Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302

DOI 10.1007/s40098-013-0062-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Reliability Based LRFD Approach for External Stability

of Reinforced Soil Walls
B. Munwar Basha • G. L. Sivakumar Babu

Received: 6 February 2013 / Accepted: 29 April 2013 / Published online: 14 May 2013
 Indian Geotechnical Society 2013

Abstract The main objective of reinforced soil wall List of Symbols

design is to ensure safety and performance requirements of c = cohesion of the foundation soil
a wall for target reliability levels. Analysis is conducted to e = eccentricity of the resultant force
evaluate the external stability of reinforced soil walls. As fX (x) = is a joint probability density function of X
this must be accomplished under conditions of uncertain- FSsli, FSb = factor of safety against sliding and
ties associated with reinforced backfill, retained backfill, bearing failure modes
foundation soil and surcharge load acting on the wall, FSe = factor of safety against eccentricity
probabilistic analyses are necessary in the development of failure mode
such reliability based design for external stability of rein- DL = distributed dead load surcharge
forced soil wall. A methodology for developing load and g = acceleration due to gravity
resistance factor design guidelines for reinforced soil walls g(.) = limit state function
is outlined in this paper. The potential failure mechanisms H = height of geosynthetic reinforced soil
considered in the analysis are sliding failure, eccentricity wall
failure of resultant force (or overturning failure) and L = length of the geosynthetic reinforcement
bearing capacity failure. A first order reliability method is LL = live load surcharge
used to determine appropriate ranges for the values of the Nc, Nq, Nc = bearing capacity factors
load and resistance factors. Load and resistance factors Pa = active earth pressure due to backfill soil
needed to maintain the stability against three modes of Pq = active earth pressure due to surcharge
failure by targeting component reliability indices of 2, 2.5, load
3, 3.5 and 4 are obtained for various values of coefficients Ka = active earth pressure coefficient
of variation of friction angle of backfill and foundation soil, q = surcharge load acting on the backfill soil
distributed dead load surcharge, live load surcharge and qu = ultimate bearing capacity of a shallow
cohesion of the foundation soil. foundation
Q = surcharge coefficient
Keywords Load factors  Load resistance factor design  ui = variables in standard normal space
Limit states  Reliability analysis  X ¼ fxi gni¼1 = vector of random variables representing
Resistance factors, reinforced soil wall uncertain quantities
U ¼ fuk gnk¼1 = vector of standard random variables
representing uncertain quantities
B. M. Basha (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology u* = most probable point of failure (MPP)
Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India xi = design variable corresponding to target
e-mail: basha@civil.iitd.ac.in; mbasha@gmail.com reliability index
WABFE = weight of the reinforced soil block
G. L. S. Babu
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, ‘ABFE’
P
Bangalore 560 012, India Fr = sum of the horizontal resisting forces

123
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302 293

P
Fd = sum of the horizontal driving forces external failure modes of the wall. The factor of safety is an
U(.) = the standard normal cumulative empirical, but arbitrary, measure used to reduce the
distribution potential for adverse performance.
bt = target reliability index For the external stability to be satisfied, the wall must be
bsli, bb = reliability indices against sliding and safe against three modes of failures: overturning, sliding
bearing failure modes and bearing. For retaining walls, the loads to be considered
be = reliability indices against overturning and are: weight of the wall, dead earth load, lateral earth
eccentricity failure modes pressure and live load surcharge.
COV = coefficient of variation The design of any earth retaining wall requires infor-
c = unit weight of the reinforced backfill soil mation on geotechnical properties of soils to be retained
cb = unit weight of the foundation soil and also of the soils which serve as support for the
li = mean of random variable retaining wall. In practice, soil parameters are known to
lNi = equivalent mean of non normal random exhibit some degree of variability and uncertainty. An
variable important issue in the evaluation of stability of RSW is the
ri = standard deviation of random variable lack of exact knowledge of strength parameters of the
rNi = equivalent standard deviation of non backfill and foundation soil parameters. Since there are
normal random variable many uncertainties in backfill and foundation soil proper-
gi = load factor ties, the analysis from probabilistic point of view is needed.
Wi = resistance factor A few studies are available in the literature. Chalermyanont
/ = friction angle of the reinforced backfill and Benson [1] conducted a reliability study on the external
soil stability of mechanically stabilized earth walls in static
/b = friction angle of the soil below the base conditions. Basha [2] and Basha and Babu [3] presented a
slab of the retaining wall study on reliability based design optimization of external
d = interface wedge friction angle between seismic stability of reinforced soil structures under earth-
reinforced and retained backfill quake loading using pseudo-dynamic method. Again, using
db = interface friction angle between wall base similar pseudo dynamic approach, Basha and Babu [4]
and foundation soil presented a methodology for reliability assessment of
rv = vertical stress at the base and seismic internal stability of reinforced soil structures using
hw = angle of slope with vertical logarithmic spiral failure mechanism by taking into
account three failure modes such as tension failure, pullout
failure and total pullout failure. In addition, Basha and
Babu [5] reported seismic external stability analysis of
geosynthetic reinforced soil walls by taking into account
Introduction the effect of uncertainties using target reliability based
approach (TRA) considering three modes of failure such as
The design of reinforced soil walls (RSW) has traditionally sliding, bearing and overturning or eccentricity failure.
been performed using allowable stress design (ASD) in Design of a mechanically stabilized soil structure
which all uncertainty in loads and material resistance is requires explicit satisfaction of multiple performance cri-
combined in a factor of safety. Design practice of rein- teria such as sliding stability, eccentricity (or overturning)
forced soil retaining walls is based on the limit equilibrium stability and bearing capacity stability modes. Federal
approach currently. The walls are designed for both Highway Administration, FHWA [6] reported that the
external and internal stability criteria. There are several RSW must be designed to avoid external modes of failure,
possible failure modes considered in the design of rein- viz. sliding failure on its base, overturning failure (or in
forced soil retaining walls to satisfy both external and terms of eccentricity failure of the resultant force striking
internal stability. Both external and internal stability issues the footing base) and bearing capacity failure of the
need to be addressed in the design. In this study, external foundation soil. American Association of State Highway
stability is focused. The reinforcement length is governed and Transportation Officials, AASHTO [7] recommended
by the external stability conditions and the vertical spacing that for static loading, the minimum factors of safety in
of reinforcements is governed by the internal stability relation to sliding and overturning modes are 1.5 and 2.0
conditions. Further, design of the wall should be such that respectively, and eccentricity of the resultant force should
minimum required safety factors are fulfilled for all failure be less than one sixth of the width of wall. Further, the
modes. The major design considerations for a reinforced minimum factor of safety against bearing capacity failure
soil structure are the stability assessment of the potential mode should vary between 2.0 and 2.5. Currently used

123
294
design manuals for the design of RSW rely primarily on the
traditional allowable stress design (ASD) format in which
the safety factors are prescribed deterministically.
AASHTO and FHWA are committed to transforming
the current ASD method to load and resistance factor
design (LRFD). LRFD has the advantage over conven-
tional ASD, in that it accounts for the variability in both
resistance and load, as well as provides the same consistent
probability of failure for the structure. LRFD is based
primarily on a rational evaluation of performance reli-
ability. It represents an approach in which applicable fail-
ure and serviceability conditions can be evaluated
accounting for the uncertainties associated with loads and
material resistance.
In the LRFD, various types of loads are multiplied by
load factors and the ultimate resistance is multiplied by a
resistance factor. The uncertainty in loads is represented
by load factors that generally have a value greater than
one, and the uncertainty in material resistance is repre-
sented by a resistance factor that generally has a value
less than one. In geotechnical design, the resistance fac-
tors depend on the uncertainties associated with the var-
iability and reliability of different factors that include the
extent of soil exploration and type of sampling and testing
used to characterize a site; inherent soil variability; soil
property measurements; the procedures or models used
for design; and the measures employed to monitor the
construction processes. Thus selecting resistance factors
that target an acceptable probability of survival is a dif-
ficult one. However, geotechnical engineers have the
opportunity to control the extent and type of sampling and
testing used to characterize a site, and the procedures or
models used for design.
The selection of load factor combination will depend on
the mode of failure to be analyzed. The load factor com-
bination that results in the maximum vertical load controls
the bearing capacity consideration. Load factor combina-
tions that include minimum vertical loads and maximum
horizontal loads control the sliding resistance as well as the
overturning. Having the greatest net overturning moment
produces the largest resultant eccentricity.
The first objective of this paper is to evaluate the load
and resistance factors for the design of RSW against
external failure modes with the rigorous probability-based
framework of LRFD approach. The designation LRFD
reflects the concept of factoring both loads and resistance.
This type of factoring differs from the ASD specification,
where only the resistance is divided by a factor of safety (to
obtain allowable stress). The LRFD approach was devised
to offer the designer greater flexibility, more rationality,
and possible overall economy. In the present investigation,
the use of a probabilistic mathematical model in the
development of the load and resistance factors, which made
123
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302
it possible to give proper weight to the accuracy with which
the various loads and resistances can be determined.
The load and resistance factors are dependent on the
degree of uncertainty and influence of the relevant quan-
tities, and on the desired level of safety. The reference
manual by FHWA [6] reported LRFD approach (refer to
Chapter 14) for the mechanically stabilized earth walls, and
presented a first step toward developing load and resistance
factors, addressing static loading. For the design of rein-
forced soil walls, the current FHWA [6] recommends the
resistance factors in bearing capacity mode range from 0.35
to 0.60 depending on the design method, and for base
sliding mode it should be 1.0. However, the existing
resistance factors are recommended based on the variabil-
ity associated with the properties of the backfill that were
collected from sites that do not necessarily reflect the
variability of local backfill soils or design practice.
Therefore, the resistance factors recommended by the
existing FHWA [6] code need to be verified before being
applied to local backfill condition.
In this direction, Allen et al. [8], Bathurst et al. [9] and
Kulhawy and Phoon [10] described methodologies for LRFD
for geotechnical and structural design. Basha and Babu [11]
reported the LRFD approach for the reliability-based seismic
design of bridge abutments using pseudo-static limit equi-
librium method, considering overturning failure, eccentric-
ity failure, sliding failure along the base and bearing capacity
instability. Kim and Salgado [12] considered three target
values of reliability indices (2.0, 2.33, and 3.0) to address the
effect of redundancy on the internal stability checks of
mechanically stabilized earth walls.
Objectives of the Present Study
The attempt made in this paper is perhaps the first study to
propose a LRFD approach for the probabilistic assessment of
stability of RSW. A reliability based optimization method-
ology (Basha and Babu [13]) is used to obtain the load and
resistance factors considering the variability associated with
distributed dead load (DL) surcharge acting on the wall,
traffic surcharge in the form of live load (LL) and properties
of reinforced backfill, retained backfill, foundation soil, and
length of the reinforcement. The reliability analysis is
addressed following FHWA [14] guidelines, considering the
variability associated with static loading.
Reliability Based Load and Resistance Factor Design
The resistance of the wall should be set in such a way that
the factored load effects do not exceed the factored resis-
tance for possible limit states. The term limit state refers to
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302
any set of conditions that may produce unsatisfactory
performance of the reinforced soil wall. These limit states
would be associated with the various static and earthquake
loads considered in the design. In this section, LRFD for-
mat using reliability based design optimization (RBDO)
framework is presented (Ang and Tang [15]). The RBDO
process iteratively carries out two optimizations: a design
optimization in an original random space (X—space) and a
reliability analysis in an independent and standard normal
random space (U—space). The general form of RBDO
problem is formulated as follows: The limit-state function
[g (x) = 0] involving ‘n’ random variables divides the
design space into a failure domain (g (x) \ 0) and a safe
domain (g (x) [ 0) and hence serves as a safety criterion.
During the RBDO process, a transformation between X ¼
fxk gnk¼1 and U ¼ fuk gnk¼1 —spaces at a design point must
be carried out to estimate the probabilistic constraint. The
procedure for target reliability approach (TRA) demon-
strated by Basha and Babu [2, 3, 5, 11, 13] and for the
reliability analysis is used in this paper to estimate the load
and resistance factors in sliding failure, overturning or
eccentricity failure and bearing capacity failure which is
explained in the following section.
The load and resistance factors are estimated using
TRA. TRA is formulated as the inverse of the first order
reliability method (FORM), in which the most probable
point of failure (MPPT) where the distances from the origin
in U—space are equal to the target reliability index (bt) are
sought. The procedure of calculating the target reliability
index is outlined in Fig. 1, which demonstrates the MPPT
search. The circles represent the bt (= 1, 2, 3, 4…etc.)
spheres with the target curve represented by dotted circles.
The point on the target circle with the minimum and
positive value of limit state equation [i.e. g (u) = 5,
10…etc.] is searched. This point is called the MPPT
(Fig. 1). The first-order probabilistic performance measure,
is obtained from the optimization problem in U space, as
(
minimize gðuÞ
Find u; which pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð1Þ
subject to uT u ¼ bt
where g (u) = 0 describes the failure surface in the
standard normal space. The design point (uk) corresponding
to a given target reliability index (bt) in the standard
normal space (U) can be expressed as (Basha and Babu
[13])
Pn og
i¼1 oxk ri
uk ¼ bt rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n where
Pn Pn og o2 ð2Þ
j¼1 i¼1 oxk ri
k ¼ 1; 2; . . .. . .n
Where, ri is the standard deviation of random variable xi.
Further, the random variable ‘xi’ can be found as follows:
295
xi ¼ ri ui þ li ð3Þ
Where, i = 1, 2,……n and li is the mean of random
variable xi. If the variables are not normally distributed, the
parameters of the equivalent normal distribution, lNi and
rNi need to be computed. It can be done by imposing the
conditions that the cumulative distribution function and the
probability density functions of the actual variable and the
equivalent normal variable are equal at the check point on
the failure surface, that is at the check point xi,
 
xi  lNi
U ¼ F X ðx i Þ ð4aÞ
rNi
where lNi and rNi are the mean and standard deviation of
the equivalent normal variable at the design point, and FX
(xi) is the cumulative distribution function of the original
non-normal variable. Rearranging Eq. (4), we get.
lNi ¼ xi  U1 ½FX ðxi ÞrNi ð4bÞ
Equating probability density functions of the original
variable and the equivalent normal variables at the check
point,
 
1 xi  lNi
/ ¼ f X ðx i Þ ð4cÞ
rNi rNi
where /() and fX (xi) are the probability density functions
of the equivalent standard normal and the original random
variables. From Eq. (6), we get.
 
/ U1 ½FX ðxi Þ
rNi ¼ ð4dÞ
fX ðxi Þ
The algorithm to find the partial factors then proceeds in
five iterative steps.
1. Assume initial values of xi and compute the values of
lNi and rNi if it is not normally distributed.
2. Compute the design point (ui ) corresponding to given
bt using Eq. (2).
3. Compute the values of xi using xi ¼ rNi ui þ lNi .
4. Repeat steps 1 through 3 until the process converges.
5. After identifying xi value, the partial factors which
consists of load factors (gi) and resistance factors (Wi)
required to provide the given target reliability index
(bt), can be computed by dividing xi with the mean
values of basic variables (li) as shown below:
x
ð W i ; gi Þ ¼ i ð5Þ
li
External Stability Analysis of RSW
The reinforced soil zone is assumed to behave as one rigid
unit in the external stability analysis. Since this zone is
supposed to act as one unit, the failure mechanisms used
123
296
Fig. 1 Determination of most
probable point of failure for
target reliability index (MPPT)
using target reliability based
approach (TRA) (Basha and
Babu [13])
for conventional gravity retaining walls also apply to the
external stability analysis of reinforced soil retaining walls
(FHWA [14]). A schematic diagram of a typical reinforced
soil retaining wall, along with the forces acting on the wall
used for external stability analysis, is shown in Fig. 2. By
using the design methods and equations given in FHWA
[14] guidelines and AASHTO [16] specifications, the
expressions for three failure modes have been derived and
presented in this section. The sliding wedge failure
mechanism is considered for the external stability analysis
as shown in Fig. 2.
The composite mass must be stable against sliding
failure along the base of the structure at the foundation/
backfill interface, eccentricity failure of resultant force (or
overturning failure about the toe), and bearing-capacity
failure of the supporting foundation soils. Bearing capacity
calculations assume that the base of the reinforced zone
acts as an eccentrically loaded footing with an equivalent
footing width (i.e., Meyerhof approach, FHWA [14]). The
measure of relative stability against the external modes of
failure is defined by the ratio of resisting forces to driving
forces (or moments in the case of overturning) as in the
design of conventional gravity wall structures. A free body
diagram of the wall showing different forces coming onto it
from soil along with their respective points of applications
is shown in Fig. 2.
The external stability of the wall can be analyzed by the
following procedure as reported in FHWA [14]. The earth
pressure can be calculated from the following equation:
Pa ¼ 0:5cH 2 Ka ð6Þ
where c = unit weight of reinforced backfill, H = height
of reinforced soil wall, and Ka is the static active earth
pressure coefficient given by
cos2 ð/Þ
Ka ¼ h qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii2 ð7Þ
cosðdÞ 1 þ sinðdþ/Þ sinð/Þ
cosðdÞ
123
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302
d = interface friction angle between the reinforced and
retained backfill (= 0 for horizontal backfill). For the static
case, the location of the resultant of the soil pressure acting
on the reinforced block as shown in Fig. 2 is taken as H/3.
The expressions of limit state functions for three failure
modes are derived as discussed below.
Performance Function for Sliding Failure Mode
For the stability against sliding failure along the base of
P
wall, sum of the horizontal resisting forces ( Fr ) should
P
be more than sum of the horizontal driving forces ( Fd ).
The factor of safety against sliding failure is given by,
P P
Fr V tan db þ k1 cL
FSsli ¼ P ¼ ð8Þ
Fd P a þ Pq
P
where, V is the normal force at the base = (WABFE ?
DL 9 L), DL = distributed dead load surcharge (DL) on the
wall, k1 = 2/3, Pa is the static active earth pressure (=
0.5 cH2Ka), Pq is the active earth pressure due to dead load
and live load surcharge =(DL?LL)HKa, LL is the live load
traffic surcharge, db = interface friction angle between wall
base and foundation soil expressed in terms of /b,
/b = friction angle of the soil below the base slab of the
retaining wall, and L = length of the geosynthetic
reinforcement. Substituting the above definitions in Eq. (8)
and normalizing with 0.5 cH2, we get
2½L=H þ fDL=cH gL=H  tan db þ 2k1 ðc=cHÞðL=HÞ
FSsli ¼
Ka ð1 þ QÞ
ð9Þ
where, Q = 2(DL?LL)/cH, ‘c’ is the cohesion of
foundation soil. Safety margin against sliding failure of
GRS wall can be expressed as
gsli ðxÞ ¼ FSsli  1 ð10Þ
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302 297

Fig. 2 Forces and earth

pressures considered for the
external stability analysis of
GRS wall

Performance Function for Eccentricity Failure Mode L

ge ðxÞ ¼ e ð15Þ
6
FHWA [14] reported that for the stability of wall in terms
Performance Function for Bearing Capacity Failure
of eccentricity of resultant force under static conditions, the
Mode
eccentricity should be less than one sixth of the base width
of the wall (L/6) (as shown in Fig. 2). Eccentricity of the
Meyerhof distribution assumes that eccentric loading
resulting force (e) on the base can be calculated by sum-
results in a uniform redistribution of pressure over a
ming the moments of resisting forces and disturbing forces
reduced area at the base of the wall as shown in Fig. 2. This
about the center line of the wall base as shown in the
area is defined by a width equal to the wall width less twice
following equation:
the eccentricity (L-2e). The factor of safety against bear-
R  e ¼ Pa  H=3 þ Pq  H=2 ð11Þ ing capacity failure can be estimated as the ratio of ultimate
where R is resultant of vertical forces and WABFE is the bearing capacity (qu) of a shallow foundation below the
weight of the reinforced soil block ‘ABFE’can be base slab of wall and vertical stress at the base (rv) cal-
expressed as culated with Meyerhof type distribution (Fig. 2) and is
shown below:
R ¼ WABFE þ DL  L ð12Þ
qu
WABFE ¼ cHL ð13Þ FSb ¼ ð16Þ
rv
After simplification, Eq. (11) reduces to
where qu and rv are defined as follows:
e ½Ka ð1=3Þ þ 0:5QKa 
¼ ð14Þ qu ¼ cNc þ 0:5cb ðL  2eÞNc ð17Þ
H 2ðL=HÞ þ ½2  DL=ðcH ÞðL=HÞ
P
V
The safety margin against eccentricity failure under rv ¼ ð18Þ
static loading can be estimated as the difference of one L  2e
sixth of the base width of the wall and eccentricity of the cb = unit weight of foundation soil, Nc and Nc are bearing
P
resultant force (e) striking the base from middle point of capacity factors (Das [17]), and V ¼ WABFE þ
the base and is given by ðDL þ LLÞL. Normalizing qu and rv with cH, we get

123
298
   
qu c c L e parameters are reported in Table 1. The COV values are
¼ Nc þ 0:5 b 2 Nc ð19Þ
cH cH c H H
rv 1 þ Q=2
¼ ð20Þ
cH 1  2ðe=HÞðH=LÞ
Safety margin against bearing capacity failure generally
can be written as
gb ðxÞ ¼ FSb  1 ð21Þ
Results and Discussion
Selection of Mean, Standard Deviation and Probability
Density Function (PDF) of Random Variables
A RSW resting on c-/ soil is considered for the present
study. The distributed DL and LL surcharges are assumed
to be 12 and 24 kN/m2 in the present study. This study
includes variability in the properties of backfill, foundation
soil below the base slab of wall, the length of the rein-
forcement. The random variables involved in three modes
of failure are presented in Table 1. For evaluating the
effect of uncertainty in the performance of reinforced soil
walls, uncertainty associated with material properties has
been represented by assigning a mean and standard devi-
ation in terms of coefficient of variation (COV) for each
parameter. Table 1 summarizes the assumed PDF types,
mean values (l) and COV for the random variables in a
typical design. The statistics of material properties have
been chosen from the range of values suggested in litera-
ture (Phoon and Kulhawy [18], Duncan [19]). The mean
values are selected as representative of typical soils
encountered on site (i.e., coarse-grained backfill material
and more fine-grained foundation material). In the absence
of extensive site-specific data base, the design parameters
are assumed to be normally distributed. However, this
assumption is not appropriate for the random variables, /,
/b, db and c due to the fact that the lower bound values
become negative. It can be noted that the values of shear
parameters of the backfill and interface friction are always
greater than or equal to zero. Therefore the random vari-
ables, /, /b, db and c are assumed to be log normally
distributed in the present study.
Ellingwood [20] and Nowak [21] reported that the COV
of DL and LL can be taken as 15 and 25 % respectively.
Further stated that dead loads are normally distributed with
a bias factor of 1.05, while the LL exhibits lognormal
distribution with a bias factor of 1.15. Since the dead loads
can be estimated more accurately than live loads, the COV
for live load is usually higher than that used for dead loads.
Therefore the maximum value of COV of LL is considered
as 30 % in the present study. The range of all input
123
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302
consistent with representative data reported in literature
[18–21]. The summary of load and resistance factors
computed for different failure modes are listed in Table 2.
The probabilistic constraints in the form of performance
functions are given below
gsli ðxÞ  0; ge ðxÞ  0; gb ðxÞ  0 ð22Þ
The load factors (gk) and resistance factors (Wk) com-
puted for different failure modes are presented in Figs. 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. The load and resistance factors for sliding,
eccentricity and bearing capacity failure modes are com-
puted using the expressions, W/ = /*/l/, W/b ¼ /b =l/b ,
Wc = c*/lc and gLL = LL*/lLL. The terms in these
expressions, viz. /*, /b , c* and LL* are the design values
(corresponding to target value of reliability index, bt) of /,
/b, c and LL respectively and l/, l/b , lc and lLL are the
mean values of the random variables /, /b, c and LL
respectively. The load and resistance factors (gk and Wk)
are presented in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 for target values
of reliability indices, bsli, be and bb = 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 against sliding, eccentricity and bearing failure modes
respectively.
Resistance Factors for Friction Angle of Backfill (W/)
The results presented in Fig. 3 shows the effect of COV
values of / on resistance factors for / (W/) against sliding,
eccentricity and bearing failure modes for bsli, be and
bb = 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0, and for COV of / ranges
from 0 to 20 % and for typical values of c = 18 kN/m3, /
= 32, cb = 18 kN/m3, /b = 30, c = 10 kN/m2, L/
H = 0.7, DL = 12 kN/m2, LL = 24 kN/m2, db//b = 2/3,
COV of c, cb, /b, c, db, DL, LL and L/H = 5, 5, 5, 10, 5, 15,
20 and 2.5 % respectively. The same typical values of the
parameters are chosen for the computation of load and
resistance factors which are presented in Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10. The following observations can be made from the
results presented in Fig. 3. The magnitudes of resistance
factors are different for different failure criteria. It can be
noted from Fig. 3 that for constant value of COV of /,
resistance factors, W/ reduce significantly with increase in
values of bsli, be and bb from 2.0 to 4.0 in all the failure
modes. It can also be noted from Fig. 3 that for constant
values of bsli, be and bb, significant reduction in the mag-
nitude of W/ from 1.0 to 0.4 can be observed with increase
in COV of / from 0 to 20 % in all the failure modes.
Therefore, the influence of COV of / for the stability of
wall may not be neglected as it is a significant random
variable.
The results presented in Fig. 4 shows the effect of COV
values of /b on resistance factors for / (W/) against sliding
and bearing failure modes for bsli and bb = 2.0, 2.5, 3.0,
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302 299

Table 1 Mean and COV values

Random variable Statistics
of random parameters
considered in the study Mean (l) COV (%) Distribution Source

c 18 kN/m3 5 Normal Duncan [19]

cb 18 kN/m3 5 Normal Duncan [19]
/ 32 5–20 Log-Normal Phoon and Kulhawy [18]
/b 30 5–20 Log-Normal Phoon and Kulhawy [18]
db//b 2/3 5–20 Log-Normal Phoon and Kulhawy [18]
c 10 kN/m2 0–40 Log-Normal Duncan [19]
DL 12 kN/m2 15 Normal Ellingwood [20] and Nowak [21]
LL 24 kN/m2 0–30 Log-Normal Ellingwood [20] and Nowak [21]
L/H 0.7 2.5 Uniform Chalermyanont and Benson [1]

Table 2 Summary of load and resistance factors computed for dif-

ferent failure modes
Load and resistance factors Failure modes
gsli (x) ge (x) gb (x)

W/ X X X
W/b X – X
Wc X – X
gLL X X X

Fig. 4 Influence of COV values of /b on resistance factors for the

friction angle of the backfill (W/) against sliding and bearing failure
modes for bsli, be and bb = 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4

Eq. (4)). Consequently there is an increase in the magni-

Fig. 3 Influence of COV values of / on resistance factors for the
friction angle of the backfill (W/) against sliding, eccentricity and
bearing failure modes for bsli, be and bb = 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4
P P
tude of sum of the resisting forces ( Fr ). Therefore Fd
should be increased to maintain the same value of target
reliability index (bsli). It can be possible, when magnitude
of earth pressure coefficient, Ka increases with increase in
/ value. Hence, resistance factors (W/) should be increased
with increase in COV of /b.
Resistance Factors for Friction Angle of Foundation
Soil (W/b ) and Cohesion (Wc)

3.5 and 4.0, and for COV of /b ranges from 0 to 20 %. It
can be observed from Fig. 4 that for constant mean value
of bsli and bb, the resistance factors (W/) for sliding and
bearing stability modes, should be increased when COV of
/b increases from 0 to 20 %. This is because, as the
magnitude of COV of /b increases, the magnitude of
design value of /b (/b ) required to provide the target value
of reliability index (bsli = 3.0) is also increases (refer to
Figure 5 shows the effect of COV values of /b on resis-
tance factors for /b (W/b ) against sliding and bearing
failure modes for bsli and bb = 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0,
and for COV of /b ranges from 0 to 20 %. It may be
observed from Fig. 5 that for constant value of COV of /b,
resistance factors, W/b reduce significantly with increase in
values of bsli and bb from 2.0 to 4.0 in sliding and bearing
failure modes. Further, for constant values of bsli and bb,

123
300
Fig. 5 Influence of COV values of /b on resistance factors for the
friction angle of the foundation soil (W/b ) against sliding and bearing
failure modes for bsli, be and bb = 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4
Fig. 6 Influence of COV values of cohesion of the foundation soil (c)
on resistance factors for the cohesion (Wc) against sliding and bearing
failure modes for bsli, be and bb = 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4
significant reduction in the magnitude of W/b from 1.0 to
0.4 can be observed with increase in COV of /b from 0 to
20 % in sliding and bearing failure modes. It can be noted
from Fig. 6 that COV of c is an another significant variable
for sliding and bearing capacity failure modes as there is a
drastic reduction in the magnitude of Wc with the increase
in COV of c from 5 to 40 %. This can be attributed to the
P
increase of sum of resisting forces ( Fr ) in sliding limit
state and ultimate bearing capacity (qu) in bearing failure
mode, due to increase in cohesion of foundation soil (c).
The magnitude of Wc reduces from 1.0 to 0.6 for different
values of bsli, bb and COV of c.
123
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302
Fig. 7 Influence of COV values of live load (LL) on load factors for
LL against sliding, eccentricity and bearing failure modes for bsli, be
and bb = 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4 for COV of / = 10 %
Fig. 8 Influence of COV values of live load (LL) on load factors for
LL against sliding, eccentricity and bearing failure modes for bsli, be
and bb = 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4 for COV of / = 20 %
Influence of COV of Live Load Surcharge (LL)
on Load Factor (gLL)
If a wall is expected to support a surcharge load, a designer
should consider the influence of distributed dead load
surcharge, traffic load and variability associated with it
during the design calculations. An appropriate load factors
for live load surcharge intensity (LL) should be applied in
the wall design in order to maintain the desired safety
levels in relation to sliding, eccentricity and bearing sta-
bility modes. This aspect is discussed in the framework of
LRFD in this section. For this purpose, the computed load
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302
Fig. 9 Influence of COV of / on load factors for LL against sliding,
eccentricity and bearing failure modes for bsli, be and bb = 2, 2.5, 3,
3.5 and 4
Fig. 10 Influence of COV of /b on load factors for LL against
sliding, eccentricity and bearing failure modes for bsli, be and bb = 2,
2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4
factors are presented in Figs. 7 and 8 bsli, be and bb = 2.0,
2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0, COV of / = 10, 20 % and for COV of
LL ranges from 0 to 30 % to illustrate the influence of COV
of LL on the stability of wall for typical values adopted in
the earlier sections.
The results presented in Figs. 7 and 8 show the influence
of COV of LL on the load factors, gLL for sliding, eccen-
tricity and bearing stability modes. It can be observed from
these figures that for constant value of COV of LL, the
magnitudes of load factor, gLL show significant increase
with increase in magnitudes of bsli, be and bb from 2 to 4.
This is because, the parameter LL significantly increases
301
P
the value of V and decreases the eccentricity of resultant
force (e),
P which further increase the horizontal resisting
forces ( Fr ) and ultimate bearing capacity (qu). Therefore
the magnitude of the active earth pressure due to surcharge
loading (i.e. LL 9 HKae) and eccentricity (e) should be
increased to maintain the same value of target reliability
index. This can be possible, if the magnitude of LL
increases. Hence, load factors (gLL) should be increased
with increase in COV of LL.
One more observation can be made from Figs. 7 and 8 is
that for constant values of bsli, be and bb, the magnitude of
load factor, gLL increases considerably with increase in
COV of LL from 0 to 30 %. Therefore, it can be observed
from Fig. 8 that the load factor (gLL) ranges from 1.0 to 1.8
for sliding stability mode, 1.0–2.2 for eccentricity stability
mode and 1.0–2.0 for bearing stability mode when COV of
LL changes from 0 to 30 % and COV of / = 10 %. Sim-
ilarly, it may be noted from Fig. 8 that the load factor (gLL)
ranges from 1.0 to 1.35 for sliding stability mode, 1.0–1.5
for eccentricity stability mode and 1.0–1.55 for bearing
stability mode when COV of LL changes from 0 to 30 %
and COV of / = 20 %.
Influence of Mean and COV Values of / and /b
on Load Factor, gLL
To maintain the desired safety level of the RSW, adequate
load factors for LL should be applied by considering the
variability associated with /. For this purpose, load factors
for LL (gLL) are computed bsli and be = 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5
and 4.0, COV of / ranges from 2 to 20 % against sliding
and eccentricity failure modes. The values of load factors
(gLL) are presented in Fig. 9 for COV of DL = 15 % and
COV of LL = 20 %. It can be observed from Fig. 9 that for
constant mean value of COV of /, the load factor (gLL) for
sliding and eccentricity stability modes, should be
increased significantly when bsli and be increases from 2 to
4. Further, it can be observed from Fig. 9 that for constant
values of bsli and be, the magnitude of gLL reduces sig-
nificantly with the increase in COV of / from 2 to 20 %.
Similarly, Fig. 10 is plotted to show the effect of COV of
/b on load factors for LL against sliding and bearing
failure modes for bsli, be and bb = 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0
and COV of /b ranges from 0 to 20 %.
Conclusions
LRFD procedure that considers uncertainties associated
with the design of reinforced soil walls is illustrated in the
paper. The load and resistance factors developed in the
present study considering the variability associated with
static loading, may be used to support adaptation of the
123
302
partial factors to enable inclusion in AASHTO [12] and
FHWA [11] specifications. However the resistance and
load factors computed for the external stability must be
checked for the safety against internal failure modes, i.e.
tensile and pullout of the reinforcements. The analyses
presented in this paper lead to the following major
conclusions:
1. The magnitudes of resistance factors are different for
different failure criteria.
2. It can be noted that the COV’s of /, /b, c and LL has
significant effect on load and resistance factors for all
the failure modes.
3. It is found that for various magnitudes of target
reliability index, COVs of / and /b, the resistance
factors, W/ and W/b range from 0.4 to 1.0 for all the
failure modes, and the resistance factor for cohesion of
the foundation soil (Wc) varies from 0.70 to 1.0 for
sliding mode and 0.6–1.0 for bearing capacity mode.
4. Since the dead loads can be estimated more accurately
than live loads, the COV for live load is usually higher
than that used for dead loads. Therefore due consid-
eration must be paid to determine the COV of LL as it
influences the RSW design significantly.
5. It is observed from the study that the load factors (gLL)
ranges from 1.0 to 1.8 for sliding stability mode, 1.0–
2.2 for eccentricity stability mode and 1.0–2.0 for
bearing stability mode when COV of LL changes from
0 to 30 % and COV of / = 10 %. Similarly when COV
of / = 20 %, it can be noted that load factor (gLL)
ranges from 1.0 to 1.35 for sliding stability mode, 1.0–
1.5 for eccentricity stability mode and 1.0–1.55 for
bearing stability mode.
References
1. Chalermyanont T, Benson C (2005) Reliability-based design for
external stability of mechanically stabilized earth walls. Int J
Geomech ASCE 5(3):196–205
2. Basha BM (2009) Optimum design of retaining structures under
static and seismic loading: a reliability based approach. Ph.D
thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Sci-
ence Bangalore
3. Basha BM, Babu GLS (2009) Seismic reliability assessment of
external stability of reinforced soil walls using pseudo-dynamic
method. Geosynth Int 16(3):197–215
123
Indian Geotech J (October–December 2013) 43(4):292–302
4. Basha BM, Babu GLS (2009) Reliability assessment of internal
stability of reinforced soil structures: a pseudo-dynamic
approach. Soil Dyn Earth Eng 30(5):336–353
5. Basha BM, Babu GLS (2009) Optimum design for external
seismic stability of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls: a reliability
based approach. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(6):797–
812
6. FHWA (2001) Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) for
highway bridge substructures: reference manual and participant
workbook. Publication No. FHWA HI-98-032. Federal Highway
Administration and National Highway Institute, Washington, DC
7. AASHTO (1996) Standard specifications for highway bridges,
16th edn. American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials, Washington, DC
8. Allen TM, Nowak AS, Bathurst RJ (2005) Calibration to deter-
mine load and resistance factors for geotechnical and structural
design. Issue Number: E-C079. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC
9. Bathurst RJ, Allen TM, Nowak AS (2008) Calibration concepts
for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) of reinforced soil
walls. Can Geotech J 45:1377–1392
10. Kulhawy FH, Phoon KK (2009) Geo-RBD for foundations—let’s
do it right!. In: Magued Iskander, Debra F. Laefer, and Mohamad
H. Hussein (eds) Contemporary topics in situ testing, analysis,
and reliability of foundations. ASCE Geotechnical Special Pub-
lication 186, p 442–449
11. Basha BM, Babu GLS (2010) Load and resistance factor design
(LRFD) approach for the reliability-based seismic design of
bridge abutments. Georisk: Assess Manag Risk Eng Syst Geo-
hazards 4(3):127–139
12. Kim D, Salgado R (2012) Load and resistance factors for external
stability checks of mechanically stabilized earth walls. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 138(3):241–251
13. Basha BM, Babu GLS (2008) Target reliability based design
optimization of anchored cantilever sheet pile walls. Can Geotech
J 45(4):535–548
14. FHWA (2001) Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced
soil slopes: design and construction guidelines. Publication
FHWA NHI-00-43. Federal Highway Administration and
National Highway Institute, Washington, DC
15. Ang HS, Tang WH (1984) Probability concepts in engineering
planning and design. Wiley, New York
16. AASHTO (2007) LRFD bridge design specifications, 4th edn.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC
17. Das BM (1999) Principles of foundation engineering, 4th edn.
Publishing Workflow System Publication, Pacific Grove
18. Phoon KK, Kulhawy FH (1999) Evaluation of geotechnical
property variability. Can Geotech J 36(4):625–639
19. Duncan J (2000) Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical
engineering. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 126(4):307–316
20. Ellingwood BR (1999) Wind load statistics for probability-based
structural design. J Struct Eng ASCE 125(4):453–463
21. Nowak AS (1994) Load model for bridge design code. Can J
Civil Eng 21:36–49