In current design methods for reinforced soil walls, it has been tacitly assumed that reinforcement strength and reinforcement spacing play an equal role. This fundamental design assumption has led to the use of larger reinforcement spacing (0.3–1.0 m) in conjunction with stronger reinforcement to reduce construction time. Recent studies, however, have clearly indicated that the role of reinforcement spacing is much more significant than that of reinforcement strength. With closely spaced (reinforcement spacing ≤0.3 m) reinforcement, the beneficial effects of geosynthetic inclusion is significantly enhanced, and the load-deformation behavior can be characterized as that of a composite material. A reinforced soil mass with closely spaced geosynthetic reinforcement is referred to as geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS). In this study, an analytical model is developed for predicting the ultimate load-carrying capacity and required reinforcement strength of a GRS mass. The model was developed based on a...

Compared to geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) retaining walls, GRS abutment walls are generally subjected to much greater intensity surface loads that are fairly close to the wall face. A major issue with the design of GRS abutments is the allowable bearing pressure of the bridge sill on the abutments. The allowable bearing pressure of a bridge sill over reinforced soil retaining walls has been limited to 200 kPa in the current NHI and Demo 82 design guidelines. A study was undertaken to investigate the allowable bearing pressures of bridge sills over GRS abutments with flexible facing. The study was conducted by the finite element method of analysis. The capability of the finite element computer code for analyzing the performance of GRS bridge abutments with modular block facing has been evaluated extensively prior to this study. A series of finite element analyses were carried out to examine the effect of sill type, sill width, soil stiffness/strength, reinforcement spacing, and foundation stiffness on...