From Research to Design in European Practice, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, June 2 4, 2010

EXPERIENCES IN PRACTICAL DESIGN OF REINFORCED EARTH

RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE EUROCODE FRAMEWORK
1

B. Becci1, L. Nusiner2, M. Vanini3, P. Binda4

Ce.A.S, via Garibaldi 24, 24100 Bergamo (Italy), b.becci@finzi-ceas.it

2
Consultant Engineer, via Rosmini 6, 24128 Bergamo (Italy)
3
Department of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza L. da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano
(Italy), vanini@stru.polimi.it
4
Magnetti Geotech, SS. Briantea 18, 24030 Palazzago (BG) (Italy), p.binda@magnetti.it

ABSTRACT: The design of reinforced earth retaining walls, including the special case of
segmental walls, implies the careful assessment of various aspects pertaining to
geotechnical and structural engineering as well as to construction material technologies. To
assist their practical design, several guidelines exist including vast scientific literature and,
more recently, advanced numerical analysis tools. It should be recognized, however, that,
when it comes to practice, some empiricism still appears to play a significant role behind
most widely used approaches. All such aspects must be very well understood, mainly when a
limit state design complying with Eurocodes is to be attempted. Based on recent authors
experiences, Eurocodes demonstrated to be somehow in their infancy, as yet, to fully drive
the design of reinforced earth walls. Therefore, some further assumptions as well as
continuous comparisons with more well established codes are still unavoidable. This paper
aims at summarizing some of such practical features, with particular reference to the new
Italian Building Code, conceived to introduce Eurocode approaches in Italy. For example, it
will be shown how typical design aspects of reinforced earth walls, such as the internal
stability checks, actually need deviations and somehow arbitrary extensions to present
Eurocode recommendations.
1. Introduction
The extension of the Limit State (LS) Design method to geotechnical engineering is one
of the most relevant aspects of the change policy which is currently being pursued in Europe
toward a full implementation of Eurocodes (CEN, 2003, 2004) in practical design.
While the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and Serviceability Limit State (SLS) concepts have
been widely adopted since the early eighties, their extension to geotechnical design was
somehow delayed to more or less fifteen years later. In the meantime, the progressive
development of advanced numerical methods promptly adopted as everyday tools somehow
delayed acceptance of the ultimate limit design approaches in soil mechanics. In fact
advanced analysis methods, including nonlinear finite element or finite difference models are
quite commonly selected as the premier design approach even in routine problems including
retaining wall and tunneling designs and the usage of such sophisticated tools within the
ultimate design method is still considered quite unconsolidated.
Nonetheless, in many practical geotechnical problems, the LS approach is now quite
commonly adopted. Based on authors experiences, such problems include the design of
gravity retaining walls, shallow and piled foundations and slope stability. On the other hand,
quite a wide set of routine problems exists for which the implementation of the LS design
method is not yet commonly agreed: this includes the design of multi-propped retaining walls,
the design of ground anchors as well as the analysis of complex soil-structure problems.
The practical design of segmental retaining walls can be considered to fall in an
intermediate zone in between ordinary problems, for which a well established ULS procedure
is available, and more advanced problems, which still lack clear steps to be followed.

In this paper, the main design steps of a segmental retaining wall will be reviewed in the
light of Eurocode 7 (CEN, 2004; hereinafter EC7) LS design method, with special attention to
the recent Italian implementation (Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, 2008; hereinafter
NT2008). The most relevant difficulties that, based on Authors opinion, still hold, will be
highlighted; remedies, whenever possible, will be proposed.
2. Segmental retaining wall technology and main design concepts
A segmental (or modular) retaining wall is a special case of reinforced soil wall, where
the rigid external curtain is made by a dry-stacked composite facing of segmental units.
In segmental retaining wall technology, the outer rigid masonry curtain is essentially
provided to offer an appealing aspect that may be more acceptable with respect to other wall
typologies, as far as special architectural contexts are considered. However, it should be
noted that, even from an engineering point of view, segmental retaining walls are said to
display a more effective behavior in special circumstances, as compared, for example, with
wrap-around facing walls. For example, in Bathurst et al. (2006), a full scale study is
presented showing that a rigid facing wall has a beneficial effect on reinforcing stresses:
these are quite lower than in an equivalent wrap-around (very flexible) facing wall.
The mechanical behavior of segmental retaining walls can be very well assimilated to
the behavior of mechanically stabilized walls. In a reinforced soil wall, a stable soil mass is
obtained by means of the installation of some tensile reinforcement layers in the retained
backfill. Fig. 1 sketches the main aspects of segmental reinforced retaining wall systems. In
this paper we will mainly place attention on segmental retaining walls reinforced with
geosynthetic materials.
7
1. compacted drainage fill
2. compacted native soil for reinforced zone
3. geosynthetic reinforcement
4. drain system
5. facing system
6. leveling pad of drainage fill
7. surcharge
8. foundation soil
9. retained soil
10. slope and/or swale for drainage
8

10
3

5
3
1
6

2
4

Figure 1. A sketch of the segmental reinforced retaining wall system.

Regardless of the type of wall retaining structure, accurate information on wall profile,
section heights, surcharge loads, soil and groundwater conditions provide basic necessary
data to develop design calculations. For efficient, safe and cost effective design purposes, a
minimum of site and subsurface exploration is highlty recommended.
Potential failure modes for reinforced segmental retaining wall structures are illustrated
in Fig. 2 (revised from Canadian Geotechnical Society, 2006).
External failure mechanisms consider the stability of an equivalent gravity structure
comprising the facing units, geosynthetic reinforcement and reinforced soil fill. The reinforced
mass is essentially assumed to behave like an equivalent gravity wall, whose geometry
corresponds to that of the reinforced soil. The appropriate length of the soil reinforcement is
computed, in order to obtain a sufficient equivalent width to meet external stability
requirements. External stability checks, including overall slope stability are usually performed
as for ordinary concrete wall design (cases a), b) and c) of Fig. 2).
Further checks are required to ensure that the reinforced soil mass is internally stable,
i.e. no partial failures, corresponding to any possible internal mechanism, should develop.
Such checks may be somehow equivalent to reinforced concrete design steps for bending
and shear forces in a classical reinforced concrete wall.

Figure 2. Modes of failure concerning external, internal and facing stability. Pertaining EC7 design
approaches (discussed in next paragraph) are also shown. From Canadian Geotechnical Society (2006).

Moreover the tensile working stress in each reinforced layer (case d) must be carefully
considered: in particular when geosynthetic sheets such as geo-grids are used, long term
creep deformation currently represent the most important issue. Working stress distribution,
to be compared with long term allowable stress limit, is often determined according to
recommended conventional approaches (NCMA (1996), AASHTO 2008 etc.) assuming that
the force in each layer is given by the local lateral stress (active or at rest, depending on the
reinforcement stiffness) in the soil just behind the outer face, times each tributary area.
However, a more realistic estimate of the reinforcement stresses may be obtained by means
of a careful numerical model or using some advanced approaches such as the recent semiempirical K-stiffness method (Bathurst et al., 2008a) by which the effect of the facing wall
stiffness onto reinforcing stresses is incorporated. In the light of the LS method, as far as we
are concerned, this should be considered a SLS verification.
Local structural failure aspects such as cases g) and h) of Fig. 2 are usually assessed
by means of full scale experiments. Adequate unit to unit interface shear capacity is required
to prevent internal sliding mechanisms that propagate through the face of the structure
and/or to prevent local bulging of the facing units. The reinforcement layers are placed
between the masonry units to form an essentially frictional connection; the modular unitgeosynthetic reinforcement connection capacity usually determines the spacing and the
selection of the reinforcement type.
Global stability involves failure mechanisms passing through or beyond the reinforced soil
mass. Conventional slope stability methods modified to include the stabilizing influence of
horizontal layers of geosynthetic reinforcement can be used for this purpose (e.g. Elias et al. 2001).
3. A review of main design steps for segmental retaining walls within the ULS method
Design of retaining walls is mainly governed by the European Standard for
Geotechnical design, EC7. Moreover, use of Eurocode 8 (CEN, 2003, hereinafter EC8) is to
be considered to cover the special requirements of seismic design.
EC7 specifies that, when applicable, the following ULS should not be exceeded:

 EQU: loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground, considered as a rigid body, in which
the strengths of structural materials and the ground are insignificant in providing resistance.
STR: internal failure or excessive deformation of the structure or structural elements,
including e.g. footings, piles or basement walls, in which the strength of structural materials is
significant in providing resistance.
GEO: failure or excessive deformation of the ground, in which the strength of soil or rock is
significant in providing resistance.
UPL: loss of equilibrium of the structure or the ground due to uplift by water pressure
(buoyancy) or other vertical actions.
HYD: hydraulic heave, internal erosion and piping in the ground caused by hydraulic
gradients.
In the design of retaining walls the STR, GEO, and EQU checks are relevant, whereas
UPL and HYD states are usually prevented by appropriate construction provisions. Under all
limit states, the designer should verify that: Ed Rd, where:
Ed = design value of the effect of actions (geotechnical, structural, etc)
Rd = design value of the resistance to an action.
Partial factors on actions may be applied either to the actions themselves (Frep,
representative value of an action) or to their effects (E) by one of the following procedures:
Ed = E{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}
(EC7, equation 2.6a)
(EC7, equation 2.6b)
Ed = E E{Frep; Xk/M; ad}
where:
E =
partial factor for the effect of an action
F =
partial factor for an action
M=
partial factor for a soil parameter (material property)
Xk = characteristic value of a material property (soil friction, effective cohesion, undrained
shear strength, etc)
ad = design value of geometrical data.
Resistances to actions are determined in a similar manner where partial factors are
applied to ground properties (X) or resistances (R) or to both with either one of the following:
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}
(EC7 equation 2.7a)
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk; ad}/R
(EC7 equation 2.7b)
Rd = R{F Frep; Xk/M; ad}/R
(EC7 equation 2.7c)
where: R=
partial factor for a soil resistances
Subsequently, the designer can apply up to three basic design modes that provide for
one or more combinations of minimum partial factors that are to be applied concurrently to
actions (A), material properties (M), and resistances (R). Actions on a retaining structure
generally originate from external loads and from water or earth pressures. These actions are
subsequently categorized as permanent or variable, and as favorable or unfavorable
depending on the nature of the load. EC7 provides suggested values for all the partial
factors, but each member State is free to adopt its own factors.
The combination modes are referred to as Design Approaches:
Design Approach 1: Combination 1 (DA1C1):
A1 + M1 + R1
Combination 2: (DA1C2):
A2 + M2 + R1
Design Approach 2: Combination: (DA2C1):
A1 + M1 + R2
Design Approach 3: Combination: (DA3C1):
(A1* or A2**) + M2 + R3
*on structural actions, **on geotechnical actions
where + implies: to be combined with.
The recommended partial factors for actions (A), material properties (M), and
resistances (R) come from statistical analyses and are summarized in Tables 1 through 3,
respectively for each case. Table 3 also includes recommended partial factors for the
resistance of pre-stressed ground anchors since they are often used as external bracing in
temporary excavations. Concerning the failure scenarios of Fig. 2, for each, the appropriate,
relevant EC7 design approaches are shown.
In the above classification, no specific definition for lateral earth actions or for lateral

water pressures is included. However, it is common practice to consider both unfavorable

permanent loads. The Italian implementation of EC7, NT2008, tries to clarify this aspect, by
stating that soil actions must be considered permanent actions as long as soil contributes to
both driving and resisting effects.
Table 1. Partial factors for actions (F), or for the effects of actions (E).
Action
Permanent
Variable

Set

Symbol

Unfavorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Favorable

G
Q

A1

A2

EQU

1.35 (1.3 in NT2008)

1.0
1.5
0

1.0
1.0
1.3
0

1.1
0.9
1.5
0

Table 2. Partial factors for soil parameters ( M).

Soil parameter

Set

Symbol

Angle of shearing resistance

(applied to tan)
Effective cohesion
Undrained shear strength
Unconfined strength
Weight density

M1

M2

1.0

1.25

c
cu
qu

1.0

1.25

1.0

1.4

1.0

1.4

1.0

1.0

Table 3. Partial resistance factors for earth resistance, pre-stressed anchors ( R).
Resistance
Earth resistance
Ground anchors (temporary)
Ground anchors (permanent)

Symbol

R;e
a;t
a;p

Set
R1

R2

R3

R4

1.0

1.4

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.1

As for classical external stability scenarios (cases a) to c) and i)), the adoption of the
ULS method is quite straightforward. It should be added that, for limit state c) an additional
SLS settlement check may sometimes be necessary, i.e. when the wall is expected to
interact with other facilities that may be damaged by excessive wall deformations. Such
situation may be critical when the foundation soil is of normally or slightly overconsolidated
clay, due to possible delay in the development of a relevant percentage of total settlement.
Concerning internal stability scenarios, the following considerations may be pointed out.
Internal stability checks aim at checking the adequacy of the resistance of the equivalent
wall which, in this case, is provided by the complex interaction between soil and
reinforcement and, for segmental walls, modular blocks. Therefore, in the light of general
EC7 framework, such resistance should be checked within a STRU limit state. However, it
is clear that soil resistance, in this case, plays a central role, thus recommending that a
GEO limit state should be included as well. The proposed ULS combinations in Fig. 2 for
cases e) and f) therefore follow. Case d) strictly depends on reinforcement properties only,
thus claiming for STR combination, however a SLS check is also necessary, as remarked in
section 2 above. In the next sections, through a worked example, these recommendations
will be better explained, whereas it must be stressed that actual EC7 recommendations are
somehow missing in this topic.
Cases g) and h) in Fig. 2 are strictly related to some true structural element resistance,
thus requiring the solely STR combination.
4. A Worked Example (following NT2008)
A sample analysis for a generic segmental reinforced retaining wall is herein presented.

Fig. 3 shows a schematic depiction of the wall. Basic calculation parameters are also
shown, where: q = surcharge load, qs = surcharge at the base of the wall, H = effective wall
height, B = grid length, = unit weight, = friction angle, = friction coefficient, W = weight of
the reinforced soil and wall system, PA = active (driving) force. In the box on the left are
shown the seismic parameters used for the dynamic analysis (where amax is site acceleration,
kh, kv are the design acceleration coefficients, kv is considered negative as directed
upwards). Note that no cohesion is considered for foundation or retained soil.
q = 10kPa
a max = 0.21 g

ah
a max

= 0.24

wall

(*)

= 19

kN
m

a h = kh g

design acceleration

H = 8.4m

kv = 0.5 kh

(*) NT2008 allows larger

reduction coefficients than EC8

PA

kN

fill

= 19

fill

m
= 34

fill

2
3

ecc
q s = 0kPa

base

base

= 18

= 32

base

B = 6.5m

kN
3

Rv

= 0.39

Rh

Figure 3. Model geometry and load (right panel). Seismic parameters (left panel).
External stability
External stability checks imply, as mentioned, sliding, overturning and bearing capacity
analyses; following the design approaches listed in Fig. 2, safety factors for these three
cases are computed and then summarized in Table 4.
With reference to Fig. 3, for sliding cases the following ratio is evaluated as:=

Rd.sliding
E d.sliding

where the pedix d refers to design values (i.e. corrected with ULS partial factors, G, Q,..).
Resistance to sliding and sliding actions are computed as:
Rd.sliding = Rv.d base.d

Ed.sliding = Rh.d

where Rv and Rh come directly from equilibrium equations: Rv.d = Wd + PA.d sin( d), Rh.d = PA.d cos( d)
In formulas, W d is the design value of the weight of the reinforced soil and wall system:
Wd = W G

W = B H fill

and PAd the design value of the active force (KAd is the static active pressure design
coefficient, computed with the classical Coulomb formula) :
2
1

PA.d = K A.d fill H G + q H Q

2

tan ( fill )

The soil parameter d is obtained from characteristic value as: fill.d = atan

Concerning bearing capacity, a strip foundation is assumed, with normal force Rv

(eccentric with respect to the center of gravity) and horizontal force Rh (see Fig. 3). The
average bearing pressure qd is compared in this case with the ultimate strength qud,
computing the following ratio as a safety factor: qud / qd.

The design value qd is given by: qd

Rv.d + Wq.d
B eff.d

where W qd depends on the surcharge on the infill soil (in this case unfavorable to stability):
Wq.d = Wq Q

Wq = q B

(note that this portion of the surcharge was not considered in the previous checks as in favor
of stability, see Table 1, Q values).
Using Meyerhof approach, the foundation of B width, with eccentric load, is reduced to

an equivalent foundation Beff width, with centered load (Beff=B-2ecc, see Fig. 3). Computation of
qud may be done using the Brinch-Hansen equation (see e.g. Eurocode 7, part 1-1). For
horizontal strip foundations (on granular soils), with axial and lateral load, the formula becomes:
q u.d =

q s Nq

( base.d ) i q( Rh.d , Rv.d ) + 2

1

Beff.d G base N

( base.d ) i ( Rh.d , Rv.d )

where a-dimensional factors Nj are defined as:

Nq ( ) = e

tan ( )

tan

N ( ) = 2 Nq ( ) 1 tan ( )

ij reduction coefficients take into account load inclination, for strip foundation they are given as:
i q ( H , N) =

i ( H , N) =

In our concern, it is essential to use reduction coefficients ij due to the presence of an

horizontal force Rh. In fact, for a wall of medium height (up 8 - 9 m), the most critical limit
state is usually sliding. Therefore it can be shown that the ratio H/N falls in between 0.3 and
0.4. In these conditions, say for H/N=0.33, for a granular soil (c=0), iq = 0.435 and i = 0.287,
causing a very considerable reduction of bearing capacity qud. We note that the use of such
correction coefficients is apparently omitted in other Standards (e.g. Canadian Geotechnical
Society, 2006): therefore we believe that such topic should be carefully investigated.
In a pseudo-static approach based on a horizontal khg and a vertical kvg acceleration,
the seismic active force is computed following the Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) method:
2
1

PAE.d = 1 + kv K AE.d fill H G + KAE.d q H Q 2 1 + kv

2

) (

where KAEd is the (dynamic) active pressure design coefficient (computed with the M-O
formula). Note that in the seismic case, the design approaches of Fig. 2 still hold, but the
partial factors for actions must all be taken equal to 1; a reduction coefficient (2) for the
surcharge for seismic combination must also be considered (=0.3). The seismic contribution
to the active force (applied at H/2 height from the base of the wall) is given by:
P AE.d

= P AE.d PA.d

Seismic wall mass contributions become: Wd = W G ( 1 + kv), Wh.d = W G kh

For what concerns bearing capacity, the ultimate strength qud becomes:
q u.d =

q s Nq

( base.d) i q( Rh.d , Rv.d) zq( kh , base.d ) + 2

1

Beff.d G base N

( base.d ) i ( Rh.d , Rv.d) z ( kh , base.d)

where zj additional reduction coefficients (Paolucci and Pecker, 1997a, 1997b) are considered:

zq kh , base =

tan ( base )

kh

0.35

z kh , base = zq kh , base

these coefficients (=0.971) take into account the decrease of bearing capacity during earthquake,
due to seismic force in the resisting soil mass itself, as thoroughly explained by the cited authors.
In Table 4, for comparison purposes, the safety factors computed following the
allowable stress method (past Italian code, NT1988) are shown; see how the ULS approach
is much more severe, especially concerning bearing capacity. Safety factors reduce, as
expected, from static to seismic case (ULS approach). For bearing capacity, in the seismic
case, design is just slightly above acceptability. Note that due to the exponential relationships
between friction angle and a-dimensional factors Nj, bearing capacity is extremely sensitive
to values. This points out the care that must be taken in the choice of foundation friction
angles: an overly conservative choice could be too severe in the case of ULS analyses.
Similar conclusions are reported, e.g., by Callisto (2008).
Table 4. Safety factors for external stability, computed with ULS approach.
Allowable Stress - NT1988
static case

sliding
bearing capacity
overturning

Fs
Fs min recommended
Fs/Fs min
2.45
1.3
1.88
4.59
2.0
2.30
7.36
1.5
4.91
NB: to easily compare with ULS, Fs/Fs min is
computed, and this must be > 1

ULS NT2008
seismic case
static case
resisting / driving
resisting / driving
1.22
1.49
1.05
1.40
4.23
4.64
NB: resisting / driving must be > 1

q
superficie
scorrimento
failuredisurface
ipotizzata

zk

Tk

SSk
v

'h

v'

LLeke
k

Figure 4. Geometry and forces used to evaluate anchorage capacity in internal stability.
Internal stability
Internal stability checks imply five kinds of verifications: overstress, pullout from soil,
pullout from block, local sliding and local overturning. Table 5 summarizes the safety factors
computed for each of them (with the design approaches of Fig. 2), for the example of Fig. 3.
For what concerns overstress analysis, it must be checked that the applied force in any
reinforcement layer does not exceed the maximum allowable working stress (LTADS, from
geosynthetic manufacturer): this check must be considered an SLS verification. Note that in
seismic analyses, the reduction of the geogrid ultimate strength for long-term creep (included
in the LTADS term) is generally not taken into account. In this way, this verification in seismic
conditions is usually largely less critical that in static conditions, as shown in Table 5. With
reference to Fig. 4, the tensile force Tk on the k-geogrid (at zk=4 m) is:

( ) ( fill

Tk = Sk K A.d cos d

zk G1S + q Q1S

where Sk is the height of the k-course spacing (=0.4 m), G1S and Q1S the partial factors for
unfavorable actions. In the seismic case, the tensile force becomes:

( ) (

) (

( ) (

T AEk = Sk K AE.d 1 + kv cos d fill zk G1S + 1 + kv cos d q Q1S 2 ...

( B Lek)

+ kh Sk t fill
+ wall G1S
t

where t is the depth of the facing block (=0.3 m), Lek the anchorage length of the geogrid, slightly
a max

(from NT2008).
increased with respect to the static case (Leks = 3.5 m): Lek = Leks 1 + 1.5

The safety factor for overstress is computed comparing LTADS value (multiplied by a
creep reduction factor, CRF, in the seismic case) with the tensile force T. (We assumed here
LTADS= 19.3 KN/m and CRF=1.58).
For soil pullout analysis, besides the design approaches of Fig. 2 (STR and GEO), we
suggest here a further approach, based on the assumption that geogrids may be somehow
treated as ground anchors. Combination A1+M1+R3 must be considered in this case, with
R=1.2 (Table 6.6.I of NT2008). The tensile force Tk is now compared with the frictional
resistance (anchorage capacity) beyond the active soil wedge:
Fgrk =

Leks Ci

( fill

zk G1F + q Q1F tan

R a3

( fill.d )

where G1F and Q1F are the partial factors for favorable actions, Ci the interaction coefficient
for pullout (geogrid parameter, herein =0.8), and a3 a correlation coefficient (=1.6, Table
6.6.III of NT2008, worst case). Note how the safety factors computed in this verification
(Table 5) are always very high. In fact, solving Fgrk/Tk 1 with respect to anchorage value Lek,
it can be easily demonstrated that safety against pullout is generally thoroughly satisfied, as
anchorage is usually conveniently longer than the few tens [in cm] required by analysis (for
the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual this anchorage must be at least of 1 m). We
may therefore realize that considering a geogrid length falling in between reasonable (or
usual) range, the impact of such not yet established safety factors onto final result is

somehow quite minor. As for practical purposes, it may be probably much more worthwhile to
carefully incorporate some construction requirements in final Eurocode section, rather than
excessively refine numerical values for partial safety factors (see Bathurst et al., 2008b)
In connection verifications (block pullout), the tensile force Tk is compared with the peak
connection strength resistance Fcsk: an experimental correlation function of the normal load
applied to the facing block. In this example (with: Tcs = 19.16 kN/m and = 8):
Fcsk = Tcs + ( tan ( ) Nk)
Nk = zk wall G1F t
(where G1F is for favorable actions)
Local sliding and local overturning analyses are performed as for external stability, involving,
for each grid layer, the portion of wall and soil system just above the corresponding geogrid.
Table 5 summarized the safety factors computed for all cases. Note how, for seismic
analyses, the evaluated ratio tends to increase with respect to static case, especially when
using STR approach (explicitly required by Italian NT2008). In our concern, this
inconsistency has to be carefully inspected: pertaining design approaches should be
reviewed, maybe in favor of more practical (and wiser) design criteria.
Table 5. Safety factors for internal stability cases, for the generic k-geogrid, at zk 4 m depth.

LS case

overstress

STR
STR
GEO
A1+M1+R3

soil pullout

(anchor method)

block pullout
local sliding
local overturning

STR
STR
GEO
EQU

ULS NT2008
static case
seismic case
resisting /
resisting /
driving
driving
1.81 (2.39 : SLS check)
3.48
26.88
42.05
21.51
27.02
14.00

21.90

2.09
2.54
6.3
5.57
5.14
3.97
14.33
11.47
NB: resisting / driving must be > 1

Global stability
The last analysis to be performed (not discussed here) is overall stability, including the
wall and adjacent soil masses. These analyses may be carried out using conventional or
modified slope stability methods (e.g. Bishop Method of slices). When examining potential
failure surfaces passing through the reinforced soil zone and/or intersecting the wall,
additional contributions such as facing shear capacity and facing connection may be
considered. In the same way, when a layer of geogrid is intersected by a slip arc, a sort of
(grid) anchorage contribution may be added as well. In our concern, the ULS design
approaches that must be used in these analyses are both the GEO limit state combination
(A2+M2+R2) and the STR combination (A1+M1+R1) as analyses are in some way related
also to internal structural element resistances.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
In practical design of segmental retaining walls, the implementation of Eurocode Limit
State concepts does not imply severe difficulties, yet needs some care in particular design
procedures. As far as external and global failure limit states are considered, the extension of
the Eurocode procedures to this class of geotechnical problems is quite straightforward.
Eurocode requirements are usually a little stricter than traditional design approaches such as
the allowable stress method according to past Italian law (D.M. 1988). In particular, the
bearing capacity check may be significantly more severe than before, in accordance with
some similar findings by others.
For internal checks, clear and unambiguous Eurocode guidelines are still lacking.
However, such a deficiency is somehow masked by the intrinsic complexities of these

aspects in reinforced soil wall design. Following well established design and construction
practices, such uncertainties may become quite immaterial. The expected advances in the
understanding of the mechanical aspects beneath the internal stability issues will allow a
more precise definition of practical design criteria including a rational and consistent
definition of relevant partial safety factors. However, a quite significant percentage of
empiricism will still be necessary. In particular, the forthcoming Eurocode requirements (and
their NADs) should be preferably complemented with a set of geometrical and technological
constraints that hopefully would improve the reliability of segmental wall design.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Italian Studio GPT (http://www.studiogpt.it) for giving us
the opportunity to start working together. The advice and support of Prof. Roberto Paolucci,
of the Department of Structural Engineering of Politecnico di Milano, has been greatly
appreciated. The co-operation of Magnetti business group, AllanBlock and Huesker (in the
person of Dr. Eng. Luis Eduardo Russo), is also gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the authors
would like to devote this work to Prof. Roberto Nova, of the Department of Structural
Engineering of Politecnico di Milano, for his support and for his life-long commitment to
research in geotechnical engineering.
7. References
AASHTO (2008). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications, 4th Ed. 2007, with 2008 Interim Revisions, Washing.D.C., USA.
Bathurst R. J., Vlachopoulos N., Walters D. L., Burgess P. G., Allen T. M., (2006). The influence
of facing stiffness on the performance of two geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls, Can.
Geotech. Journal, Vol. 43, pp 1225-1237.
Bathurst, R.J., Miyata, Y., Nernheim, A. and Allen, T.M. (2008a). Refinement of K-stiffness
method for geosynthetic reinforced soil walls, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.
269295.
Bathurst R. J., Allen T. M. and Nowak A. S., (2008b). Calibration concepts for load and
resistance factor design (LRFD) of reinforced soil walls, Can. Geotech. Journal, Vol. 45, pp
1377-1392.
Callisto L. (2008). Alcune osservazioni sul coefficiente di sicurezza per le opere di sostegno,
Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica, Anno XLII, n. 1, pp 59-66.
Canadian Geotechnical Society, (2006). Chapter 27: Reinforced Soil Walls, Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th ed., BiTech Publishers, Richmond, B. C.
CEN (Comit Europen de Normalisation), (2003). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for
earthquake resistance Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings.
Brussels.
CEN (Comit Europen de Normalisation), (2004). Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 1:
Brussels.
Elias, V., B.R. Christopher R.R. Berg (2001). Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-00043. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., March.
NCMA (1996), National Concrete Masonry Association, Design manual for Segmental Retaining
Walls, 2nd ed., (Collin J G. ed.), USA.
NT2008, Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, 2008. DM 140108, Ministero delle Infrastrutture,
Roma, Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 29 del 4.2.2008.
NT1988, Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, 1988. DM 110388, Ministero delle Infrastrutture,
Roma, Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 59 del 11.3.1988.
Paolucci, R. and A. Pecker (1997a). "Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip foundations on dry
soils", Soils and Foundations, Vol. 37, n. 3, pp. 95-105.

Paolucci, R. and A. Pecker (1997b). "Soil inertia effects on the bearing capacity of rectangular
foundations on cohesive soils", Engineering Structures, Vol. 19, n. 8, pp. 637-643.