Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Experimental and theoretical studies on the ultimate bearing capacity of

geogrid-reinforced sand
Chao Xu, Cheng Liang, Panpan Shen∗
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200092, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) structures have gained popularity in replacing concrete rigid piles as abut-
Geosynthetics ments to support medium or small-spanned bridge superstructures in recent years. This study conducted 13
Geosynthetic reinforced soil model tests to investigate the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass when sand was used as backfill soil. The
Compaction GRS mass was constructed and loaded to failure under a plane strain condition. Test results were compared with
Increased confining pressure
two analytical solutions available in literature. This study also proposed an analytical model for predicting the
Tension
Ultimate bearing capacity
ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. The failure surface of
the GRS mass was described by the Rankine failure surface. The effects of compaction and reinforcement tension
were equivalent to increased confining pressures to account for the reinforcing effects of the geosynthetic re-
inforcement. The proposed model was verified by the results of the model tests conducted in this study and
reported in literature. Results indicated that the proposed model was more capable of predicting the ultimate
bearing capacity of the GRS mass than the other two analytical solutions available in literature. The proposed
model can be used to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of GRS structures when sand was used as backfill
material. In addition, a parametric study was conducted to investigate the effects of friction angle of backfill soil,
reinforcement spacing, reinforcement strength, and reinforcement stiffness on the ultimate bearing capacity of
the GRS mass calculated with and without compaction effects. Results showed that the ultimate bearing capacity
of the GRS mass was significantly affected by the friction angle of backfill soil, reinforcement spacing and
strength. Compaction effects resulted in an increase in the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass.

1. Introduction
Geosynthetics have been widely used as reinforcements in stabi-
lizing earth structures, e.g. retaining walls, embankments, slopes and so
on. In recent years, geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) abutments with
closely-spaced reinforcement layers (smaller than 0.3 m) have been
more and more constructed in many places around the world to support
medium or small-spanned bridge superstructures due to the advantages
of easy construction, cost effective, friendly to environment, and ex-
cellent seismic performance (Abu-Hejleh et al., 2002; Lee and Wu,
2004; Liu et al., 2011; Adams et al., 2011a, 2011b; Lenart et al., 2016;
Tatsuoka et al., 2016; Helwany et al., 2017; Talebi et al., 2017;
Saghebfar et al., 2017). In most in-service bridges, rigid concrete piles
were usually used to support the upper load to satisfy the deformation
requirements. However, the use of rigid piles may lead to differential
settlements generated between the bridge deck and approaching road
due to the consolidation of foundation soil, especially in soft soil areas.
If rigid piles were replaced by GRS abutment, the differential
settlements can be eliminated by allowing the bridge deck and ap-
proach embankment to deform at the same rate (Helwany et al., 2003;
Lenart et al., 2016).
Numerical analysis has been regarded as an effective and con-
venient way to study the behavior of different kinds of structures under
self-weight and loading conditions in geotechnical engineering. To si-
mulate the integrated behavior of GRS abutments, quite a few numer-
ical studies have been published in literature by using finite element
programs or finite difference programs to investigate the effects of
bridge sill type (i.e., integrated or isolated) (Wu et al., 2006), re-
inforcement stiffness (Zheng et al., 2018a), reinforcement spacing (Wu
et al., 2006; Zheng et al., 2018a), strength of backfill soil (Zheng et al.,
2018b), strength of foundation soil (Helwany et al., 2003), different
loading conditions (Abu-Farsakh et al., 2018; Ardah et al., 2017; Zheng
and Fox, 2016, 2017), and differential settlement (Ardah et al., 2018)
on the performance of GRS abutments. The numerical analyses have the
advantages to gain qualitative or even quantitative results by con-
sidering a number of influencing factors. However, to obtain input

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: 18310183@tongji.edu.cn (P. Shen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.01.003
Received 30 August 2018; Received in revised form 5 December 2018; Accepted 23 December 2018
0266-1144/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Xu, C., Geotextiles and Geomembranes, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.01.003
C. Xu et al.
parameters for constitutive models used in the numerical analyses
sometimes requires the users to conduct specific laboratory tests such as
triaxial tests and isotropic compression test. These kinds of tests are
difficult to perform and require specialized knowledge and equipment,
especially when a complicated constitutive model is selected. Without
accurate input parameters for the constitutive models, the numerical
results may not be representative.
On the other hand, results of model tests give much more confidence
to engineers in practice as long as the tests are carefully conducted and
details are noticed. Some large-scale model tests have been conducted
and loaded to failure to investigate the ultimate bearing capacity of
GRS. Elton and Patawaran (2004) tested cylindrical geotextile-re-
inforced soil samples in unconfined condition with different reinforce-
ment spacing and strengths to investigate the load carrying capacity
and to examine the soil and reinforcement behavior under loading.
Adams et al. (2007) conducted GRS performance tests (also called as
Mini Pier tests) to provide general observations about GRS behavior
and investigate the influence of reinforcement spacing on the perfor-
mance of a GRS mass. Wu et al. (2008) constructed two back-to-back
GRS abutments reinforced with woven geotextile of different strengths
to investigate the behavior of the GRS abutments under vertical loads
on a bridge sill. A design method (Berg et al., 2009) was selected for the
comparison of the calculated vertical failure loads with test results. Wu
et al. (2008) found out that the calculated failure loads using the design
method were much smaller than the measured ones. Pham (2009)
conducted four compression tests of geotextiles reinforced soil and one
unreinforced soil for comparison under a plane strain condition. The
plane strain condition can better simulate the deformation character-
istics of the GRS abutments. Pham (2009) investigated the effects of
reinforcement spacing and strength on the performance of the GRS
mass and test results showed that the role of reinforcement spacing was
much more significant than that of reinforcement strength.
Federal Highway Administration suggested that the maximum load
applied on top of the GRS bridge abutments should be smaller than
200 kPa for safety (Berg et al., 2009). However, the safety redundancy
of the GRS abutments is still unclear in terms of bearing capacity.
Therefore, studies are needed to investigate the ultimate bearing ca-
pacity of the GRS abutments. Despite the fact that plenty of studies,
such as model tests, numerical simulations, and field tests, have been
reported in literature as discussed previously, up to now, only two
analytical models (Yang, 1972; Wu and Pham, 2013) have been pro-
posed to predict the ultimate bearing capacity of GRS. The model
proposed by Yang (1972) assumed the contribution of geotextile re-
inforcements to the bearing capacity to be an increased confining stress
described by the ratio of reinforcement tensile strength to reinforce-
ment spacing (i.e., Tf/Sv). This assumption implies that a decrease of
reinforcement spacing has the same impact as a proportional increase of
reinforcement strength. However, Wu and Pham (2013) found out that
the bearing capacity of the GRS mass was strongly affected by re-
inforcement spacing and the influence of reinforcement strength was
less significant. They proposed an analytical model to predict the load
carrying capacity for closely-spaced reinforced soil based on a semi-
empirical factor (i.e., W factor) considering the effect of reinforcement
spacing Sv and the maximum particle diameter of the backfill soil dmax.
The model proposed by Wu and Pham (2013) was verified using results
of a series of large scale model tests (Elton and Patawaran, 2004; Adams
et al., 2007, 2014; Wu et al., 2012). The common point among these
large scale model tests is that dmax was larger than 10 mm. In other
words, the model proposed by Wu and Pham (2013) was able to predict
the bearing capacity of the GRS mass when the maximum particle
diameter of the backfill soil was larger than 10 mm. However, soil with
a maximum particle diameter smaller than 10 mm has also been used as
backfill material in GRS structures. Adams et al. (2011b) pointed out
that the backfill soil for geosynthetic reinforced soil - integrated bridge
system (GRS-IBS) should meet the following requirements: (1) The
maximum aggregate size is not larger than 50.8 mm; (2) The amount of
2
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
fines passing the No. 200 sieve is not larger than 12%; (3) The friction
angle of the soil is not less than 38°. Highly-compacted sand meets the
three requirements proposed by Adams et al. (2011b) and have been
used as the backfill material in GRS bridge-supporting structures (Lee
and Wu, 2004). The maximum particle size of sand is usually smaller
than 5 mm. The W factor in the model proposed by Wu and Pham
(2013) would decrease significantly when dmax was smaller than 5 mm,
thus resulting in significant decrease in the calculated bearing capacity.
Therefore, the suitability of the model proposed by Wu and Pham
(2013) to evaluate the bearing capacity of the GRS structures needs to
be further verified when sand is used as backfill soil for GRS structures.
Furthermore, the backfill soil is commonly compacted during the
construction of GRS structures. The compaction of the backfill soil can
reduce its void ratio, increase its density, and produce residual lateral
earth pressure, thus resulting in an over-consolidation state of the GRS
structures and increased modulus and bearing capacity. This me-
chanism has been proven in previous studies (Aggour and Brown, 1974;
Ehrlich et al., 2012; Mirmoradi and Ehrlich, 2015). However, neither
the model proposed by Yang (1972) nor the model proposed by Wu and
Pham (2013) considered the compaction effects when calculating the
bearing capacity of the GRS structures. Therefore, further studies need
to be conducted to consider the compaction effects.
This study aimed to investigate the ultimate bearing capacity of a
GRS mass when sand was used as backfill soil. Thirteen GRS masses
were constructed and loaded to failure under a plane strain condition.
The maximum particle diameter of the backfill sand was smaller than
5 mm. Three influencing factors were considered in the tests including
gradation of backfill soil, reinforcement spacing, and reinforcement
strength. This study also proposed an analytical model for predicting
the ultimate bearing capacity of GRS mass based on the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion. The proposed analytical model was verified against
results of model tests conducted in this study and reported in literature.
Finally, a parametric study was carried out to investigate the influences
of parameters included in the proposed analytical model on the ulti-
mate bearing capacity of the GRS mass calculated with and without
compaction effects.
2. Model test
2.1. Test conditions
The GRS mass constructed in this study had dimensions of 600 mm
(long) × 285 mm (wide) × 1000 mm (high). The ratio of height to
length equaled approximately to 2.0 to mimic the relative dimensions
of samples used in triaxial tests. The GRS mass was constructed in a
rigid box with inside dimensions of 760 mm (long) × 300 mm
(wide) × 1050 mm (high). The model tests were conducted under a
plane strain condition by fixing the deformation of the GRS mass along
the out-of-plane direction (i.e., width direction). The layout of the
model tests is shown in Fig. 1. The front side of the test box was a
15 mm-thick transparent organic glass plate. Three rigid transverse ribs
were fixed onto the glass plate to increase its stiffness. Using the
transparent organic glass plate can provide convenience for visualizing
the deformation of the GRS mass during loading. Two air bags, located
at left and right sides of the GRS mass and connected with an air
compressor, were used to provide confining pressure during construc-
tion and loading of the model tests. The maximum pressure the air bag
can sustain is 100 kPa. An air pressure valve was used to control and
alter the confining pressure. The air pressure valve was able to monitor
and control the pressure ranging from 5 kPa to 200 kPa precisely.
During construction of the GRS mass, the confining pressure was
maintained at 90 kPa, which was high enough to simulate a fixed
boundary with no lateral deformation. After the construction was fin-
ished, the confining pressure was slowly decreased to 30 kPa and kept
constant during loading. This value of 30 kPa was approximately the
lateral earth pressure at the mid-height of a 7.0 m high GRS wall.
C. Xu et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Layout of the model tests: (a) Side view; (b) Front view (Unit: mm).

The GRS mass was constructed layer by layer from bottom to top in
10 lifts. Each layer was compacted with a hand tamper to reach the
relative density of 75% of the backfill soil using volume-weight control
method. The surface of backfill soil was examined with a levelling in-
strument to make sure the uniform compaction efforts and even pla-
cement of geosynthetic reinforcement. This procedure was repeated
until the construction was completed. Stage loading was applied on top
of the GRS mass through a rigid steel plate connected with a hydraulic
jack with a capacity of 5 × 105 N.
To reduce the friction between the soil and the box, a lubrication layer
was created at the front and back sides of the box. This layer consisted of a
0.5 mm-thick polytef membrane covered with an approximately 1 mm-
thick white vaseline. The smooth surface of the polytef membrane could
reduce the friction between the soil and the box, thus ensuring that the
model tests conducted in this study were under a plane strain condition.
Similar methods have been successfully used in laboratory plane strain
model tests to reduce the friction and the results were satisfactory (Huang
and Tatsuoka, 1990; Kongkitkul et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2012). Fig. 2. Particle size distributions.

2.2. Backfill
Dry silicon sand with three different gradations were chosen as
backfill soil in the model tests. Sieve analyses were conducted to de-
termine the particle-size distributions of the dry sand and the results
were shown in Fig. 2. The coefficients of curvature for Gradation-1 (G1),
Gradation-2 (G2), and Gradation-3 (G3) were 0.72, 0.99, and 1.55, re-
spectively. The uniformity coefficients for G1, G2, and G3 were 3.76,
2.63, and 8.3, respectively. One of the purposes of this study is to in-
vestigate the effects of gradations of backfill soil on the behavior of the
GRS mass. The backfill soil considered in the model tests had the same
maximum and minimum soil particle diameters but different gradations.
The maximum particle size was 3 mm for all three gradations, which was
much smaller than that used in the laboratory tests conducted by Pham
(2009). The maximum dry densities were 1930, 1730, and 2050 kg/m3
for G1, G2, and G3 respectively. The minimum dry densities were 1510,
1390, and 1500 kg/m3 for G1, G2, and G3 respectively. The densities
used in construction were 1810, 1630, and 1880 kg/m3 for G1, G2, and
G3 respectively to achieve a relative density of 75%.
Triaxial tests were performed at three different confining pressures
(i.e., 30, 100, and 200 kPa) to determine the shear strength parameters
for each gradation of dry sand. Test results were shown in Fig. 3. The
triaxial specimens had a diameter of 39.1 mm and a height of 80 mm.
The diameter of the triaxial specimen was more than 10 times larger
than the maximum particle diameter of the sand (i.e., 3 mm). Conse-
quently, the dimensions of the triaxial specimen were large enough to
capture the behavior of the sand. The triaxial specimen was constructed
and compacted in three lifts. The relative density was kept the same as
that used in the model tests. Triaxial tests results showed that the peak
internal friction angles were 39°, 35°, and 42° for G1, G2, and G3, re-
spectively. The cohesion was 0 kPa for all three cases. Based on the
results of triaxial tests and sieve analyses, both G1 and G3 satisfied the
requirements of backfill soil for GRS-IBS (Adams et al., 2011b).
2.3. Reinforcement
Two kinds of biaxial polypropylene (PP) geogrids, G-20 and G-30,
were used as reinforcements in the model tests. The ultimate tensile

3
C. Xu et al.
Fig. 3. Results of triaxial tests for backfill soil. (a) G1; (b) G2; (c) G3.
strengths of the geogrids in machine direction were 20 kN/m and
30 kN/m for G-20 and G-30 respectively. The strengths of G-20 at 2%
and 5% tensile strain were 7.6 kN/m and 14.5 kN/m respectively. The
strengths for G-30 at 2% and 5% tensile strain were 9.4 kN/m and
19.8 kN/m respectively. Fig. 4 shows the tensile tests results of the two
geogrids. The aperture size of both PP geogrids was 40 × 40 mm. The
geogrid layers had the same area as the cross-section of the GRS mass
and were arranged at an equal reinforcement spacing along the height
of the model. The machine direction of the geogrid was arranged par-
allel to the length direction of the GRS mass during construction. The
detailed arrangements of the geogrids would be discussed later.
Fig. 4. Tensile test results of geogrid.
4
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
2.4. Instrumentation
Fig. 1 shows the layouts of instrumentations used in the model tests. The
vertical applied load was monitored by a force transducer and was recorded
every 2 s using an automatic data collector. Two linear variable differential
transformers (LVDT) were arranged at two sides of the steel plate to monitor
its vertical displacements under vertical loads. Six earth pressure cells (C1-C6)
were placed between the air bag and the specimen uniformly along the height
of the model to monitor the actual confining pressure applied on the spe-
cimen. Detailed monitoring results of these six earth pressure cells are pre-
sented in Appendix A due to a large amount of monitoring data. Two earth
pressure cells (C7 and C8) with a diameter of 16 mm were arranged at the
bottom of the specimen along its length direction. Results of both C7 and C8
were compared to the overburden stress of the GRS mass under self-weight to
investigate the influence of side friction of the model box on the test results.
The earth pressure cells were recalibrated through embedding them into sand
under different vertical load before testing even though they have been ca-
librated by manufacturers using oil pressure. Rui et al. (2016a, b) pointed out
that different stiffness between earth pressure cells and backfill soil would
result in a different calibration factor and affect the accuracy of the readings
since the calibration performed by manufactures using oil pressure did not
consider the stiffness differences. Fig. 5 shows the monitoring results of C7
and C8 after recalibration for the case of unreinforced model backfilled with
G2. Similar results were obtained from other cases but were not presented in
the paper to save space. Fig. 5 shows that the measured vertical stress was
slightly lower than the calculated overburden stress, indicating that the effect
of side friction of the model box was limited.
2.5. Test plan
Thirteen model tests were performed in this study to investigate the
influences of backfill soil gradation, reinforcement strength, and
C. Xu et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 5. Comparison of calculated and measured overburden stress under self-

weight.

reinforcement spacing on the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass.

The construction of the GRS mass included compaction of the backfill dry
sand and the placement of geogrids according to test plan. The GRS mass
was compacted in ten lifts using a mass-volume control method. The
compacted lift thickness was 10 cm and each lift had a mass of 30.9,
27.8, and 32.1 kg for G1, G2, and G3 respectively. Therefore, the average
densities of the backfill soil during construction were 1810, 1630, and
1880 kg/m3 for G1, G2, and G3 respectively, thus resulting in a relative
density of 75%. Three tests were conducted on unreinforced soil for
comparison. The detailed test plan was shown in Table 1.
In order to capture the entire load-deformation response of the GRS
mass, stage loading was applied on top of the GRS mass with increments
of 25 kPa. The values of 25 kPa was selected based on the estimated
bearing capacity of the GRS mass. Each stage was maintained for 10 min
to allow the deformation of the model to be stable. The stage loading
stopped when a failure condition was reached. The failure condition was
defined when the vertical deformation of the model was not stable and
the rate of deformation increased rapidly under a certain applied load. Fig. 6. Load – deformation curves of the GRS mass: (a) Influences of re-
inforcement strength and spacing; (b) Influences of backfill soil gradation.

3. Test results
stage loading. The normalized settlement was the average vertical
displacements of the top of the GRS mass divided by its height (i.e., 1 m
3.1. Global stress-strain relationship
in the model tests). The two figures in Fig. 6 show the influences of
different factors on the performance of the GRS mass, which are: (a)
Fig. 6 presents the load – deformation curves of the GRS mass under
reinforcement strength and spacing; (b) gradation of backfill soil. Based
on the results shown in Fig. 6, the ultimate bearing capacity can be
Table 1
determined. Unreinforced soil obviously had the lowest ultimate
Test plan.
bearing capacity compared with reinforced ones. Fig. 6(a) shows that
Test Gradation Reinforcement strength Tf Reinforcement spacing Sv (m) the ultimate bearing capacity increased with an increase of reinforce-
(kN/m)
ment strength and a decrease of reinforcement spacing while Fig. 6(b)
T1 G1 20 0.33 shows that the bearing capacity was affected by the backfill soil gra-
T2 0.25 dation. G3 with a friction angle of 42° had the largest bearing capacity
T3 0.20 while G2 had the smallest bearing capacity since G2 had the lowest
T4 30 0.33 friction angle (i.e., 35°) among all three gradations.
T5 0.25
T6 Unreinforced /
3.2. Failure modes
T7 G2 20 0.20
T8 0.25
T9 30 0.25 Failure modes play a significant role in analyzing the ultimate
T10 Unreinforced / bearing capacity of the GRS mass. In order to identify the failure mode,
all the geogrid layers were all taken out after the stage loading was
T11 G3 20 0.25
T12 30 0.25
finished. Fig. 7 shows that each layer of geogrids was ruptured into two
T13 Unreinforced / parts under the vertical load. Similar phenomenon was found in the
large-scale tests conducted by Pham (2009) using geotextile as

5
C. Xu et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 7. Locations of rupture in geosynthetics and failure surfaces: (a) Ruptured geogrids in the model tests after loading; (b) Failure surfaces of all cases in the model
tests; (c) Modified from Elton and Patawaran (2004); (d) Modified from Iwamoto et al. (2015).

reinforcements under a plane strain condition. The failure surface of the (Yang, 1972; Wu and Pham, 2013) have been reported in literature to
GRS mass can be determined based on the location of tensile rupture of predict the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS. Therefore, these two
each geogrid layer. Fig. 7(b) shows all the failure surfaces of the model solutions were selected for the comparison with the test results.
tests. Rankine failure surface was also plotted using red dotted line in The model proposed by Yang (1972) was described using Eq. (1):
Fig. 7(b) for comparison and its angle of inclination measured from
horizontal plane equaled to θ = 45° + φps/2 where φps is the friction Tf
1 = 3 + K p + 2c K p
angle of the backfill soil under a plane strain condition and the de- Sv (1)
termination of φps will be illustrated later in Section 4 of theoretical
where σ1 is the ultimate bearing capacity; σ3 is the actual applied ex-
analysis. It was noted that the failure surfaces of the GRS mass matched
ternal confining pressure; Sv is the reinforcement spacing; Tf is the ul-
reasonably well with the Rankine failure surface. Similar results were
timate tensile strength of reinforcement; Kp is the coefficient of Rankine
presented by Elton and Patawaran (2004) in their cylindrical geotextile-
passive earth pressure, Kp = tan2(45° + φ/2) where φ is the friction
reinforced soil tests and Iwamoto et al. (2015) in their mini-pier tests,
angle of the backfill soil. Equation (1) implies that a decrease of re-
as shown in Fig. 7(c) and (d). Therefore, it can be concluded that, si-
inforcement spacing has the same impact as a proportional increase of
milar to the failure surface of unreinforced soil, it is reasonable to use
reinforcement strength.
the Rankine failure surface to describe the failure surface of the GRS
The model proposed by Wu and Pham (2013) was described using
mass under uniaxial loading. This conclusion provides a very useful
Eq. (2):
perception for the latter theoretical analysis in this study.
Sv
Sref
Tf
1 = 3 + .0. 7 K p + 2c K p
3.3. Test results versus analytical solutions Sv
(2)

As discussed in the introduction, only two analytical solutions where Sref is reference spacing and can be expressed alternatively as

6
C. Xu et al.
Fig. 8. Comparison between the calculated ultimate bearing capacities of the
GRS and measured ones.
6dmax or 20d85; dmax is maximum particle size of soil; d85 is equivalent
particle diameter for which 85% of the soil by weight is finer.
The input parameters required in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), such as Sv, Tf,
Sref, φ, and c, were determined based on the physical and mechanical
properties of each model test. Fig. 8 shows the comparison between the
test results and analytical solutions. The model proposed by Yang (1972)
obviously overestimated the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS be-
cause Eq. (1) overestimated the reinforcing effects provided by re-
inforcement tension by using the term Tf/Sv. The reinforcing effects are
defined as the increased confining pressure that geosynthetic can provide
to backfill soil. The model proposed by Wu and Pham (2013), on the
other hand, underestimated the bearing capacity of the GRS. Equation
(2) requires soil particle parameter, dmax or d85, to calculate the bearing
capacity of the GRS. In other words, the model proposed by Wu and
Pham (2013) considered the gradation of the backfill soil when calcu-
lating the bearing capacity of the GRS. dmax were same in all three gra-
dations of sand (i.e., G1, G2, and G3) used in this study while d85 had
different values. Fig. 8 shows that the results calculated using dmax were
close to those calculated using d85. Moreover, Fig. 8 shows that the
calculated bearing capacities using Eq. (2) increased with the increase of
the friction angle of backfill soil but did not change much despite the
variation of reinforcement strength and reinforcement spacing in each
gradation of sand. In other words, the model proposed by Wu and Pham
(2013) cannot reflect the effects of reinforcement strength and re-
inforcement spacing on the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS
Fig. 9. Stress analysis of a tributary element of GRS with a height of Sv: (a) Failure surface with reinforcement; (b) Schematic diagram of equivalent confining
pressures.
7
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
backfilled with sand investigated in this study. The differences between
test results and calculated bearing capacities using Eq. (2) were due to
Tf
the fact that Eq. (2) utilized the expression of 0. 7 (Sv / Sref ) S to represent
v
the reinforcing effects of geogrid layers, which was not appropriate when
sand was used as backfill soil. The value of Sv/Sref has great influences on
the reinforcing effects because it is an exponential function with radix of
0.7. The maximum particle diameters of the backfill sand used in this
study were smaller than 3 mm for all three gradations, thus resulting in
very small values of 0. 7 (Sv / Sref ) (i.e., ranging from 0.001 to 0.019 for
different cases in the model tests). Consequently, by using the term
Tf
0. 7 (Sv / Sref ) S to account for the reinforcing effects of the geogrid layers,
v
Eq. (2) underestimated the bearing capacities of the GRS masses back-
filled with sand and cannot reflect the change of reinforcement spacing
and strength on the bearing capacities. However, if course-grained soil
was used as backfill soil and the maximum particle size was larger than
10 mm, the influence of the value of 0. 7 (Sv / Sref ) became less significant
and Eq. (2) was verified to be able to reasonably predict the bearing
capacity of the GRS mass (Wu et al., 2012).
It can be concluded from Fig. 8 that the two analytical models
proposed by Yang (1972) and Wu and Pham (2013) were not able to
predict the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass backfilled with
sand investigated in this study. Therefore, a new theoretical model
needs to be put forward for this case.
4. Theoretical analysis
Fig. 9 shows the stress state of a tributary element of the GRS mass
with a height of Sv. Shear stresses could be neglected on the four
boundaries based on the analyses of Adib (1988). Therefore, vertical
and horizontal directions can be regarded as the directions of major and
minor principle stress, respectively.
According to the model test results discussed in Section 3.2, the
failure mode of the GRS could be described using the Rankine theory.
To calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS, the Rankine
failure surface was utilized in the theoretical analysis with an angle of
inclination measured from horizontal plane equaled to θ = 45° + φps/
2. In this study, an analytical model was proposed to calculate bearing
capacity of the GRS based on increased confining pressures (i.e., re-
inforcing effects of geosynthetic reinforcements). The detailed calcu-
lations of the proposed model were described as follows.
4.1. Introduction of increased confining pressures
The increased confining pressure has been regarded as one of the
reinforcing mechanisms of geosynthetics due to its function of
C. Xu et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

restraining the lateral deformation of backfill soil. However, how to

evaluate it quantitatively still needs further studies. The increased
confining pressures consisted of two parts. One part is the increased
horizontal residual earth pressure induced by compaction during con-
struction. The compaction process is quite important for GRS structures
and needs to be considered. This phenomenon and its mechanisms have
been studied and proven by former researches (Pham, 2009; Liu and
Won, 2014; Ehrlich and Mirmoradi, 2016). Another part is the in-
creased confining pressure induced by reinforcement tension, which
will be discussed in detail later in this study. Consequently, the final
equivalent confining pressure, 3 , can be calculated using Eq. (3):

3 = 3 + 3c + 3r (3)
Fig. 10. Stress state for GRS mass subject to compaction load.
where σ3 is the external confining pressure exerted on the GRS (σ3
equaled to 29.3 kPa in this study according to the monitoring results of
Equation (8) shows the calculation of F:
earth pressure cells C1-C6); Δσ3c is the increased confining pressure
induced by compaction; Δσ3r is the increased confining pressure in- F=1 (OCR OCR )/(OCR 1) (8)
duced by reinforcement tension.
where α = sin φps; OCR is over-consolidation ratio and equals to σzc/σz
if σzc > σz or equals to 1 if σzc ≤ σz.
4.2. Increased confining pressure by compaction
The tangent Young's modulus of backfill soil Et could be calculated
using Duncan-Chang's model to account for the effects of confining
Wu and Pham (2010) have put forward a simplified model simu-
pressure on the modulus of soil. Equation (9) shows the calculation of
lating the compaction effect in GRS based on the compaction model for
Et:
unreinforced soil developed by Duncan and Seed (1986). The model
proposed by Wu and Pham (2010) was verified by compaction-induced n
( 1 3 )(1 sin ps )
2
3
stresses obtained from finite element analysis. The increased confining Et = kpa 1 Rf
pa 2c cos +2 3 sin (9)
pressure induced by compaction, Δσ3c, was assumed to distribute uni- ps ps

formly along the height of GRS mass in this study since the compacted where 1 is the vertical stress and is assumed to equal to γz + q; γ is unit
soil layers are relatively thin. Equation (4) shows the calculation of weight of soil; q is the applied external surcharge pressure on top of the
Δσ3c: model; Rf is failure ratio and equals to 0.77, 0.79, and 0.73 for G1, G2,
3c = vc (K ic K2c ) (4) and G3, respectively; k and n are both model parameters and can be
determined from conventional triaxial compression tests; k equals to
where Δσvc is the maximum increase of vertical stress due to compac- 916, 730, and 1090 for G1, G2, and G3, respectively; n equals to 0.53,
tion loading; Kic is the coefficient of lateral earth pressure of GRS for 0.4, and 0.6 for G1, G2, and G3, respectively; pa is atmospheric pres-
initial loading; K2c is coefficient of lateral earth pressure for unloading. sure; c is the cohesion of soil.
Mirmoradi and Ehrlich (2015) proposed Eq. (5) to calculate Δσvc: The plane strain friction angle, φps, can be estimated from triaxial
= zc friction angle, φts, using Eq. (10) proposed by Lade and Lee (1976):
vc z, if zc > z

vc = 0, if zc z (5) ps = 1.5 tx 17 (10)

where σzc is the vertical stress induced by compaction and its value
ranges from 12 kPa for small compactors to 24 kPa for large compactors
4.3. Increased confining pressure by reinforcement tension
(US DoD, 2004). These two values also agree with compactor-based
compaction induced stress estimated from Boussinesq solution in elas-
In calculating the increased confining pressure induced by re-
ticity. σz is the vertical overburden stress of each layer of soil at the end
inforcement Δσ3r, the reinforcement tension was equivalent as in-
of construction.
creased the shear strength of the soil along the Rankine failure surface
Fig. 10 presents a stress path for GRS mass subjected to a compac-
as shown in Fig. 11. The direction of reinforcement tension was as-
tion load. The stress would move from point P1 (initial state) to point P2
sumed to be parallel to the failure surface when the model reaches a
during compaction. Therefore, Kic equals to Δσhc/Δσvc. However, the
failure state, which was shown in Fig. 9(a) and Fig. 11.
increment of lateral pressure due to compaction Δσhc is not easy to be
Wu and Pham (2013) used the expression Sv/Sref as shown in Eq. (2)
directly measured using monitoring instruments. For this reason, Pham
to account for the effects of reinforcement spacing and soil particle
(2009) put forward Eq. (6) to compute the coefficient Kic:
diameters on the bearing capacity of the GRS mass. Hoffman (2015)
Kic = K a (6) made a mechanical analogy to explain the expression Sv/Sref, thinking
that reinforcement provides confining pressure through shear and the
where Ka is the coefficient of Rankine active lateral earth pressure
confining pressure decreased as the shear strain transferred from one
Ka = tan2 (45° – φps/2). Pham (2009) suggested that the coefficient β
plane of soil particles to another within a certain distance. In other
should be smaller than 1.5 and larger than 1.0. In this study, the value
words, the reinforcing effects could play a role in a certain range of
of β equals to 1.25.
areas around the reinforcement. However, the effective distance of the
Equation (7) shows the calculation of K2c:
reinforcing effects has not been studied clearly and needed further re-
Jr search (Liang and Xu, 2017). For simplicity, this study assumed that the
K2c = 1 F 1 + 0.7 Kic increased shear strength induced by reinforcement tension decreased
Et Sv 0.7Jr (7)
linearly from the location of reinforcement to a distance of Sv/2 away
where Jr is initial tangent reinforcement stiffness and equals to 411 and from the reinforcement, which was shown in Fig. 11. The magnitude of
508 kN/m for G-20 and G-30, respectively; F is stress reduction factor; the increased shear strength was symmetrically distributed along the
Et is tangent Young's modulus of backfill soil; Sv is the reinforcement failure surface with the reinforcement as an axle. The length of arrows
spacing. in Fig. 11 represented the magnitude of increased shear strength.

8
C. Xu et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

consider the gradations of the backfill soil. In other words, the proposed
model in this study utilized the soil strength (i.e., friction angle) instead
of soil particle size in calculating the bearing capacity of the GRS mass.
However, the model proposed by Wu and Pham (2013) as shown in Eq.
(2) utilized the ratio of reinforcement spacing to soil particle diameters
(i.e., Sv/Sref) in calculating the bearing capacity of the GRS mass. The
reason for not using Sv/Sref in the proposed model is that the particle
sizes of the backfill sand were too small (i.e., dmax was smaller than
3 mm) compared to the reinforcement spacing (i.e., Sv ranged from 0.20
to 0.33 m in the model tests). It was not appropriate to use these small
particle sizes of the backfill sand to evaluate the bearing capacity of the
relatively large-scale GRS mass.

4.5. Verification of the proposed model

Fig. 11. Assumed distribution of increased shear strength along failure surface Fig. 12 shows the comparison between test results and calculated
induced by reinforcement tension.
bearing capacities using the model proposed in this study. Fig. 12 shows
that the calculated ultimate bearing capacities of GRS matched well
Equation (11) shows the calculation of the average increased shear with measured values despite the changes of the strength of backfill soil
strength along the failure surface Δτf,r: (i.e., friction angle), reinforcement spacing, and reinforcement
Tf sin strength, indicating that the proposed analytical model could be used to
f ,r = predict the bearing capacity of GRS mass backfilled with sand.
2Sv (11)
It is also meaningful to check whether the proposed model could be
Due to the fact that the geogrid layers used in the model tests were used to evaluate the bearing capacity of the GRS mass backfilled with soil
found to have tensile rupture under loading, the ultimate tensile other than sand. Pham (2009) conducted five generic soil-geosynthetic
strength of the reinforcement, Tf, was utilized in Eq. (11) to calculate composite tests, also known as GSGC tests, under plain strain conditions
the maximum shear strength that reinforcement can provide at the to investigate the bearing capacity of the GRS mass. The backfill soil used
limited state of GRS. by Pham (2009) was crushed Diabase with a maximum particle diameter
Equation (12) shows the calculation of the shear strength of the of 33 mm. In other words, coarse-grained soil was utilized by Pham
unreinforced soil, τf,ur, according to the failure criterion of Mohr-Cou- (2009) as backfill soil in GSGC tests, which was different from the fine
lomb: sand used in the model tests conducted in this study. GSGC Test 1 was
= tan +c conducted under an unconfined condition while the remaining four tests
f , ur ur ps (12)
(i.e., GSGC Tests 2 to 5) were conducted with a confining pressure of
where σur is the normal stress along the failure surface of the un- 34 kPa. Fig. 13 shows the comparison between the GSGC results (Pham,
reinforced soil. Equation (13) shows the calculation of σur: 2009) and the calculated bearing capacities using the proposed model.
1 1 Fig. 13 shows that the proposed model could reasonably predict the ul-
ur = ( 1, ur + 3, ur ) + ( 1, ur 3, ur )cos 2
(13) timate bearing capacity of the unreinforced case (i.e., GSGC Test 1) and
2 2
the GRS mass with the reinforcement spacing of 0.4 m (i.e., GSGC Tests 2
where θ is inclination angle of failure surface and equals to 45°+φps/2; and 3). The calculated bearing capacities using the proposed model de-
σ1,ur and σ3,ur are the major and minor principle stress respectively. viated from the measured ones when reinforcement spacing was 0.2 m.
Equation (14) describes the relationship between σ1,ur and σ3,ur: The differences between the calculated and measured bearing capacities
= tan2 (45 + could be explained by the composite behavior of the GRS mass when the
1, ur 3, ur ps /2) + 2c tan(45 + ps /2) (14)
reinforcement spacing was smaller than 0.3 m (Wu and Pham, 2013). The
Substituting Eqs. (13) and (14) into Eq. (12), the shear strength of closely spaced reinforcement layers could provide additional beneficial
unreinforced soil can be obtained. Therefore, the shear strength of re- effects (i.e., besides being tensile resistance members) to the coarse-
inforced soil, τf,ur+ Δτf,r, can be expressed using Eq. (15):
f , ur + f ,r = r tan ps +c (15)
where σr is the normal stress along the failure surface of the reinforced
soil and can be calculated using Eq. (13) and Eq. (14) but replacing σ1,ur
and σ3,ur with σ1,r and σ3,r, respectively. Therefore, the equivalent
confining pressure of the reinforced soil, σ3,r, can be solved. The in-
creased confining pressure induced by reinforcement tension, Δσ3,r, can
be calculated using Eq. (16):
3r = 3, r 3, ur (16)

4.4. The ultimate bearing capacity of GRS

The final equivalent confining pressure, 3 , can be solved by sub-

stituting Eqs. (4) and (16) into Eq. (3). Consequently, the ultimate
bearing capacity of GRS, 1 , can be calculated using Eq. (17):

1 = 3 tan2 (45 + ps /2) + 2c tan(45 + ps /2) (17) Fig. 12. Comparison between test results and calculated bearing capacities
It should be noted that the proposed model in this study did not using the proposed model.

9
C. Xu et al.
Fig. 13. Comparison between GSGC test results (Pham, 2009) and calculated
bearing capacities using the proposed model.
grained backfill soil and resulted in higher bearing capacities as shown in
GSGC Tests 4 and 5. The beneficial effects caused the GRS mass to behave
like a composite material. The proposed model in this study cannot
capture this composite behavior since the relationship between the re-
inforcement spacing and the soil particle size was not considered.
Therefore, the proposed model underestimated the ultimate bearing ca-
pacity of the GRS mass reinforced with closely-spaced reinforcements and
backfilled with coarse-grained soil, such as GSGC tests 4 and 5 conducted
by Pham (2009). Based on the test results and theoretical analyses in this
study, the boundary conditions for GRS to show a composite behavior are
not only associated with reinforcement spacing but also with soil particle
diameters. Consequently, further studies are still needed to define the
boundary conditions for composite behavior of GRS.
In conclusion, the proposed model can be used to predict the ulti-
mate bearing capacity of GRS structures when sand was used as backfill
material. However, the proposed model may underestimate the con-
tribution of the composite behavior to the ultimate bearing capacities of
GRS structures reinforced with closely-spaced reinforcement layers and
backfilled with coarse-grained soil.
5. Parametric study
A parametric study was carried out in this section to reveal the in-
fluences of parameters included in the proposed model on the ultimate
bearing capacity of the GRS mass. Four parameters, including the in-
ternal friction angles of the backfill soil, reinforcement spacing,
strength, and stiffness, were taken into account. Actual backfill soil used
in the model tests (i.e., G1, G2, and G3) with three different internal
friction angles were adopted in the parametric study. Reinforcement
with three different stiffness of 300, 600, and 900 kN/m were used in
the parametric study. Reinforcement spacing varied from 0.2 m to
0.6 m. Reinforcement strength varied from 20 kN/m to 60 kN/m in
increments of 20 kN/m. In order to identify which of the four parameter
makes the main contribution to the ultimate bearing capacity of the
GRS mass, the influence of each parameter was discussed by keeping
the remaining three constant. For example, despite the fact that higher
reinforcement stiffness is commonly associated with higher strength,
the reinforcement strength was kept constant when analyzing the ef-
fects of the reinforcement stiffness on the ultimate bearing capacity of
GRS mass and vice versa. In addition, the reinforcement spacing was
analyzed associated with other three remaining parameters to show the
combination effects on the ultimate bearing capacity of GRS. The ulti-
mate bearing capacity was calculated with and without considering the
compaction effects to discuss whether the compaction effects play an
important role in the calculation of the bearing capacity.
10
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 14. The effects of reinforcement spacing and strengths on the bearing ca-
pacity of the GRS mass calculated with and without compaction effects.
Fig. 14 shows the effects of reinforcement spacing and strengths on
the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass calculated with and
without compaction effects. The internal friction angle of backfill soil
equaled to 41.5°. As expected, the ultimate bearing capacity increased
with the increase of reinforcement strength. The bearing capacity was
highly influenced by the reinforcement spacing and decreased non-
linearly with the increase of reinforcement spacing, especially when the
reinforcement had higher tensile strength and the reinforcement spa-
cing was smaller. Besides, differences of ultimate bearing capacities
between different reinforcement tensile strengths decreased with the
increase of reinforcement spacing. Compared with the GRS mass
without compaction, the consideration of compaction effects resulted in
an increase of the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass. The lar-
gest increase due to the compaction effects was approximately 7%.
However, the change of reinforcement spacing and strength had little
effects on the differences between ultimate bearing capacities calcu-
lated with and without compaction effects.
Fig. 15 shows the effects of internal friction angle of the backfill soil
and reinforcement spacing on the bearing capacity of the GRS mass
calculated with and without compaction effects. The tensile strength of
the reinforcement was 20 kN/m. Fig. 15 shows that the ultimate
bearing capacity increased with the increase of the friction angle of the
backfill soil. Different from the results shown in Fig. 14, reinforcement
spacing had little effect on the differences of ultimate bearing capacities
between different friction angles of the backfill soil. The differences
between ultimate bearing capacities calculated with and without
compaction effects increased with the increase of the internal friction
angle of the backfill soil. The compaction effects resulted in a largest
increase of approximately 7% in the bearing capacity of the GRS mass.
Fig. 16 shows the effects of reinforcement stiffness and spacing on
the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass calculated with and
without compaction effects. The tensile strength of the reinforcement
was 20 kN/m. The reinforcement stiffness had little effect on the ulti-
mate bearing capacity of the GRS mass. This finding was different from
the results of Zheng et al. (2018a). Zheng et al. (2018a) found out that
the reinforcement stiffness had important effects on the ultimate
bearing capacity of GRS bridge abutments because the reinforcement
strength used in their analysis increased with the increase of re-
inforcement stiffness. In this study, however, reinforcement strength
was kept constant when analyzing the effects of reinforcement stiffness.
This may be the reason why Fig. 16 shows that the ultimate bearing
capacity only increased approximately 1% when the reinforcement
stiffness increased from 300 kN/m to 900 kN/m. Fig. 16 also shows that
the increase of reinforcement stiffness was not beneficial to improve the
ultimate bearing capacities of the GRS mass calculated without
C. Xu et al.
Fig. 15. The effects of internal friction angle of the backfill soil and re-
inforcement spacing on the bearing capacity of the GRS mass calculated with
and without compaction effects.
compaction effects when the reinforcement strength did not change.
The compaction effects resulted in a largest increase of approximately
8% in the bearing capacity of the GRS mass.
Figs. 14–16 show that the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass
had a significant increase when reinforcement spacing decreased from
0.3 m to 0.2 m. Similar phenomenon was found by Wu and Pham
(2013) in their model test results. The internal friction angle of the
backfill soil, reinforcement spacing, and reinforcement strength had
great influences on the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass. The
reinforcement stiffness, however, had little effects on the ultimate
bearing capacity of the GRS mass. In addition, the combination effects
of reinforcement spacing and strength on the ultimate bearing capacity
of the GRS mass were more significant compared with those of re-
inforcement spacing and backfill soil friction angle and those of re-
inforcement spacing and stiffness. Compaction effects resulted in an
increase in the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass. The differ-
ences between ultimate bearing capacities calculated with and without
compaction effects increased with the increase of the internal friction
angle of the backfill soil.
6. Conclusions
This study conducted 13 model tests to investigate the ultimate
bearing capacity of the geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) mass when
sand was used as backfill soil. The GRS mass was constructed and
loaded to failure under a plane strain condition. Biaxial geogrid was
used as reinforcement and dry silicon sand with a maximum particle
diameter of 3 mm was chosen as backfill soil. Three influencing factors
were considered in the model tests including gradation of the backfill
soil, reinforcement spacing, and reinforcement strength. Two analytical
solutions available in literature were selected for the comparison be-
tween test results and the calculated bearing capacities of the GRS mass.
Results showed that the model proposed by Yang (1972) overestimated
the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass while the model pro-
posed by Wu and Pham (2013) underestimated it.
This study also proposed an analytical model for predicting the
11
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 16. The effects of reinforcement stiffness and reinforcement spacing on the
bearing capacity of GRS mass calculated with and without compaction effects.
ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass based on the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion. The proposed model used the Rankine failure surface
to describe the failure surface of the GRS mass based on results of the
model tests conducted in this study and field case reported in literature.
The increased confining pressures was utilized in the proposed model to
account for the reinforcing effects of geosynthetic reinforcement. The
increased confining pressure consisted of two parts, the increased
horizontal residual earth pressure induced by compaction and the in-
creased confining pressure induced by reinforcement tension. The
proposed model was verified by results of the model tests conducted in
this study and reported in literature (Wu and Pham, 2013). It can be
concluded the proposed model can be used to predict the ultimate
bearing capacity of GRS structures when sand was used as backfill
material.
In addition, a parametric study was conducted to investigate the
effects of four parameters used in the proposed model, including the
friction angle of the backfill soil, the reinforcement spacing, strength,
and stiffness, on the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass calcu-
lated with and without compaction effects. Results of the parametric
study showed that the ultimate bearing capacity was significantly af-
fected by the friction angle of backfill soil, reinforcement spacing, and
reinforcement strength. However, reinforcement stiffness had little in-
fluence on the ultimate bearing capacity of the GRS mass. Compaction
effects resulted in an increase in the ultimate bearing capacity of the
GRS mass. The differences between ultimate bearing capacities calcu-
lated with and without compaction effects increased with the increase
of the internal friction angle of the backfill soil.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under grant No. 41772284 and the Key Research
and Development Project of Chinese Ministry of Science and
Technology under grant No. 2016YFE0105800. These supports are
greatly appreciated.
C. Xu et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Appendix A

Table 2
Monitoring results of earth pressure cells C1 to C6.

Test Monitoring results/kPa

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

T1 29.4 29.5 29.0 29.7 29.6 28.6

T2 29.5 29.1 29.4 29.6 29.3 29.0
T3 29.7 29.2 29.0 29.4 29.5 29.0
T4 29.5 29.6 28.8 29.5 29.2 29.4
T5 29.6 29.3 29.0 29.8 29.1 28.9
T6 29.2 29.5 29.4 29.6 29.5 28.8
T7 29.3 29.4 29.2 29.3 29.5 29.1
T8 29.1 29.6 29.2 29.4 29.6 28.9
T9 29.5 29.3 29.1 29.7 29.3 28.9
T10 29.8 28.8 29.3 28.7 29.6 29.6
T11 29.1 29.5 29.3 29.0 29.7 29.2
T12 28.9 29.7 29.4 29.6 28.8 29.4
T13 29.6 29.2 29.1 29.4 29.5 29.0

References
Abu-Farsakh, M., Ardah, A., Voyiadjis, G., 2018. 3D Finite element analysis of the geo-
synthetic reinforced soil-integrated bridge system (GRS-IBS) under different loading
conditions. Transportation Geotechnics 15, 70–83.
Abu-Hejleh, N., Zornberg, J.G., Wang, T., Watcharamonthein, J., 2002. Monitored dis-
placements of unique geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutments. Geosynth. Int. 9
(1), 71–95.
Adams, M.T., Ketchart, K., Wu, J.T.H., 2007. Mini Pier Experiments: Geosynthetic
Reinforcement Spacing and Strength as Related to Performance. Geosynthetics in
Reinforcement and Hydraulic Applications. Geotechnical Special Publication, ASCE,
Reston, VA 165, Geo-Denver 2007.
Adams, M.T., Nicks, J.E., Stabile, T., Wu, J.T.H., Schlatter, W., Hartmann, J., 2011a.
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System Interim Implementation
Guide. Final Report, FHWA-HRT-11-026. Federal Highway Administration,
McLean, VA.
Adams, M.T., Nicks, J.E., Stabile, T., Wu, J.T.H., Schlatter, W., Hartmann, J., 2011b.
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System Synthesis Report. Final
Report, FHWA-HRT-11-027. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
Adams, M.T., Ooi, P.S.K., Nicks, J.E., 2014. Mini-pier testing to estimate performance of
full-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutments. Geotech. Test J. 37 (5),
884–894.
Adib, M.E., 1988. Internal Lateral Earth Pressure in Earth Walls. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California.
Aggour, M.S., Brown, C.B., 1974. The prediction of earth pressure on retaining walls due
to compaction. Geotechnique 24 (4), 489–502.
Ardah, A., Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., Voyiadjis, G.Z., 2018. Numerical evaluation of the effect of
differential settlement on the performance of GRS-IBS. Geosynth. Int. 25 (4),
427–441.
Ardah, A., Abu-Farsakh, M., Voyiadjis, G., 2017. Numerical evaluation of the performance
of a geosynthetic reinforced soil-integrated bridge system (GRS-IBS) under different
loading conditions. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (6), 558–569.
Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R., Samtani, N., 2009. Design and Construction of Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes-Volumeⅰ. FHWA-NHI-10-024. U. S.
Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Duncan, J.M., Seed, R.B., 1986. Compaction-induced earth pressures under K0-conditions.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 112 (1), 1–22.
Ehrlich, M., Mirmoradi, S.H., 2016. A simplified working stress design method for re-
inforced soil walls. Geotechnique 67 (11), 1029–1032.
Ehrlich, M., Mirmoradi, S.H., Saramago, R.P., 2012. Evaluation of the effect of compac-
tion on the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geotext. Geomembranes
34, 108–115.
Elton, D.J., Patawaran, M.A.B., 2004. Mechanically stabilized earth reinforcement tensile
strength from tests of geotextile-reinforced soil. Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport.
Res. Board 1868, 81–88.
Helwany, S.M.B., Wu, J.H.T., Froessl, B., 2003. GRS bridge abutments – and effective means
to alleviate bridge approach settlement. Geotext. Geomembranes 21 (3), 177–196.
Helwany, S., Wu, J.H.T., Meinholz, P., Alizadeh, V., Ghaderi, R., 2017. Seismic behavior
of GRS bridge abutments with concrete block facing: an experimental study.
Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology 4 (4), 85–105.
Hoffman, P., 2015. Discussion of “Load-Carrying capacity and required reinforcement
strength of closely spaced soil-geosynthetic composites” by Jonathan T. H. Wu and
Thang Q. Pham. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (3), 07014034.
Huang, C., Tatsuoka, F., 1990. Bearing capacity of reinforced horizontal sandy ground.
Geotext. Geomembranes 9 (1), 51–82.
Iwamoto, M.K., Ooi, P.S.K., Adams, M.T., Nicks, J.E., 2015. Composite properties from
instrumented load tests on mini-pier reinforced with geotextiles. Geotech. Test J. 38
(4), 397–408.
Kongkitkul, W., Hirakawa, D., Tatsuoka, F., Kanemaru, T., 2007. Effects of geosynthetic
reinforcement type on the strength and stiffness of reinforced sand in plane strain
compression. Soils Found. 47 (6), 1109–1122.
Lade, P.V., Lee, K.L., 1976. Engineering Properties of Soils. Report UCLA-ENG-7652.
Lee, K., Wu, J.T.H., 2004. A synthesis of case histories on GRS bridge-supporting struc-
tures with flexible facing. Geotext. Geomembranes 22 (4), 181–204.
Lenart, S., Kralj, M., Medved, S.P., Šulerc, J., 2016. Design and construction of the first
GRS integrated bridge with FHR facing in Europe. Transportation Geotechnics 8,
26–34.
Liang, C., Xu, C., 2017. State of the art and prospect of shear band in reinforced soil. J.
Yangtze River Sci. Res. Inst. 34 (2), 23–28 51 (in Chinese).
Liu, H.B., Wang, X.Y., Song, E.X., 2011. Reinforcement load and deformation mode of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls subject to seismic loading during service life.
Geotext. Geomembranes 29 (1), 1–16.
Liu, H.B., Won, M., 2014. Stress dilatancy and reinforcement load of vertical-reinforced
soil composite: analytical method. J. Eng. Mech. 140 (3), 630–639.
Mirmoradi, S.H., Ehrlich, M., 2015. Modeling of the compaction-induced stress on re-
inforced soil walls. Geotext. Geomembranes 43 (1), 82–88.
Pham, T.Q., 2009. Investigating Composite Behavior of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
Mass. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Colorado, Denver.
Rui, R., van Tol, A.F., Xia, Y.Y., van Eekelen, S.J.M., Hu, G., 2016a. Investigation of soil-
arching development in dense sand by 2D model tests. Geotech. Test J. 39 (3),
415–430.
Rui, R., Wu, D.Z., Hu, G., Xu, L.C., Xia, Y.Y., 2016b. Calibration tests on diaphragm-type
pressure cells. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 38 (5), 837–845 (in Chinese).
Saghebfar, M., Abu-Farsakh, M., Ardah, A., Chen, Q.M., Fernandez, B.A., 2017.
Performance monitoring of geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system
(GRS-IBS) in Louisiana. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (2), 34–47.
Talebi, M., Meehan, C.L., Leshchinsky, D., 2017. Applied bearing pressure beneath a
reinforced soil foundation used in a geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge
system. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (6), 580–591.
Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Koda, M., Kojima, K., Yonezawa, T., Shindo, Y., Tamai, S.,
2016. Research and construction of geosynthetic-reinforced soil integral bridges.
Transportation Geotechnics 8, 4–25.
US Department of Defense, 2004. Unified Facilities Criteria – Soils and Geology
Procedures for Foundation Design of Building and Other Structures, UFC3-220-03FA.
Wu, J.T.H., Adams, M., Pham, T.Q., Ma, C.Y., 2012. A generic soil-geosynthetic composite
test. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 6 (1), 103–116.
Wu, J.T.H., Ketchart, K., Adams, M.T., 2008. Two full-scale loading experiments of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) abutment wall. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2, 305–317.
Wu, J.T.H., Lee, K.Z.Z., Pham, T., 2006. Allowable bearing pressures of bridge sills on
GRS abutments with flexible facing. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (7), 830–841.
Wu, J.T.H., Pham, T.Q., 2010. An analytical model for evaluation of compaction-induced
stresses in a reinforced soil mass. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 4, 549–556.
Wu, J.T.H., Pham, T.Q., 2013. Load-carrying capacity and required reinforcement
strength of closely spaced soil-geosynthetic composites. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
139 (9), 1468–1476.
Yang, Z., 1972. Strength and Deformation Characteristics of Reinforced Sand. Ph.D.
dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Zheng, Y.W., Fox, P.J., 2016. Numerical investigation of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
bridge abutments under static loading. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (5),
04016004.
Zheng, Y.W., Fox, P.J., 2017. Numerical investigation of the geosynthetic-reinforced soil-
integrated bridge system under static loading. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (6),
04017008.
Zheng, Y.W., Fox, P.J., McCartney, J.S., 2018a. Numerical simulation of deformation and
failure behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutments. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 144 (7), 04018037.
Zheng, Y.W., Fox, P.J., McCartney, J.S., 2018b. Numerical study on maximum re-
inforcement tensile forces in geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutments. Geotext.
Geomembranes 46 (5), 634–645.

12