcement would have to be extended to a greater length, the toe of
the new slope should be regraded, or the slope would have to be constructed at a flatter
angle.
For the option of extending the reinforcement length, local bearing must be checked.
Local bearing (lateral squeeze) failure does not appear to be a problem as the
foundation soils are granular and will increase in shear strength due to confinement.
Also, the foundation soil profile is consistent across the embankment such that global
bearing and local bearing will essentially result in the same factor of safety. For these
conditions, the lower level reinforcements could simply be extended back to an external
stability surface that would provide FS = 1.5 as shown in Figure E9-2.
If the foundation soils were cohesive and limited to a depth of less than 2 times the base
width of the slope, then local stability should be evaluated. As an example, assume that
the foundation soils had an undrained shear strength of 2080 psf (100 kPa) and
extended to a depth of 33 ft (10 m), at which point the granular soils were encountered.
Then, in accordance with equation 9-15,
2 cu 4.14 c u
FSsqueezing   
γ Ds tanθ Hγ
2 1040 psf  4.14 1040 psf 

FS squeezing    1.02

120 pcf 33 ft  tan50
62 ft 120 pcf 
Since FSsqueezing is lower than the required 1.3, extending the length of the
reinforcement would not be an option without improving the stability conditions. This
could be accomplished by either reducing the slope angle or by placing a surcharge at
the toe, which effectively reduces the slope angle.
c. Foundation Settlement.
Due to the granular nature of the foundation soils, long-term settlement is not of
concern.

Figure E9-2. Design Example 2: global stability.

EXAMPLE E10
REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE DESIGN – FACING STABILITY CALCULATION
E10-1 INTRODUCTION
Economies can sometimes be achieved by using higher strength primary reinforcement at

wider spacing combined with short intermediate reinforcement layers to meet maximum
spacing requirements, provide compaction aids and face stability. The calculations for face
stability evaluation of slopes using intermediate reinforcement will be demonstrated for the
slope in Example E8, with modified primary reinforcement. The guidelines for intermediate
reinforcement presented under Step 6 of section 9.2 Reinforced Slope Design Guidelines will
be followed.
To evaluate cost alternatives in Example E8, modify primary reinforcement by doubling

strength to 570 lb/ft (8.3 kN/m) and doubling vertical spacing. Intermediate reinforcement will
be placed at 24 in. (800 mm) vertical spacing, centered between the primary reinforcement (at
24 in. {800 mm} spacing). The length of intermediate reinforcement will be set at 4 ft (1.2 m)
and minimum long term tensile strength, Tal, of 380 lb/ft (5.5 kN/m) will be used to meet
constructability requirements.
Surficial failure planes may extend to a depth of about 3 to 6% of the slope height. Therefore,
the stability safety factor will be checked for depths up to 6% of slope height, for dry
conditions. Also, checks will be performed at various depths assuming saturation to that depth,
to see if project conditions (e.g., local rainfall) need to be further evaluated.
E10-2. CHECK STABILITY SAFETY FACTOR FOR VARIOUS DEPTHS TO

POTENTIAL FAILURE PLANE.
Compute depth equal to 6% of slope height.
(0.06) 16.5 ft = 1 ft
Check stability at 6 in., 12 in. and 24 in. depths to potential failure plane. Use Equation
9-8 with the following parameters.
F.S. 

c' H  γ g  γ w H z cos 2β tan '  Fg cosβ sinβ  sin 2β tan ' 
γ g H z cosβ sinβ

where
c = effective cohesion — assume equal to zero, which conservatively neglects
vegetative reinforcement. See Gray and Sotir (1995), for guidance of estimating
strength of vegetation, if desired to include in analysis.
 = effective friction angle — 33°
γ = unit weight of fill soil — 134 lb/ft3
z = vertical depth to failure plane — ½ ft, 1 ft, 2 ft
H = vertical slope height — 16.5 ft
β = slope angle — 45°
Fg = summation of geosynthetic resisting force — varies by z, as strength at shallow
embedment will likely be controlled by pullout resistance, therefore, compute
by failure plane depth
Geosynthetic available reinforcement strength is based on pullout toward the front face
of the slope (i.e., the geosynthetic resistance to the outward movement of the wedge of
soil above and below the geosynthetic).
Primary reinforcement –
Ta (= Tal) = 570 lb/ft
Strength limited by pullout resistance near the face, with FSPO = 1.0,
equals
T = F* α σv C Le
Where, F* and α are as assumed for the geogrid in Example 1, and

σv = the weight of the triangular wedge of soil over the
geosynthetic = ½γz
Le = z / tan 45° = z
C = 2
T = (0.8 tan 33°) (0.66) [½ (134 lb/ft3) (z)] (2) (z)
T = 46 z2 lb/ft
Therefore,
@ 0.5 ft, T = 11 lb/ft
@ 1.0 ft, T = 46 lb/ft
@ 2.0 ft, T = 184 lb/ft

Intermediate reinforcement –
Ta (= Tal) = 380 lb/ft
Strength limited by pullout resistance, with FSPO = 1.0, equals

T = F* α σv C Le
assuming F* and α parameters equal to those of the primary
reinforcement again leads to,
@ 0.5 ft, T = 11 lb/ft

@ 1.0 ft, T = 46 lb/ft
@ 2.0 ft, T = 184 lb/ft
The slope contains 6 layers of primary reinforcement and 6 layers of

intermediate reinforcement. Therefore,
@ 0.5 ft – Fg = 6 (11 lb/ft) + 6 (11 lb/ft) = 132 lb/ft

With c = 0 and dry conditions, equation (9-8) reduces to
F.S. 

γ H z cos 2β tan  '  Fg cos β sin β  sin 2β tan  ' 
γ H z cos β sin β
F.S. 
134 lb/ft 16.5 ft cos 45 tan 33 z  F cos 45 sin 45  sin
3 2  
g
  2

45 tan 33 
134 lb/ft 16,5 ft cos 45 sin 45 z
3  
717 lb/ft 2 z  Fg 0.82 

F.S. 
1105 lb/ft 2 z
Therefore,
@ 0.5 ft, FS = 0.84
@ 1.0 ft, FS = 1.1
@ 2.0 ft, FS = 1.5

Thus, assuming cohesion equal to zero, it is computed that the slope face is
unstable at shallow depths (0.5 ft to 1 ft). A small amount of cohesion may be
provided by the soil fill and/or vegetation. Assume a nominal amount of
cohesion (e.g., 42 psf {2 kPa}), and recompute factors of safety.
cH = 42 psf (16.4ft) = 688 lb/ft
Then, the factor of safety is equal to
688 lb/ft 2  717 lb/ft 2 z  Fg 0.82

F.S. 
1105 lb/ft 2 z
and
@ 0.5 ft, FS = 2.1
@ 1.0 ft, FS = 1.7
@ 2.0 ft, FS = 1.8
Thus, with only a small amount of cohesion the slope face would be stable.
E10-3. CHECK THE SAFETY FACTOR FOR VARIOUS DEPTHS TO

POTENTIAL FAILURE PLANE ASSUMING SATURATION TO THAT
DEPTH, TO SEE IF REASONABLE FOR PROJECT CONDITIONS.
With parameters of γg - γw = 72 lb/ft3 and cohesion of 42 psf (implies cohesion is

derived from vegetation, and is retained under saturated conditions)
Then, the factor of safety is equal to
688 lb/ft 2  385 lb/ft 2 z  Fg 0.82

F.S. 
1105 lb/ft 2 z
and
@ 0.5 ft, FS = 1.8
@ 1.0 ft, FS = 1.4
@ 2.0 ft, FS = 1.5
Again, the slope is stable provided vegetation is established on the slope face.
A geosynthetic erosion mat would also help maintain the face stability.

APPENDIX F
OTHER DESIGN PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS MODELS
F.1 Simplified Method and ASD Platform

F.2 Coherent Gravity Method
F.3 National Concrete Masonry Association Procedure
F.4 GRS
F.5 FHWA Structure Stiffness Method
F.6 K-Stiffness Method
F.7 Deep Patch
FHWA NHI-10-025 Appendix F – Other Design Procedures

MSE Walls and RSS – Vol II F –1 November 2009
There are several means, other than the Simplified Method analysis model with the LRFD
platform, which can be used for the design of MSE walls. Several of these are summarized
below. Note that some design methods can be used in either a LRFD or an ASD platform.
The use of the Simplified Method analysis model with the LRFD platform is recommended
for the design of transportation MSE wall structures.
F.1 Simplified Method and ASD Platform
As previously (Section 4.1.1) noted, Engineers have been designing MSE highway walls
using an ASD (allowable stress design) procedure since MSE walls were introduced in the
early 1970’s. All uncertainty in applied loads and material resistance are combined in a
single factor of safety or allowable material stress. The advantages of progressing to a LRFD
procedure were summarized in Section 4.4.1.
Future MSE walls will be designed with the LRFD procedure. Therefore, current guidance,
i.e., AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition (2002) and FHWA
NHI-00-043 (Elias et al., 2001), on MSE wall design using ASD procedures will not be
updated. Note that the AASHTO (2002) and FHWA (2001) ASD references will not be
updated by AASHTO or FHWA, respectively. Any designers engineering MSE walls with
the ASD procedures in the future may want to refer to current LRFD procedures for any
updates which may also be applicable to ASD procedure designs (e.g., seismic loading for
external stability analysis).
The Simplified Method of analysis has been used with ASD procedures since 1996. This
method was developed using FHWA research (Christopher et al., 1990) and existing design
methods (i.e., coherent gravity method, tie-back wedge method) as a starting point to create a
single method for agencies and vendors to use (Elias and Christopher, 1997; AASHTO,
1997; Allen et al., 2001). The simplified method uses a variable state of stress for internal
stability analysis. This variable state of stress is defined in terms of a multiple of the active
lateral earth pressure coefficient, Ka, and is a function of the type of reinforcement used and
depth from the top of wall. This single method of design is applicable to all types of soil
reinforcement. Thus, the simplified method offers the following advantages over other
methods:
C Straight forward by avoiding iterative processes to determine the reinforcement
requirements (i.e., it is simple and easy to use).
C Justified empirically in comparison to other methods available at the time of its
development based on instrumented full scale structures, and the simplifications do not
appear to compromise the Simplified Method’s accuracy (Allen et al., 2001).

C Found to be more accurate for upper reinforcements in sloped surcharges (Allen et al.,
2001).
C Eliminates variations in method to determine internal lateral stress.
C Eliminates variations in assumptions of the critical failure surface.
C Accounts for the differences in reinforcement type and is easily adapted to new MSE wall
reinforcement types as they become available.
The simplified method has been adapted to LRFD procedures in AASHTO (2007) and in
this manual. As noted in the introduction to this section, today, the use of the Simplified
Gravity analysis model with the LRFD platform is recommended for the design of
transportation MSE wall structures.
F.2 Coherent Gravity Method
The coherent gravity method, or analysis model, has been used for several decades in the
ASD procedure. It can also be used with the LRFD procedure. The 2009 AASHTO Interims
note that the maximum reinforcement loads shall be calculated using the Simplified Method
or the Coherent Gravity Method. For state and agencies using the Coherent Gravity Method,
the load in the reinforcements shall be obtained in the same way as the Simplified Method,
except: (i) for steel reinforced wall systems, the lateral earth pressure coefficient used shall
be equal to ko at the point of intersection of the theoretical failure surface with the ground
surface at or above the wall top, transitioning to a ka at a depth of 20.0 ft below the
intersection point, and constant at ka at depths greater than 20.0 ft. and (ii) If used for
geosynthetic reinforced systems, ka shall be used throughout the wall height.
AASHTO also states that other widely accepted and published design methods for
calculation of reinforcement loads may be used at the discretion of the wall owner or
approving agency, provided the designer develops method-specific resistance factors for the
method employed. AASHTO recommends that the resistance factors recommended for the
Simplified Method should also be used for the Coherent Gravity Method.
The primary differences between the coherent gravity method and the simplified method are:
(i) the coherent gravity method includes the pressure at each reinforcement elevation in the
vertical pressure sum; (ii) the effect of the overturning moment caused by the retained
backfill lateral earth pressure is included in the vertical pressure at each reinforcement
elevation; and (iii) the lateral pressure varies from Ko at the top of the soil to Ka at a depth of
20 ft (6 m) below, and constant at Ka below the 20 ft (6 m) depth for metallic reinforcements.
This is illustrated in Figure F-1. As discussed in Chapter 4 (and illustrated in Figure 4-9), the

metallic reinforcement lateral pressure varies from 1.7 Ka (strips) or 2.5 Ka (mats and grids)
at top of soil to Ka at a depth of 20 ft (6 m), and constant at Ka thereafter. For comparison
purposes, for a  = 34◦ soil, Ko = 1 – sin 34◦ = 0.50; for a  = 34◦ soil, Ka = 0.283; thus, Ko
= 1.77 Ka.
For geosynthetic reinforcements, the lateral pressure is constant at Ka for both the coherent
gravity method and the simplified method. Therefore, the coherent gravity method is
typically used only for metallic reinforcements.
Previous research (FHWA RD-89-043) focused on defining the state of stress for internal
stability, as a function of Ka, type of reinforcement used (geotextile, geogrid, metal strip or
metal grid), and depth from the surface. The results from these efforts were synthesized in a
simplified method, which can be used for all types of soil reinforcements. The simplified
coherent gravity method is a single, logical method that can be used with LRFD or ASD
procedure. As previously indicated in the Simplified Method section, there are a number of
advantages to agencies. The method has been used for the past 12 years to safely design
retaining walls. In comparison studies with field measured data, Allen et al. (2001) found the
following:
 Overall, the Simplified Method and the FHWA Structure Stiffness Method produce a
prediction that is slightly conservative, whereas the Coherent Gravity Method
produces a prediction that is slightly nonconservative.
 The Coherent Gravity Method has been found to consistently provide lower predicted
loads in structures with stiff reinforcement systems and in the upper reinforcements of
sloped surcharges than measured field loads, while the Simplified Method more
accurately predicts these reinforcement loads (Allen et al., 1993).
 The assumption that the reinforcement stress is reduced with increased reinforcement
length is questionable and not supported by field measurements.
FHWA supports the use of a single method in order to maintain consistency in design. There
are always concerns that designers will be confused and combine aspects of alternate
methods that could produce nonconservative results. Agencies should be cognizant of the
pending change to the AASHTO LRFD code and evaluate whether or not to allow the use of
the Coherent Gravity Method (and/or other methods) in addition to the Simplified Method.
Agencies specifications should be updated to reflect use of just the Simplified Method or the
acceptance of either method.
Again, the use of the Simplified Gravity analysis model with the LRFD platform is
recommended for the design of transportation MSE wall structures.

Figure F-1. Coherent gravity method lateral pressure coefficient for internal stability
(2009 Interims to AASHTO, 2007).

F.3 National Concrete Masonry Association Procedure
The National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) method and analysis model was
developed in 1993 (Simac et al.) specifically for, and is widely used with, modular block
faced (a.k.a. segmental blocks), geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. It is an ASD procedure.
It was updated in 1997 (NCMA), and a third update is reportedly in-progress.
The principal differences between the NCMA method and the ASD Simplified Method are:
(i) internal stability lateral pressure is set equal to the Coulomb active earth pressure
coefficient, instead of the Rankine coefficient; (ii) assumed failure plane is the Coulomb
active pressure wedge, instead of the Rankine active pressure wedge; (iii) the minimum
reinforcement length to height ratio is 0.6, versus 0.7; and (iv) the connection strength
requirements are based upon short-term testing, instead of being based upon long-term
testing, as required by AASHTO.
F.4 GRS
The Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) analysis model is used with ASD procedure. This
method was developed in Colorado specifically for geosynthetic soil reinforcements and
wrap-around or block facings. The GRS design method is documented in NCHRP Report
556 (Wu et al., 2006). The GRS design method is a modification of the FHWA ASD
Simplified Method (Elias et al., 2001). The soil reinforcement model is based upon closely-
spaced vertically adjacent layers of reinforcement and soil arching, versus the FHWA
method that this based upon a tied-back wedge model.
Addtional principal differences between the GRS method and the ASD Simplified Method
are: (i) the default vertical reinforcement spacing is 8 in. (0.2 m), and maximum spacing (for
abutments) is 16 in. (0.4 m); (ii) the reinforcement length may be truncated in the bottom
portion of the wall where the foundation is competent; (iii) the soil reinforcement is specified
on a basis of minimum ultimate tensile strength and a minimum tensile stiffness; and (iv)
connection strength is not a design requirement where the maximum reinforcement vertical
spacing is 8 in. (0.2 m) and reinforced fill is a compacted select fill.

F.5 FHWA Structure Stiffness Method (from Allen et al., 2001; Christopher et al.,
1990)
The Structure Stiffness Method was developed as the result of a major FHWA research
project in which a number of full-scale MSE walls were constructed and monitored.
Combined with an extensive review of previous fully instrumented wall case histories
(Christopher et al., 1990; Christopher, 1993), small-scale and full-scale model walls were
constructed and analytical modeling was conducted (Adib, 1988). This method is similar to
the Tieback Wedge Method, but the lateral earth pressure coefficient is determined as a
function of depth below the wall top, reinforcement type, and global wall stiffness, rather
than using Ka directly. Furthermore, the location of the failure surface is the same as is used
for the Coherent Gravity Method (Figure 3) for MSE walls with inextensible soil
reinforcement. It is a Rankine failure surface for MSE walls with extensible soil
reinforcement. The design methodology is summarized in equations 8, 9, and 10. Note that
because the reinforcement stress, and the strength required to handle that stress, varies with
the global wall stiffness, some iteration may be necessary to match the reinforcement to the
calculated stresses.
Tmax Sv Rc Kr (Z S q)
Kr = KaSrif Z≤ 6 m

Kr = Ka if Z > 6 m
Sr = EA / (H/n)

Where, Kr is the lateral earth pressure coefficient,
Sr is the global reinforcement stiffness for the wall (i.e., the average reinforcement
stiffness over the wall face area),
1 is a dimensionless coefficient equal to 1.0 for strip and sheet reinforcements or
equal to 1.5 for grids and welded wire mats,
2 is a dimensionless coefficient equal to 1.0 if Sr is less than or equal to 47880 kPa
or equal to 1 if Sr is greater than 47880 kPa, EA is the reinforcement modulus
times the reinforcement area in units of force per unit width of wall,
H/n is the average vertical spacing of the reinforcement, and n is the total number of
reinforcement layers.
This stiffness approach was based on numerous full-scale observations that indicated that a
strong relationship between reinforcement stiffness and reinforcement stress levels existed,
and it was theoretically verified through model tests and numerical modeling.

F.6 K-Stiffness Method
The K-Stiffness Method, or analysis model, is relatively new method that may be used with
the ASD or LRFD procedure. This method was researched and developed by Allen and
Bathurst (2003), Allen et al. (2003), Allen et al. (2004) and was calibrated against
measurements of loads and strains from a large database of full-scale geosynthetic and full-
scale steel reinforced soil walls. The method is targeted to accurately predict working loads
in the soil reinforcement, though wall behavior near failure of some of the walls by excessive
deformation or rupture was considered in the development of the design model (see Allen et
al., 2003) to insure that such behavior would be precluded if the K-Stiffness Method is
properly used and design parameters properly selected. From that research, the K-Stiffness
method defined a design limit state that has not been considered in the other design models –
a soil failure limit state. This is especially important for geosynthetic walls, since the
geosynthetic reinforcement continues to strain and gain tensile load long after the soil has
reached its peak strength and begun dropping to a residual value. Therefore, if the strain in
the soil is limited to prevent it from going past peak to a residual value, failure by excessive
deformation or rupture is prevented and equilibrium is maintained. This is a key design
philosophy in the K-Stiffness design model.
An analysis of the K-Stiffness predictions relative to the full scale measurements indicate
that the K-Stiffness method is a more accurate method for estimating loads in the soil
reinforcements than other currently available design models and thereby has the potential to
reduce reinforcement requirements and improve the economy of MSE walls (Allen et al.,
2003 and 2004). The improvement (i.e., economy) is significant for both geosynthetic and
steel reinforcement, though more pronounced for geosynthetic reinforcements. A couple of
geosynthetic reinforced walls have been designed using the K-Stiffness Method, built, and
fully instrumented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
Because they were designed with the K-Stiffness Method, the amount of soil reinforcement
in the wall was reduced by a third to one-half of the reinforcement required by the AASHTO
Simplified Method. Results reported by Allen and Bathurst (2006) for the largest wall (36 ft
high, 600 ft long) indicate that the K-Stiffness method accurately predicted the strains in the
reinforcement, and the wall has performed well since its construction. The other wall has
also performed well, and full results for both walls will be available in a forthcoming
WSDOT research report. The K-Stiffness Method’s ability to accurately predict
reinforcement strains provides promise for having the ability to accurately predict wall
deformations for the serviceability limit state. See Allen and Bathurst (2003) for additional
details on this issue.

The K-Stiffness method has been adapted to LRFD design procedure by the Washington
DOT, and load and resistance factors to use with this method are detailed in the WSDOT
Geotechnical Design Manual (2006), as well as step-by-step procedures for use of the K-
Stiffness Method for design of MSE walls. The method begins with a prediction of the total
lateral load to be resisted by the soil reinforcement which is consistent with the approach
used by the Simplified Method. The K-Stiffness Method then takes that total lateral load and
adjusts it empirically based on the effects of global reinforcement stiffness, local
reinforcement stiffness, facing stiffness/toe restraint, facing batter, soil shear strength, and
distribution of the total lateral force to the individual layers based on observations from many
full scale wall case histories. The formulation of global reinforcement stiffness is consistent
with that used in the FHWA Structure Stiffness Method (Christopher et al., 1990;
Christopher, 1993). The soil shear strength (the plane strain shear strength is used for this
method) is used as an index to correlate to the stiffness of the soil backfill, which is the real
property of interest with regard to prediction of soil reinforcement loads at working stress
conditions. Note that the methods used in historical practice (e.g., the Simplified Method)
calculate the vertical stress resulting from gravity forces within the reinforced backfill at each
level, resulting in a linearly increasing gravity force with depth and a lateral stress
distribution that continuously increases with depth below the wall top. The K-Stiffness
Method instead calculates the maximum gravity force resulting from the gravity forces
within the reinforced soil backfill to determine the maximum reinforcement load within the
entire wall reinforced backfill, Tmxmx, and then adjusts that maximum reinforcement load
with depth for each of the layers using a load distribution factor, Dtmax to determine Tmax.
The method is summarized as follows:
 V   p r H   p f S   LL q   p  V , and
Tmax  0.5S v K  V Dt max  g  local  fb  fs   p  H S v
where,
V = the factored pressure due to resultant of gravity forces from soil self weight
within and immediately above the reinforced wall backfill, and any surcharge loads
present (KSF)
P = the load factor for vertical earth pressure EV
LL = the load factor for live load surcharge per the AASHTO LRFD Specifications
q = live load surcharge (KSF)
H = the total vertical wall height at the wall face (FT)
S = average soil surcharge depth above wall top (FT)

V = vertical stress increase due to concentrated surcharge load above the wall
(KSF)
Sv = tributary area (assumed equivalent to the average vertical spacing of the
reinforcement at each layer location when analyses are carried out per unit length of
wall), in FT
K = is an index lateral earth pressure coefficient for the reinforced backfill, and shall
be set equal to K0 as calculated per Article 3.11.5.2 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications. K shall be no less than 0.3 for steel reinforced systems.
Dtmax = distribution factor to estimate Tmax for each layer as a function of its depth
below the wall top relative to Tmxmx (the maximum value of Tmax within the wall)
Sglobal = global reinforcement stiffness (KSF)
g = global stiffness factor
local = local stiffness factor
fb = facing batter factor
fs = facing stiffness factor
H = horizontal stress increase at reinforcement level resulting from a concentrated
horizontal surcharge load per Article 11.10.10.1 of the AASHTO LRFD
Specifications (KSF)
The WSDOT GDM (2006, or most current update) should be consulted for the details on the
calculation of Tmax for each layer and how to apply this methodology to MSE wall design.
It should be noted that the K-Stiffness Method has been updated to consider a number of
additional wall case histories, and additionally to consider the effect of backfill soil cohesion.
See Bathurst et al. (2008) for details. While consideration of soil cohesion does help to
improve the K-Stiffness Method prediction accuracy for wall backfill soil that contain a
significant cohesive component to its soil shear strength, in general, it is not recommended to
consider soil cohesion in the soil backfill for design purposes due to unknown long-term
effect of moisture infiltration in the backfill and possibly soil creep.

F.7 Deep Patch
The deep patch is a mitigation technique for sliding roadway sections. It is typically used on
roads that suffer from chronic slide movements that are primarily the result of side cast fill
construction. One of the main advantages of the deep patch technique is that it is constructed
with equipment that works from the roadway and does not require accessing the toe of the
failed area. This technique is generally not expected to completely arrest movement seen in
the road but rather slow it down to manageable levels.
Deep patch repairs consist of reinforcing the top of a failing embankment with several layers
of soil reinforcement. This work is typically done with a small construction crew consisting
of a laborer, hydraulic excavator, and a dump truck. The design is based on determining the
extent of the roadway failure based on visual observations of cracking and then and then
using analytical or empirical methods for determining the reinforcement requirements. An
empirical design procedure is presented in Highway Deep Patch Road Embankment Repair
Application Guide which was produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service in partnership with FHWA Federal Lands Highway Division. An analytical
approach is summarized as follows:
1. Characterize the existing soil properties, new fill properties if applicable, and establish
the desired slope stability factor of safety after the deep patch mitigation technique is
implemented.
2. Generate a cross section of the failed embankment at a location that represents the most
severe movement.
3. Locate the cracks furthest from the edge of the embankment slope break (hinge point) on
the cross section. Similar to the concept of MSE wall internal active and restive
mechanisms the active portion of the embankment movement will be considered to be
taking place on the outside of the embankment crack limits and the resisting portion on
the inside of the crack limits.
4. Determine the distance from the crack limits to the embankment slope hinge.
5. Determining the total reinforcement tension required per unit width as described in
Chapter 9 or using reinforced soil slope software.
6. Based on the site limitations and geometry determine the reinforcement spacing and
corresponding number of reinforcement layers (Typically 2-5 layers). Divide Ts by the

number of layers to obtain the required reinforcement tensile strength per layer and per
unit width (Treq’d).
7. Determine the minimum required pullout length (Le) by using a factor of safety of 1.5
and setting Treq’d = Tmax. Determine the minimum reinforcement length by adding Le
to the distance from the crack to the slope face for each layer.
8. Select a reinforcement in which the long-term allowable strength per unit width (Chapter
3) is greater then Treq’d.


FHWA-NHI-10-024 (LRFD-Vol 1&2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FHWA-NHI-10-024 (LRFD-Vol 1&2)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FHWA-NHI-10-024 (LRFD-Vol 1&2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

this document downloaded from Terms and Conditions of Use:

And much more...

NHI Courses No. 132042 and 132043

Design and Construction of

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

19. SECURITY CLASSIF. 20. SECURITY CLASSIF. 21. NO. OF PAGES 22

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1

CHAPTER 2 SYSTEMS AND PROJECT EVALUATION....................................................... 2-1

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

CHAPTER 3 SOIL REINFORCEMENT PRINCIPLES

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

CHAPTER 6 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS WITH COMPLEX GEOMETRICS ........................ 6-1

CHAPTER 7 DESIGN OF MSE WALLS FOR EXTREME EVENTS...................................... 7-1

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

Table 2-1. Typical Minimum Length of Reinforcement..................................................... 2-43

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

Figure 1-1. Generic cross section of an MSE structure. ......................................................... 1-4

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

Figure 5-1. Example copings for MSE walls.......................................................................... 5-2

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

Figure 6-1. Types of complex MSE structures....................................................................... 6-2

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

Figure 7-1. Definition of heights for seismic analyses..................................................................7-3

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

CHAPTER 8 REINFORCED (STEEPENED) SOIL SLOPES PROJECT EVALUATION..... 8-1

CHAPTER 9 DESIGN OF REINFORCED SOIL SLOPES ....................................................... 9-1

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

CHAPTER 10 CONTRACTING METHODS AND SPECIFICATIONS

CHAPTER 11 FIELD INSPECTION AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING..................... 11-1

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

APPENDIX A LRFD LOAD COMBINATIONS AND LOAD FACTORS, AND LOAD

APPENDIX B DETERMINATION OF PULLOUT RESISTANCE FACTORS.................B-1

APPENDIX C TYPICAL DIMENSIONS OF STEEL REINFORCEMENTS .....................C-1

APPENDIX D DETERMINATION OF CREEP STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR ... D-1

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

APPENDIX F OTHER DESIGN PROCEDURES AND ANALSIS MODELS

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

Table 9-1. Estimated Project Costs. .................................................................................... 9-25

Table 11-1. Outline of MSE/RSS Field Inspection Checklist............................................... 11-2

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

FHWA NHI-10-024 Table of Contents

New methods and technologies of retention and steepened-slope construction continue to be

The manual addresses in a comprehensive manner the following areas:

FHWA NHI-10-024 1 – Introduction

1.1.2 Source Documents

FHWA NHI-10-024 1 – Introduction

Geosynthetics is a generic term that encompasses flexible polymeric materials used in

FHWA NHI-10-024 1 – Introduction

1.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

FHWA NHI-10-024 1 – Introduction

FHWA NHI-10-024 1 – Introduction

FHWA NHI-10-024 1 – Introduction

Currently, most process patents covering soil-reinforced system construction or components

System Name Reinforcement Detail Typical Face Detail1

FHWA NHI-10-024 1 – Introduction