Settlement Analysis of Geosynthetic

Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls at

Foundation Level
Halil Murat Algn
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Harran University, Osmanbey Campus, 63000, Sanliurfa, Turkey
e-mail: hmalgin@harran.edu.tr

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the practical closed-form solutions for the settlement analyses of flexibly
faced Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) walls at foundation level. The analytical solutions
are developed for elastic settlement and 1D ultimate primary consolidation settlement
analyses. The presented expressions can be readily implemented into the limit equilibrium
design methods currently used for GRS walls. Unlike the conventional settlement calculation
methods used in the current practice, the presented expressions adequately take into account
the linear foundation pressure assumed in the limit equilibrium design procedures. The
presented solutions allow efficient and accurate prediction of elastic and ultimate primary
consolidation settlements of GRS walls. The presented formulae are based on the theory of
elasticity which is widely used in the practical settlement analysis of shallow foundations. The
flexible linear foundation pressure on the surface of a single layer system is assumed in this
paper. The applicability of the solutions on multi-layered grounds is also explained. The
common assumption of linear plane strain bearing pressure at the foundation level of GRS
wall is adopted for the solutions and their applicability to the current limit equilibrium design
methods is demonstrated.

KEYWORDS:

GRS walls; elastic settlement; consolidation settlement; angular

distortion; limit equilibrium method.

INTRODUCTION
Current design practice of GRS retaining walls with flexible facing is based on the limit
equilibrium method that involves satisfying external and internal stabilities in which the required
design criteria and minimum safety factors are fulfilled. The limit equilibrium method is detailed
in many specifications and guidelines (e.g. AASHTO, 2002; BS8006, 1995; Elias et al., 2001;
Holtz et al., 1998; NCMA, 2002; NCHRP, 2006). External stability refers to the stability of the
reinforced soil mass as a whole in relation to the soil adjacent to it. The internal stability of GRS
walls requires that the wall is sufficiently stable against failure within the reinforced soil mass.
- 697 -

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

698

There are also local stability criteria, such as for the connections of reinforcement and facing unit,
considered in the design. In the external stability, the entire reinforced zone that contains backfill
soil, reinforcement, and the facing units is considered to act as a monolith whose main role is to
resist the destabilizing active earth pressure exerted by the retained soil. The behaviour of GRS
walls during and after construction exhibits some complexity and it is still a subject area of many
new researches (e.g. Bilgin, 2009; Lee et al., 2008; McGown and Brown, 2008; Reddy et al.,
2008; Skinner and Rowe, 2005; Viswanadham and Knig, 2009; Yang et al., 2009). The external
stability checks generally considered in the design are sliding, overturning, bearing capacity and
eccentricity, deep-seated failure and settlement. The foundation soil of GRS wall must have
sufficient bearing capacity to prevent failure and excessive settlement. GRS walls having
unacceptable differential settlement and angular distortion may result losing the load bearing
function and structural stability. Significant settlement can result in vertical cracks and distress to
the structure at the top of the reinforced fill.
The limit equilibrium method assumes the linear bearing pressure at the foundation level,
resulting from the lateral forces considered in the wall design such as active earth pressure
exerted by the retained soil. The eccentricity is limited by many specifications and guidelines to
avoid the tension between the base of wall and foundation soil, and the full compression case is
therefore considered in the design (e.g. AASHTO, 2002; BS8006, 1995; Elias et al., 2001; Holtz
et al., 1998; NCMA, 2002; NCHRP, 2006). The linear contact pressure assumption at the
foundation level is also used in the bearing pressure checks in the external stability analysis (i.e.
Meyerhofs effective area method is used). The assumption of uniform or linear contact pressure
at the foundation level is not strictly valid, but it is generally considered sufficiently accurate for
ordinary problems of design. In fact, most soils show evidence of some plastic behaviour, the
reinforced soils generally have a finite stiffness and the distribution of bearing pressure within
soil varies with time. The actual distribution of base pressure within soil is depending on the type
of soil and the stiffness of reinforced soil. Since the behaviour of GRS walls involves many
uncertainties regarding the action of ground and the loading, the foundation pressure distributions
rather than linear are usually not considered in the present-day limit equilibrium design methods
and the linear contact pressure assumption in plane strain case is widely used in many
specifications and guidelines (e.g. AASHTO, 2002; BS8006, 1995; Elias et al., 2001; Holtz et al.,
1998; NCMA, 2002; NCHRP, 2006).
The behaviour of GRS walls has recently been investigated by National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP, 2006) using the full scale measurements and numerical
computer analysis, the part of study was summarised by Wu et al. (2006); the almost linear
contact pressure in the foundation level is observed in this research. It was stated that the
measured contact pressure was the highest beneath the wall face and decreased almost linearly
with the distance from the wall face (NCHRP, 2006). The assumption of linear foundation
pressure is also justified by Yang et al. (2009) by conducting full scale field measurements. Some
other researchers (McGown and Brown, 2008; Reddy et al., 2008; Skinner and Rowe, 2005;
Viswanadham and Knig, 2009; Otani et al., 1998; Yamaoka et al., 1990) are also agreed with the
dish-shaped settlement profile and the linear contact pressure at the foundation level of GRS
walls. Bilgin (2009) investigated the reinforcement length using the internal and external stability
analyses by assuming the linear contact pressure at the foundation level.
Holtz et al. (1998) and NCHRP (2006) state that the tolerable angular distortion at the
foundation level of GRS walls is 1/200 for modular block walls and 1/50 for wrapped face walls.
The limitation of tilt at the foundation level is given in order of magnitude one-tenth of 1% of the

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

699

height of wall or less (NCHRP, 2006). Additionally, soil improvement at the foundation level is
recommended if the calculated settlement exceeds the project requirements (Holtz et al., 1998).
Although the necessity of the settlement evaluation is emphasised by many specifications and
guidelines (e.g. Holtz et al., 1998; NCHRP, 2006), the details of settlement analysis are not
provided in these documents. For instance, Holtz et al. (1998) refers to the conventional
settlement analysis of shallow foundations used in geotechnical and foundation engineering text
books for performing the settlement analysis of GRS walls. Similarly, NCHRP (2006) refers to
the well known text books and documents published by Terzaghi and Peck (1967), Perloff (1975)
and Poulos (2000) for the foundation settlement analysis of GRS walls. However, the settlement
expressions in these literatures are for the uniform foundation pressure cases. For that reason, the
settlement analysis referred in the current literatures cannot directly be used since the linear
contact pressure is assumed at the foundation level of GRS walls in the design procedures.
FHWA (2006) also states that the current design methods do not allow the designer to estimate
total and differential settlements at the foundation level of GRS walls.
Since the practical settlement analysis is not provided by the specifications and guidelines
(e.g. AASHTO, 2002; BS8006, 1995; Elias et al., 2001; Holtz et al., 1998; NCMA, 2002;
NCHRP, 2006), the required settlement checks cannot be performed directly on the bases of limit
equilibrium method. Additionally, this shortcoming causes some further studies not performing
the settlement analysis in their researches. For instance, Bilgin (2009) excluded the settlement
analysis checks in his useful study. This gap in knowledge has brought about the need to develop
the presented formulae for the settlement analysis of GRS walls at the foundation level by
considering the linear foundation pressure assumed in the design procedures (e.g. Holtz et al.,
1998; NCHRP, 2006).
In this paper the recently published elastic settlement solutions by the author (Algin,
2009a; Algin and Algin, 2009) are evaluated to the plane strain case for the elastic settlement
analysis of GRS walls. Similarly, the vertical stress expressions for the linear foundation
pressures (Algin, 2000; Algin, 2001) are evaluated to obtain the practical average stress
expressions which are required in 1D ultimate primary consolidation settlement analysis of GRS
walls. Accordingly, the solutions at the foundation level are thereby developed for GRS walls
both for the elastic settlement and the ultimate primary consolidation settlement analyses.
However, the presented solutions have limited applicability for organic soils since the secondary
compression is usually the predominating settlement component in organic soils. Therefore, the
amount of organic material should be very small for the presented solutions to be applicable.
The presented solutions are based on the theory of elasticity which is widely used for the
practical settlement analysis of shallow foundations. Although the linear elastic soil models do
not properly reflect the nonlinear response of soil, it is considered sufficiently accurate for
ordinary problem of design. The common assumption of linear bearing pressure at the foundation
level of GRS walls is adopted for the solutions and their applicability to the current limit
equilibrium design methods is demonstrated. The applicability of the solutions on multi-layered
grounds is also explained. By using the presented solutions, the settlement analyses under GRS
walls can swiftly be conducted and the resulting values can be compared with the project
requirements. Accordingly, the decision on soil improvements at foundation level can be made,
such as replacement, compaction, and stabilization of the soil or changing the reinforcement
length. The presented solutions are also useful for the confrontation of results obtained from the
modern techniques such as the finite element method.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

700

ELASTIC SETTLEMENTS UNDER GRS WALLS

The practical elastic settlement formulae for the flexibly faced GRS walls on sand deposits
are derived from the settlement expressions recently developed by the author (Algin, 2009a) for
the eccentrically loaded shallow footings resting upon an elastic mass. These solutions are based
on the integration of strain expressions with the Boussinesq stress equations (Algin, 2009a). The
linearly distributed contact pressures adopted by Algin (2009a) are generally assumed in practice
for rectangular footing having one or two-way eccentricities (Barnes, 2000; Bowles, 1996; Das,
1999a; Das, 1999b; Poulos and Davis, 1974). The elastic settlement solutions (Algin, 2009a;
Algin and Algin, 2009) are based on the linear contact pressure having full compression and the
assumption of flexible foundation on the surface of single layered soil system. In these solutions,
the modulus of elasticity (Es) and Poissons ratio ( s ) for a given soil must be known to calculate
the elastic settlement of a foundation. Obtaining reliable values of elastic parameters is crucial for
the accurate estimation of settlement. There is a great tendency in practice to use the field test
results to obtain the reasonable values of elastic parameters when the reliable laboratory test
results are not available. The empirical correlations developed for the standard penetration test
(SPT) and cone-penetration test (CPT) are widely used in practice to obtain the modulus of
elasticity of soil (Bowles, 1996; Das, 1999a; Das, 1999b). A comprehensive list of these
correlations is provided by Bowles (1996). In many cases, as suggested by DAppolonia et al.
(1971) the modulus of elasticity of saturated clay (undrained) is correlated with undrained shear
strength (cu). Duncan and Buchignani (1976) correlated Es/cu with the overconsolidation ratio
(OCR) and plasticity index (PI) of several clay soils. In practice, the approximate range of typical
values is commonly used for Poissons ratio (Bowles, 1996; Das, 1999a; Das, 1999b) or it may be
estimated from the empirical correlations (Bowles, 1996; Das, 1999b). Alternatively, Poissons
ratio can be estimated from the relationship between the representative initial elastic modulus and
shear modulus which is correlated with mean effective stress, OCR and PI as suggested by Foye
et al. (2008). If there is stratification in the considered soil depth, more than one set of elastic
parameters must be obtained and the weighted average of elastic parameters may be applied as
suggested by Bowles (1996) or alternatively the approximation technique presented in this paper
may be used in the elastic settlement computation. This approximation technique may be adopted
by dividing the soil deposit into multi-layered system in the cases where the elastic modulus of a
soil varies with depth.
An illustration of a typical GRS wall, along with the forces acting on the wall used for
external stability analysis, is shown in Figure 1. The resulting linear pressure considered in the
settlement analysis is illustrated at the foundation level. If the reinforced soil foundation is
assumed to be perfectly flexible, the wall structure undergoes the settlement with tilt which can
have the dish-shaped settlement profile. The linear contact pressure at the foundation level is
assumed in many practical design guides for GRS walls (e.g. AASHTO, 2002; BS8006, 1995;
Elias et al., 2001; Holtz et al., 1998; NCMA, 2002; NCHRP, 2006) and dish-shaped settlement
profile agrees with the results from numerical models conducted by many researchers (e.g.
Alfaro et al., 1997; Guler et al., 2007; McGown and Brown, 2008; Otani et al., 1998; Reddy et
al., 2008; Skinner and Rowe, 2005; Viswanadham and Knig, 2009; Yamaoka et al., 1990).

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

701

Figure 1: A typical GRS wall with the linear pressure at the foundation level
The assumption of perfect flexibility at the foundation level is not strictly valid, but it is
considered sufficiently accurate for the ordinary problems of design. In fact, the stiffness of
reinforced soil depends on the number of reinforcements, the variation in reinforcement length,
the reinforcement types etc. (Alfaro et al., 1997). Since the decrease in vertical spacing between
the geosynthetic reinforcements may result an increase in the rigidity of the reinforced backfill
(i.e. the reinforcement acts as a stiffener), the settlement may be slightly reduced by a decrease in
vertical spacing between the reinforcements (Alfaro et al., 1997). This rigidity effect may be
introduced to the presented expressions in this paper by a reduction factor as it is used in the
settlement analysis of rectangular footings (Barnes, 2000; Bowles, 1996; Das, 1999a; Das, 1999b;
Poulos and Davis, 1974). For example, as suggested by Barnes (2000) the elastic settlement
expressions of rectangular footing may be used with Fraser and Wardle (1976)s stiffness
correction factors and Burland (1970)s depth correction factors. The depth factor indicates that
the settlement is reduced when it is placed at some depth in the ground, depending on Poissons
ratio and the shape factor of footing. However, analytical studies have shown that simply
assuming the surface of elastic medium at the level of loading and ignoring the soil above it gives
relatively good results compared with the solutions including the depth factors. The stiffness
correction takes account of the foundation stiffness effect on elastic settlement. Therefore, the
presented expressions can directly be used for the flexible foundation of GRS walls but they can
be used for less flexible foundations by introducing the relevant stiffness corrections.
The foundation pressure shown in Figure 1 can be obtained by modifying the pressure
configuration introduced by Algin (2009a, 2009) to the plane strain case. Accordingly, the
maximum elastic settlement under the eccentricity point can be obtained as follows.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

S E (e) =

702

Bq a (1 + s )
( I 1( e ) + s I 2( e ) )
Es

(1)

Where, n = H B , t = qb qa , d1 = 2 + t , d 2 = 1 + 2t , t = qb qa , c1 = 12n(1 + t )(1 + t + t 2 ) ,

c2 = (d1 )(2 + 5t (1 + t )) , c3 = (d 2 )(5 + t (5 + 2t )) , c4 = 96n( d 2 + t 2 d1 ) , c5 = 3n(1 + t ) ,
c6 = 9n 2 (1 + t ) 2 + d12 , c7 = 9n 2 (1 + t ) 2 + d 22 ,
I1( e ) = (1 36 (1 + t )2 )(c1 (Tan 1 (d1 / c5 ) + Tan 1 (d 2 / c5 )) + c2 ln(c6 d12 ) + c3 ln(c7 d 22 ))

(2)

I 2( e ) = (1 144 (1 + t ) 2 )(c4 (Tan 1 (d1 / c5 ) + Tan 1 (d 2 / c5 )) + n 2 (1 + t ) ln(c636 c736 )

120 96
+ ln(d132 d 240 c616c720 ) + t (t (n 2 (1 + t ) ln(c736 c636 ) + t ln(d140 d 232 c620c16
c660c748 ))
7 ) + ln(d1 d 2

(3)

+ ln(d196 d 2120 c648c760 )))

By using the similar notations, the elastic settlement expression under any point of the
linear foundation pressure (Figure 1) is evaluated and this expression is then integrated over the
foundation width and divided by the width of foundation to obtain the average settlement under
the pressure block. Similar technique is used by Janbu et al. (1956) to develop an average elastic
settlement equation for a uniform foundation pressure on saturated clay soils ( s = 0.5 ) (Das,
1999a). The average settlement can be used if an approximate solution is required. The resulting
expression for the average elastic settlement under the linear foundation pressure is provided as
follows.

S E ( av ) =

B ( q a + q b )(1 + s )
( I avs )
Es

(4)

Where, n = H B ,
I avs = (1 4 )( n (( 2 s 1)( 2Cot 1n + n ln(1 + 1 n 2 )) + n( s 1) ln( n 2 (1 + n 2 )) ( s 1) ln(1 + n 2 )) (5)

The terms I 1( e ) , I 2 ( e ) and I avs (see Eqs. 2,3 and 5) are the influence factors for the elastic
settlement expressions. These factors are the functions of dimensionless parameters of n ( = H B
) and t (= qb q a ), and they can therefore be represented in a graphical form as shown in Figure 2.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

703

Figure 2: Influence factors for the elastic settlement expressions (see Eqs. 1, 4)

AVERAGE VERTICAL STRESS AND THE

CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
By using the experimentally determined recompression (Cr) and compression (Cc) indexes,
the ultimate primary consolidation settlement is commonly determined by using the expressions
related with the overconsolidation ratio (OCR) (Bowles, 1996; Das, 1999a; Das, 1999b). In these
expressions the average pressure increase is required within the consolidated soil layer. The
average pressure expressions presented in this paper may be more useful for the considered soil
layer where the coefficient of volume compressibility ( mv ) is assumed be constant at least in
certain depths. This is a common case for many primary consolidation settlement analyses (such
as cone penetration test (CPT) and Dilatometer based analyses). For example, in practice, in the
CPT based compressibility assessment of soil, the 1D constrained modulus ( M = 1 / mv ) is
assumed to be constant within the certain depth of CPT-based soil profile data. M can be
determined mainly in terms of the cone tip resistance, overburden stress and/or the soil type
(Sanglerat, 1972; Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990; Mahesh and Vikash, 1995). This assumption may
be more reasonable for stiff, overconsolidated soils in which the loading increment does not cause
the preconsolidation pressure to be exceeded. In order to calculate the average pressure within the
depth (in which M is of constant value) a commercial computer software with advanced
modelling is normally required such as Flac 3D, Plaxis etc. The accuracy of the results depends
on the accuracy of model, element type and size etc. The direct use of point-stress solutions at the
middle of soil layer however may provide inaccurate results and can be quite misleading when it
is compared with the computer-based results (Algin, 2009b). Whereas the average stress solutions
presented for the linear foundation pressure of GRS walls simplify this computation and can
directly be used with an acceptable accuracy.
The average stress required in 1D consolidation settlement analysis of GRS walls has
brought about the need to develop an analytical solution which can directly be used in the
settlement analysis. The average pressure increase in a soil layer is generally required for an
accurate estimation of the consolidation settlement resulting from a foundation pressure (Das,
1999a; Das, 1999b). The current practice of estimating the average pressure increase in a soil

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

704

layer under GRS walls usually employs the numerical process (i.e. the sub-layer method using the
mid-depth stresses based on the well-known point-stress expressions) or direct use of mid-depth
stress in a soil layer. In practice, the point-stress expressions are generally used to obtain the middepth stress in a soil layer. The point-stress that is the vertical stress at a point in a depth of a soil
stratum is usually determined by the integration of Boussinesq equation over the loaded surface
area (Bowles, 1996; Das, 1999a; Das, 1999b; Poulos and Davis, 1974). Many point-stress
solutions adopted in practice are available for shallow foundations (Bowles, 1996; Das, 1999a;
Das, 1999b; Poulos and Davis, 1974). The limitations and the percentage error encountered in the
direct use of mid-depth stresses are presented by Algin (2009b) with the confrontation of the
results from the exact analytical solutions for shallow foundations. The sublayer method however
involves replacing the smoothly varying stress distribution within a soil by a staircase-like
distribution which assumes a constant stress (usually mid-depth stress) over each sublayer. Since
the direct use of mid-depth stresses in a soil layer occasionally provides invalid results, the
sublayer method is used in practice instead of direct mid-depth stress approach to obtain the
realistic stresses. Usually in the sub-layer method, the mid-depth stresses are used in each sublayer as an average stress. Although the sub-layer method reduces the error, the reliability of sublayer method significantly depends on the thickness of sublayer considered (Bowles, 1996; Algin,
2009b). Since the coefficient of volume compressibility ( mv ) is usually assumed as constant over
a specific soil layer especially in the settlement analysis based on the CPT test results, the direct
average stress expressions can avoid the necessity of considering the compressible soil layer as a
series of sublayers unlike the sublayer method used in the consolidation settlement analysis. More
practical and reliable settlement analysis can therefore be undertaken by using the direct average
stress expressions for the specific soil layer in which mv is assumed constant.
Although there are some charts (Griffiths, 1984; Brown, 2004) and the analytical solutions
of average stress (Algin, 2009b) for a uniform foundation pressure are exist, the analytical
solutions of average stress for the linear foundation pressure shown in Figure 1 are not
mentioned in the current literature. The required expression for the average stress under the linear
foundation pressure shown in Figure 1 can be obtained from the point-stress equations previously
developed by Algin (2001). Since the foundation pressure shown in Figure 1 can be obtained by
modifying the linear rectangular pressure configuration to the plane strain case, the point-stress
expressions for the eccentricity point (Figure 1) can be obtained as follows.

z ( e ) = qa I z ( e )

(6)

Where, f = z B , t = qb qa , f12 = 1 + f 2 , t1 = (1 + t ) 2 , t2 = 2 + t , t3 = 1 + 2t , t4 = 1 + t + t 2 ,

t5 = 9 ft1 , t62 = ft5 + t22 , t72 = ft5 + t32 ,

I z (e ) = (1 (6 t1 ))(t t 5 t 2 t 62 + t 5 t 3 t 72 + 2t 4 ( Sin 1 (t 2 t 6 ) + Sin 1 (t 3 t 7 )))

(7)

The term I z (e ) (see Eq. 7) is the influence factor for the point-stress expression which can
be represented in a graphical form shown in Figure 3(a).

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

705

Figure 3: Influence factors for the point-stress solution given in Eq. (6) and for the

average stress solutions given in Eq. (9)

If a single layer soil system is considered, the average stress under the linear foundation
pressure shown in Figure 1 can now be obtained by the following integration of point-stress
expression (Eq. 6) over the depth of interest (H).
H

av

1
=
z dz
H 0

(8)

H indicates the depth between the loading plane and the plane in depth H. The above
integration has been solved and the resulting average stress expression is presented as follows.

av ( e ) = qa I av ( e )

(9)

Where, n = H B , t = qb qa , t1 = (1 + t ) 2 , t2 = 2 + t , t3 = 1 + 2t , t4 = 1 + t + t 2 ,
e12 = 9n 2 (1 + t ) 2 + (2 + t ) 2 , e22 = 9n 2 (1 + t ) 2 + (1 + 2t ) 2 , e3 = 6nt 4 (1 + t ) , e4 = 4 + 12t + 15t 2 + 5t 3 ,
e5 = 5 + 15t + 12t 2 + 4t 3 ,
(10)
I av ( e ) = (1 /(18n t1 ))(e3 ( Sin1 (t2 e1 ) + Sin1 (t3 e2 )) + e4 ln(e1 (2 + t )) + e5 ln(e2 (1 + 2t ))

Therefore, the average stress under the loaded area shown in Figure 1 can be obtained as a
function of average influence factor ( I av ) over the depth of interest (H). The influence factor for
the average stress expression given by Eq.(10) depends on the dimensionless parameters of n (
= H B ) and t (= qb q a ), and can be represented in a graphical form as shown in Figure 3(b).
For a single layered soil system, the required consolidation settlement equation can then be
expressed as follows.

S C ( e ) = mv H av ( e )

(11)

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

706

THE USE OF SOLUTIONS FOR MULTI-LAYERED

GROUNDS
As suggested by some of the methods used in the elastic settlement analysis of shallow
foundations (such as the strain influence factor diagram method developed by Schmertmann and
Hartman (1978)), the approximate variation of the cone penetration resistance or standard
penetration numbers in the soil profile can be assumed to be constant within a specific depth of
the classified soil. By using this common assumption, the approximate variation of the modulus
of elasticity with depth can be evaluated. Several investigators have correlated the values of the
modulus of elasticity (Es), with the field standard penetration number (NF) and the cone
penetration resistance (qc) (Bowles, 1996; Das, 1999a; Das, 1999b). For example, Schmertmann
and Hartman (1978) suggested that the equivalent modulus of elasticity for a layer of thickness (
z i ) can be obtained by multiplying the average cone tip resistance of the ith layer ( qci ) by 3.5
for strip loadings on sand and silty sand (Es=3.5qc). Although this correlation is generally
considered valid for practical purpose (Bowles, 1996; Das, 1999a; Das, 1999b), some researchers
(Sargand et al. 2003) suggest that the ratio of Es/qc for overconsolidated sands can be in the range
of 3-6 times larger than those for normally consolidated sands. Bowles (1996) suggests the
correlation of Es=(2-4)qc for sand and silty sand, and Es=(3-8)qc for clay layers. Some researchers
(Lee and Salgado, 2002; Lee et al., 2008) have recently correlated the ratio of Es/qc with relative
density of each sublayer, settlement and footing width. This correlation can also be used with the
settlement expressions presented in this paper.
Many researchers developed expressions for the constant constrained modulus (M) in the
certain depth of CPT-based soil profile data (e.g. Sanglerat, 1972; Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990;
Mahesh and Vikash, 1995). Accordingly, by using the suitable expressions for the constrained
modulus the coefficient of volume compressibility ( mv ) for the specific soil layers can be
determined in terms of the cone tip resistance, overburden stress and/or the soil type. If there is
stratification in the considered soil depth, more than one set of soil parameters must be obtained
and the superposition technique shown in Figure 4 can be used in the settlement analyses in
which the soil deposit is divided into multi-layered system.

Figure 4: Application of the presented expressions for multi-layered grounds.

The approach shown in Figure 4 takes into account the deformation experienced by every
layer within the soil profile data. In this superposition technique, the elastic settlements (Eqs. 1
and 4) and the consolidation settlements (see Eqs. 9 and 11) are calculated for each considered

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

707

soil layer. At first, the soil parameters within the depth between the loading plane and the bottom
of considered soil layer are taken as the layers soil parameters, and then, the discarded upper
layer having same soil parameters as the considered soil layer are subtracted as illustrated in
Figure 4. The calculations are repeated for all subsequent soil layers. Then, the results are added
to obtain the values of total settlements. A simple spreadsheet program may be used for these
calculations. This superposition technique was originally presented by Butler (1975) for the
elastic settlement analysis of shallow foundations. This approximation is adopted in this paper for
the linear foundation pressure of GRS walls to obtain not just for the elastic settlement but also
the consolidation settlement.
Unlike the strain influence factor diagram method developed for uniform loading by
Schmertmann and Hartman (1978), the proposed elastic settlement analysis presented in this
paper for the linear foundation pressure takes into account the variation of Poissons ratio by
every layer within the soil profile data. Analytical studies show that the variation of Poissons
ratio has a significant influence on the settlement results. This may be the reason why the strain
influence factor diagram method often over predicts the actual elastic settlements (Anderson et
al., 2007; Das et al., 2009). The proposed elastic settlement analysis in this paper also avoids any
certain strain influence factor diagram assumed by Schmertmann and Hartman (1978), since the
exact elastic solutions are presented.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
Example: Figure 5 illustrates a GRS abutment with an integrated sill and a tall upper wall.
NCHRP (2006) provided the detailed design solution of this example based on the limit
equilibrium method. However, the calculation details of settlement analysis are not provided by
NCHRP (2006). It only refers to the well known text books for the foundation settlement analysis
of GRS walls, even though the referred settlement analyses cannot directly be used due to the
linear pressure assumption made at the foundation level of GRS walls in the design procedures.
Only the result of maximum foundation settlement is provided by NCHRP (2006) for this
example without explaining how it is obtained. The data given for this example are provided in
Figure 5 (NCHRP, 2006). By assuming a flexible behaviour at the foundation level it is required
in this paper to determine the settlement under the point of eccentricity (i.e. point e shown in
Figure 5). Depending on the foundation settlement, it is also required to determine the maximum
angular distortion under the GRS wall illustrated in Figure 5.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

708

Figure 5: A GRS abutment with an integrated sill and a tall upper wall considered in
Example 1 (NCHRP, 2006).
Solution: As shown in Figure 5, since the soil deposit is only a single layered medium sand
foundation, the presented settlement equations (i.e. Eqs.(1, 4)) can directly be used. The required
influence factors in Eqs.(2, 3 and 5) can be obtained from Figure 2 (see the dashed lines in
Figures 2a and 2b) as follows,

n = H B = 6 7 = 0.86 and t = q b q a = 48.633 347.218 = 0.14 . Thus, the influence

factors from Figure 2(a) are I 1( e ) = 0.231 and I 2 ( e ) = 0.315 . Hence, the maximum elastic
settlement can be estimated from Eq. (1) as,

S E (e) =

Bqa (1 + s )
(7)(347.218)(1 + 0.3)
( I1( e ) + s I 2 ( e ) ) =
((0.231) + (0.3) (0.315)) = 0.01 m
Es
41400

Therefore, the maximum foundation settlement is obtained as 0.01 m (10mm). This result is
identical with the maximum settlement value provided by NCHRP (2006) .
Additionally, the influence factor for the average elastic settlement is I avs = 0.093 (see
Eq.(5) and the dashed lines in Figures 2(b). Thus, the average settlement can be estimated from
Eq.(4) as,

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

S E ( av ) =

709

B ( qa + qb )(1 + s )
(7)(347.218 + 48.633)(1 + 0.3s )
( I avs ) =
(0.093) = 0.008m
Es
41400

It should be noted that the above maximum settlement is based on the foundation
settlement only and the additional abutment settlement recommended by NCHRP (2006) is
S abutment = (1.5%)( H 1 ) = (0.015)(7.5) = 0.1125m

Thus, the total settlement and the angular distortion become,

S total = (0.01) + (0.1125) = 0.1225m
S total
0.1225
Angular distortion =
=
0.005 1 200
Span length
24

This result based on the analytical solution presented in this paper is identical with the
results provided by NCHRP (2006).

CONCLUSIONS
The practical closed-form solutions and the resulting influence factors were presented for
estimating the elastic settlements and 1D ultimate primary consolidation settlements under the
linear foundation pressure assumed in the limit equilibrium design approach currently used for
GRS walls. The applicability of the solutions on multi-layered grounds was also explained.
Numerical example was provided to explain how the closed form solutions can be used in
practice. Paper demonstrated that the presented expressions can be readily implemented into the
limit equilibrium design methods currently used for GRS walls. In this respect, it represents a
significant step forward in practical settlement analyses of GRS walls at foundation level.

REFERENCES
1. AASHTO, (2002) Standard specifications for highway bridges, 7th ed. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Inc., Washington DC.
2. Abu-Farsakh, M., (2003) Evaluation of consolidation characteristics of cohesive soils
from piezocone penetration test, LTRC project No.00-3GT, Louisiana Transportation
Research Centre.
3. Alfaro, M.C., Hayashi, S., Miura, N., Bergado, D.T., (1997) Deformation of reinforced
soil-wall-embankment system on soft clay foundation, Soils and Foundation, 37:4, 3346.
4. Algin, H.M., (2000) Stresses from linearly distributed pressures over rectangular areas,
Int. Jrnl. for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 24:8 681-692.
5. Algin, H.M., (2001) Vertical stress formula for pressure over rectangular areas,
Gotechnique, 51:8, 719-722.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

710

6. Algin, H.M., (2009a) Elastic Settlement under Eccentrically Loaded Rectangular

Surface Footings on Sand Deposits, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 135:10, 1499-1508.
7. Algin, H.M., (2009b) Analytical solutions of average pressure increments for primary
consolidation settlement computations, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on New Developments in
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Near East University, Nicosia, North
Cyprus, 206-213.
8. Algin, H.M., Algin, Z., (2009) Elastic settlements under linear surface pressures on
rectangular areas, Int. Jrnl. for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
33:8, 1087 1108.
9. Anderson, J.B., Townsend, F.C., Rahelison, L., (2007) Load testing and settlement
prediction of shallow foundation, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 133:12, 1494-1502.
10. Barnes, G.E., (2000) Soil mechanics principles and practice, 2nd Edn., Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
11. Bilgin, ., (2009) Failure mechanisms governing reinforcement length of geogrid
reinforced soil retaining walls, Engineering Structures, 31:9, 1967-1975.
12. Bowles, J.E., (1996) Foundation analysis and design, 5th Edn, The McGraw-Hill
Companies, New York.
13. Brown, R., (2004) Practical Foundation Engineering Handbook, McGraw-Hill, 2nd
Ed., New York.
14. BS8006, (1995) Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills,
British Standards Institution, BSI, London.
15. Burland, J.B., (1970) Discussion on session A, Proc. Conf. on In-Situ Investigations in
Soil and Rocks, British Geotechnical Society, London, 61-62.
16. Butler, F.G., (1975) Heavily overconsolidated clays. Settlement of Structures, British
Geotechnical Society Symposium, Pentech, London, 531578.
17. DAppolonia, D.T., Poulos, H.G., Ladd, C.C., (1971) Initial settlement of structures on
clay, J. Soil Mech. Found. Dev., ASCE, 97:10, 1354-1377.
18. Das, B.M., (1999a) Principles of foundation engineering, 4th Edn., PWS Publishing,
New York.
19. Das, B.M., (1999b) Shallow foundations: bearing capacity and settlement, 1st Edn.,
CRC Press LLC, Florida.
20. Das, B.M., Atalar, C., Shin, E.C., (2009) Developments in elastic settlement estimation
procedures for shallow foundations on granular soil, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on New
Developments in Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Near East University,
Nicosia, North Cyprus, 9-41.
21. Duncan, J.M., Buchignani, A.L., (1976) An engineering manual for settlement studies,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

711

22. Elias, V., Christopher, B.R., Berg, R.R., (2001) Mechanically stabilized earth walls and
reinforced soil slopes, design and construction guidelines, Publication No. FHWA-NHI00-043, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington (DC).
23. FHWA, (2006) Promoting geosynthetics use on federal lands highway projects, Central
Federal Lands Highway Division, Publication No. FHWA-CFL/TD-06-009, 12300 West
Dakota Avenue Lakewood, CO 80228.
24. Foye, K.C., Basu, P., Prezzi, M., (2008) Immediate settlement of shallow foundations
bearing on clay, Int. J. Geomech., ASCE, 8:5, 300-310.
25. Fraser, R.A., Wardle, I.J., (1976) Numerical analysis of rectangular rafts on layered
foundations, Geotechnique, 26:4, 613-630.
26. Griffiths, D.V., (1984) A chart for estimating the average vertical stress increase in an
elastic foundation below a uniformly loaded rectangular area, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 21:4, 710-713.
27. Guler, E., Hamderi, M. Demirkan, M.M., (2007) Numerical analysis of reinforced soilretaining wall structures with cohesive and granular backfills, Geosynthetics
International, 14:6, 330-345.
28. Holtz, R.D., Cristopher, B.R., Berg, R.R., (1998) Geosynthetic Design & Construction
Guidelines, Publication No: FHWA HI-95-038, National Highway Institute Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), McLean, Virginia.
29. Janbu, N., Bjerrum, L., Kjaernsli, B., (1956) Veiledning ved losning av fundamentering
soppgaver, Publication No.16, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, pp. 30-32.
30. Kulhawy, F.H., Mayne, P.H., (1990) Manual on estimating soil properties for
foundation design, Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA.
31. Lee, J., Eun, J. Prezzi, M., Salgado, R., (2008) Strain influence diagrams from
settlement estimation of both isolated and multiple footings in sand, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 134:4, 417-427.
32. Lee, J.H., Salgado, R., (2002) Estimation of footing settlement in sand, Int. J.
Geomech., ASCE, 2:1, 1-28.
33. Mahesh, D., Vikash, J., (1995) State of art of CPT in India, International Symposium
on Cone Penetration Testing, Vol.1, pp.87-95, Linkping, Sweden.
34. McGown, A., Brown, S.F., (2008) Applications of reinforced soil for transport
infrastructure, Proc. of the 1st Int. Conference on Transportation, Geotechnics,
Nottingham, UK., Advances in Transportation Geotechnics E. Ellis, H.S. Yu, G.
McDowell, A. Dawson, N. Thom (Eds), CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp
27-36.
35. NCHRP, (2006) Design and construction guidelines for geosynthetic-reinforced soil
bridge abutments with a flexible facing, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Report 556, Washington D.C.
36. NCMA, (2002) Design manual for segmental retaining walls, National Concrete
Masonry Association. 2nd ed., Collin, editor. Herndon, VA.
37. Otani, J., Hirai, T., Ochiai, H., Shinowaki, S., (1998) Evaluation of foundation support
for geosynthetic reinforced soil wall on sloping ground, Sixth International Conference

Vol. 15 [2010], Bund. G

712

on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, USA, 2529 March 1998. Industrial Fabrics Association

International, pp. 601603.
38. Perloff, W.H., (1975) Pressure distribution and settlement, Chapter 4, Foundation
Engineering Handbook (Winterkorn and Fang, editors) Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, pp. 148196.
39. Poulos, H.G., (2000) Foundation settlement analysispractice versus research, The
Eighth Spencer J. Buchanan Lecture, Texas A&M University.
40. Poulos, H.G., Davis, E.H., (1974) Elastic solutions for soil and rock mechanics, 1st
Edn., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
41. Reddy, G.V.N., Madhav, M.R., Reddy, E.S., (2008) Pseudo-static seismic analysis of
reinforced soil wallEffect of oblique displacement, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
26:5, 393-403.
42. Sanglerat, G., (1972) The penetrometer and soil exploration, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp.
464.
43. Sargand, S.M., Masada, T., Abdalla, B., (2003) Evaluation of cone penetration testbased settlement prediction methods for shallow foundations on cohesionless soil at
highway bridge construction sites, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 129:10, 900-908.
44. Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P., (1978) Improved strain influence factor diagrams,
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT8, 11311135.
45. Skinner, G.D., Rowe, R.K., (2005) Design and behaviour of a geosynthetic reinforced
retaining wall and bridge abutment on a yielding foundation, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 23:3, 234-260.
46. Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., (1967) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 2nd edition,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
47. Viswanadham, B.V.S., Knig, D., (2009) Centrifuge modelling of geotextile-reinforced
slopes subjected to differential settlements, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27:2, 7788.
48. Wu, J.T.H., Lee, K.Z.Z., Pham, T., (2006) Allowable bearing pressures of bridge sills on
GRS abutments with flexible facing, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 132:7, 830-841.
49. Yamaoka, I., Nishigata, T., Yasuda, K., Mondori, K., (1990) Load tests and long term
observation of geotextile reinforced retaining wall, Fourth International Conference on
Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Vol 1, The Hague, Netherlands. pp.
123-124.
50. Yang, G., Zhang, B., Lv, P., Zhou, Q., (2009) Behaviour of geogrid reinforced soil
retaining wall with concrete-rigid facing, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27:5, 350356.

2010 ejge