Observation and Numerical Modeling of

Test MSEW with Inextensible Inclusions

and Coarse Crushed Stone Backfill
Adis Skejic
University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Bosnia & Herzegovina;
askeja@live.com

Anis Balic
University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Bosnia & Herzegovina

Dr. Haris Jasarevic

University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Bosnia & Herzegovina

T Namas
International University of Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina

S Selman
International University of Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina

Dr. Emir Karamehmedovic

International University of Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina

Dr. Jasmin Buco

PC Motorways of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

ABSTRACT
This paper presents behavioral observation and numerical modeling of test Mechanically Stabilized
Earth Wall (MSEW) under applied overburden load. Namely, the 6m wide and 3.2m high wall, with
10cm thick precast concrete panel face elements and embedded reinforcement length of 2.15m was
built on stiff foundation soil. Welded wire mash Q335 was used as reinforcement. Stage-wise, the
top of the wall was loaded with additional overburden weight in order to investigate the pre-failure
wall behavior. The horizontal displacements were measured with an inclinometer installed in the
middle of the wall length and geodetic survey of the wall face. Observed results were compared to
the analysis results obtained from numerical model created using the geotechnical software Plaxis.
Numerical model consisting of inextensible inclusions, which are embedded in crushed stone
granular backfill, was introduced in order to simulate the transverse rib resistance during wall
construction and after placement of surcharge load. Proposed numerical model for the behavior of
MSEW with inextensible inclusions is in good agreement with measured values obtained on the test
wall. The details of proposed model along with validation of results on numerical simulation of pull
out test conducted on same materials are presented here.
KEYWORDS: test MSEW, numerical modeling, inextensible inclusions, pullout test,
coarse backfill

- 2877 -
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2878

INTRODUCTION
The applications of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls (MSEW) retaining structures for
various construction projects grow rapidly over last four decades all around the world. In order to
gain better understanding of behavior for working stress conditions, numerous test structures were
built and observed results were reported (see e.g. Allen and Bathurst, 2002 and 2003, Carruba et al.
1999, Bergado et al. 2003, Yang, et al. 2009, Abdelouhab et al. 2011, Suksiripattanapong et al.
2012). Still, failure mechanisms are not fully understood (Leshchinsky and Vulova 2001) till today.
Numerical analysis with φ-c reduction method (Griffiths and Lane, 1999) was proposed in order to
provide an insight to failure mechanism (Guler et al., 2007). It assumes the inclusions to be a rough
surface, introducing the interface element that accounts for influence of transverse ribs thickness, its
spacing and length. Unfortunately, the factors affecting the failure mechanism are not only the type
of backfill material, inclusions, their spacing and wall geometry (Ho and Rowe 1997). In addition,
interaction between inclusions and surrounding soil depends on the grain size distribution of backfill
material and dimensions of inclusion openings (Holtz, 1977 and Jewell, 1984). Modeling of soil-
inclusion interaction was reported as an important aspect of numerical modeling (Hu and Pu, 2004,
Teixeira et al. 2007). In this paper, special attention in investigation MSEW behavior is given to
soil-inclusion interaction modeling.
In order to improve the understanding of soil – reinforcement interaction, different experimental
methods have been developed (Palmeira 2009). Interaction of inclusions (HDPE and PP geogrid)
and fine-grained sandy backfill material was investigated on laboratory scale by many authors, as
well as by some finite element model proposals (Bergado et al. 2002, Marques et al. 2005, Sugimoto
et al. 2001, 2003, Palmeira et al. 2009, Pekrins and Edens 2003, Yogarajah and Yeo 1993, Fahmy
and Koerner, 1993, Farrag et al., 1993). However, the phenomenon of grain interlocking in
reinforcement openings that causes considerably different mechanisms of interaction between the
sandy and gravelly materials (Minazek, 2010, Hsieh et al. 2011) was not accounted for. It was
reported (Minazek, 2010) that more than 85% of total pullout resistance during the tests was
observed on transverse ribs. According to Texeira et al. (2007), the percentage of transverse rib
bearing resistance is approximately 60%. This is also consistent with observations reported by
(Palmeira, 2004), who indicated that the fraction of the ultimate pullout resistance due to interface
shear may be significantly smaller than that due to passive mechanisms. Therefore, it is rather
important to correctly predict the bearing resistance of transverse ribs (Zhou et al. 2012).
Application of modern numerical methods in predicting stress-strain behavior and at the same
time dealing with complex soil-reinforcement interaction cannot be considered satisfactory without
confirmation of the results with measurements made on real structures. Current application of a wide
variety of reinforcement elements and backfill material types further complicates this problem. As a
result, the only way to reach reliable conclusions is to create sizeable databases of field wall case
studies.
In study presented in this paper, welded wire mash (WWM) type of inextensible reinforcement
was chosen for test MSEW that was built, in order to exclude the effect of constrained dilatancy
typical for strip type inclusions (Hayashi et al, 1996). Also, the coarser crushed stone granular
material was used as the backfill since behavior of such material type was, by the authors best
knowledge till today, not published anywhere. The modeling part of the present work introduces
bearing resistance of transverse ribs in order to simulate the interaction mechanism during wall
construction and after placement of surcharge load. Such a model captures the synergism between
interface shear and passive resistance mechanisms. The details of proposed model along with
validation of results are presented.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2879

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 6m wide and 3.2m high MSE test wall with precast concrete elements face was constructed
next to the slope of temporary service road made for tunnel excavation on construction site of
Motorway 5C, section Drivusa-Gorica in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Typical wall cross section
including surcharge load phases is shown in Figure 1.
The wall is seated on a very deep foundation layer consisting of well-compacted coarse granular
material (=45o and c=0) overlying stiff marl stone. Wall’s leveling pad (foundation) (as shown in
Figure 2) consisted of concrete (C20/25) beam 40x40cm, reinforced with 6 (=12mm) longitudinal
steel bars and =8mm - 20cm c-c stirrups. Precast concrete panel elements 100x80x10cm, made of
self-compacting smart dynamic concrete (SDC), high-strength concrete (W/C=0.35) with early one
day strength of C30/37 achieved with admixtures based on polycarboxylate, were used for wall face.
Elements were reinforced both directions with =8mm - 15cm c-c steel bars placed in the midsection
of thickness, including two anchorage reinforcements (=12mm stirrups 25x80cm - extending 20cm
out of element) for proper connection of facing with the soil reinforcement (see Figure 3). Standard
prefabricated steel welded wire mash (WWM) Q335 (fy=500/560MPa), 6m long and 2.15m wide
with 8mm bars spaced at 15cm c-c in both directions, was used for soil reinforcement (see Figure 4).
A coarser crushed limestone aggregate (=48o and c=0), with grains ranging from ~0-100mm
(D50=31,5mm – see gradation curve shown on figure 5) was used as the backfill material. A total of
4 rows with 6 elements in each row precast concrete elements were used to build the wall. In
addition, 8 WWM (2 per 1 row of face elements, placed 40cm apart) were used for backfill
reinforcement.

Figure 1: Typical Wall cross-section with characteristics of soil and wall materials
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2880

Each of the 40cm thick layers of backfill material between WWM was placed in 2 sub-layers
(20cm each) to ensure proper compaction and achieve proper stiffness. Backfill material was
compacted using combination of 2 ton roller compactor and vibratory plate compactor for tight
spaces.

Figure 3: Prefabricates concrete face

Figure 2: Foundation of MSE elements with anchorage
test wall reinforcement elements

Figure 4: Q335 WWM with installed Figure 5: Backfill material

strain gauges and strain gauge gradation curve, (D50 = 31,5 mm)

Measurements and Results

The static load plate tests on different wall heights were conducted in order to measure soil
stiffness after application and compaction of each backfill material layer using circular plate
(D=30cm) as shown in Figure 6. The test was carried out in general accordance with HRN
U.B1.046. The load was applied in total of five increments, with settlement readings taken at 30sec
intervals for first 2 minutes and 1 minute intervals thereafter, until detectable movement of the plate
has stopped ( i.e. until the average settlement rate is less than 0.05mm per 3 minute interval). The
Range of Pressures starts from 0 kPa to 250 kPa. The results of average settlements for 5 load
increments are shown in Table 1 below.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2881

An Interfels Standard Inclinometer Casing, installed in the middle of wall length to avoid
boundary effects, was used to measure the wall lateral displacements (see Figure 7). Casing, which
is 3.0m long with outside diameter of 70mm and inside one of 65mm was installed before wall
construction 1.5m below grade in stiff foundation soil, in order to ensure prevention of movement of
its base (fixed reference).

Figure 6: Static load plate test Figure 7: Inclinometer readings

Standard coupling unit 400mm long, with outside diameter of 77mm, and inside one 70 mm was
used to connect extension casings during construction. Area around the casing was protected by very
fine sand to avoid mechanical damage during construction such as punching by coarser grains of
backfill material. Geodetic survey of vertical midsection of wall face was also performed using 8
fixed points apart, in order to observe horizontal displacements.

Table 1: Static load plate test results

Load and settl. Load increments [kN/m2]
Test No. 0 50 100 150 200 250
Settlements [mm]
Test 1 [level 0,8 m] 0 0,09 0,44 0,825 1,36 1,8
Test 2 [level 1,4 m] 0 0,12 0,35 0,6 0,9 1,2

Note that the soil backfill reference deformation modulus for numerical model was obtained
using back analysis results of this test.
Force in reinforcement was measured by 16 installed strain gauges (SGs) that were mounted to
WWM bars (see Figure 4) on different locations (see Table 2). The SGs were standard HBM
manufactured 350Ohm gauges, put in a Whetstone bridge and amplifier system. After the wall
erection, two of the SGs malfunctioned probably due to the mechanical damage during construction
and their readings were dismissed. SGs calibration for force measurement was conducted in the
laboratory using tension loading frame. The error in measured forces readings is estimated to be up
to 10% and can be, among other effects, due to slight differences in mounting of SGs on the mesh.
Two weeks after the wall was constructed, 1.5m high overburden load (~30kPa) was added on it
(Figure 8), in order to observe its behavior. This corresponds to the required design traffic load for
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2882

regional roads in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Week after the loading was completed, inclinometer
readings, geodetic survey of wall face and force measurements in reinforcement bars were
performed again for comparison with the initial ones. The results of force measurements are listed in
Table 2 (Skejic et al., 2013). In addition, two months after the above overburden load, a sloped load
behind the reinforced earth zone was applied to increase deformation of wall (potential for
overturning) as shown on Figure 9. A week after the loading was completed; inclinometer readings
and geodetic survey of the wall face were performed again. The results are shown on Figures 10 and
11 respectively. It should be noted that the force measurement readings were not taken at this load
stage, since the weather in the meantime changed and temperature dramatically dropped resulting in
inability to obtain reasonable values.

Figure 8: Wall with 1.5m vertical Figure 9: Load added behind reinforced
earth
Table 2: Force measurement
overburden zoneSkejic
(after of wall load2013)
et al., (~30kPa)
to increase sliding potential

Table 2: Force measurements (Skejic et al., 2013)

(comma is used for decimal point here)
Sensor (height; depth [m]) Without overburden load With overburden load kN/m
kN/m
A1 (0,2; 0,4) 4,8 8,8
B1 (0,2; 1,15) 4,2 7,6
C1 (0,2; 1,90) 4,2 7,2
A2 (0,6; 0,4) 2,7 3,5
B2 (0,6; 1,15) 3,6 5,9
C2 (0,6; 1,90) 3,0 5,0
A3 (1,0; 0,4) 5,8 10,0
B3 (1,0; 1,15) 3,9 6,4
C3 (1,0; 1,90) 5,2 9,7
B5 (1,8; 1,15) 2,6 6,9
A6 (2,2; 0,4) 1,9 4,2
C6 (2,2; 1,90) 5,3 11,1
A8 (3,0; 0,4) 1,3 2,6
B8 (3,0; 1,15) 2,0 4,2
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2883

Figure 10: Figure 10: Inclinometer Figure 11: Results of geodetic survey of
reading results wall face

Numerical Modeling
Two aspects of numerical model are presented. First proposed numerical model describes
pullout test conditions, along with comparison of obtained numerical results with reported
measurements from corresponding laboratory tests. Second, the idea was to expand the above
proposed model in order to predict the behavior of full scale MSEW. The test wall presented in this
paper, with inextensible inclusions capable of describing the synergism between interface shear and
passive resistance mechanism was analyzed. In both cases, a relatively good agreement between
numerical modeling and measurements were achieved as presented in the following.

Numerical modeling of pullout test

A series of laboratory pullout tests were conducted and reported by Minazek et al. (2010).
Reinforced mesh (42.0x42.0 cm) made of steel bars 5.0 mm thick at 90.0 mm spacing were pulled
out in device made by European Norms (EN) for two different vertical pressures (40.0 kPa and 60.0
kPa) applied.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2884

Along with the pullout force vs. displacements dependence, the horizontal displacements of soil
surrounding reinforced mesh were measured. Gravel material with D50 = 12.0 mm was used. The
model parameters of gravel are shown in Table 3. The dimensions of pullout box used are 205.0 x
90.0 cm in ground plan with height of 120.0 cm. Shear strength parameters were determined by
direct shear device (40.0 x 40.0 cm) at the same vertical stress level as during the pullout. Soil
stiffness parameters were determined according to primary and shear waves measurements before
pullout force application. Wave velocity measurement system consisted of a specially developed
accelerometers mounted in the vertical direction at different distances above and below
reinforcement level and special cable connected to an oscilloscope that is out of box device
(Mulabdic et al., 2005).
Modeling of the dilatant behavior of the gravel soil is required to give accurate prediction of
pullout force mobilization and soil horizontal displacements during the pullout (Farrag et al. 1993).
Dilatancy angle of 20° was determined according the modified Bolton’s equation (Simoni et al.,
2006) for plane strain conditions in gravel sand mixtures. The interface strength along longitudinal
ribs of steel mesh and the soil is determined by the interpretation of the pullout tests performed with
longitudinal ribs alone. The constant value of interaction coefficient 0.15 was observed. According
to Milligan et al. (1998), the interaction coefficient does not vary significantly with change in steel
bar length and diameter as well as surcharge load, so the constant value was selected. Later, the
synergism between interface shear and passive resistance mechanisms was captured by changes in
vertical stress during pullout.
The pullout test was modeled as a plane strain problem. The finite element mesh and boundary
condition are shown in Figure 13. Plaxis 2D geotechnical software (Brinkgreve et al., 2002), with
isotropic hardening soil constitutive model was used for modeling of backfill material. The finite
element mesh involved a total of 3690 of 6-node triangular elements for the backfill (Figure 13). The
steel wire mesh model consisted of longitudinal bars, which were modeled by beam elements
capable of transferring only tension, and transverse ribs modeled as linear elastic material with
circular cross-section. The typical numerical model is shown in Figure 12. Although the soil-steel
contact has very low shear strength, presented numerical model is capable of describing soil
displacement field around the reinforcement due to transverse ribs passive resistance. Horizontal
displacement at 3/4 of inclusion length, measured from pullout edge, for 2.5 cm inclusion
movement, were compared with laboratory measured displacement field.
An additional analysis was performed in order to check the importance of transverse ribs
bending during pullout. Continuous beam model with appropriate load (Figure 14) was used to
calculate the magnitude of deflection (δbend). The value of pullout displacement (δtrans) was taken as
displacement for maximum mobilized pullout force. Namely, the magnitude of 4.0cm was reported
for pullout test described above.

Figure 12: Details of proposed numerical model for modeling synergism between
longitudinal and transverse ribs
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2885

Figure 13: Numerical model capable of Figure 14 : Simplified model for

presenting the displacement field around calculation of bending
reinforcement as well as force deformation during pullout

The calculated value of transverse rib deflection displacement was less than 5% of the total
displacement during pullout. Hence, 2D model with stiff transverse ribs was found to be appropriate
for modeling of inextensible sheet type inclusions.

Table 3: Model parameters for backfill soil

Soil type Gravel : 8-16
Material model Hardening Soil
 [kN/m3] 20.0
'p [] 57.6 (50.3)*
c' [kPa] 0.0
 [] 20.0**
E50,ref [MPa] 20.0
Eoed,ref [MPa] 20.0
Eur [MPa] 60.0
 [-] 0.15
Ri 0.15***
* Note: peak friction angle for σv = 40.0 kPa
(peak friction angle for σv = 60.0 kPa)
** Note :  = const for both σv
*** Note: ϕi = Ri·ϕsoil (Skejic, 2012)

The pullout load was applied as prescribed displacement with increments of 5.0mm starting at
0.0mm to 40.0mm. The tolerable iteration error was defined as 0.01. Numerically predicted pullout
force, as well as displacement field around inclusion, is in good agreement with reported
meassurements as shown in Figure 15.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2886

(a) (b)
Figure 15: (a) Force displacement curve and comparison with the measured values;
(b) comparison between the measured and numerically predicted horizontal displacements

Another aspect that was compared with previously reported studies was the vertical stress
distribution in the vicinity above inclusion. Vertical effective stress pattern is shown in Figure 16
along with the plastic points distribution during pullout. Alfaro et al. (2005) measured the stress
increment above the sheet type inclusion during pullout test done in sand material. Similar
observations during laboratory pullout test were conducted by Texeira et al. (2007). The trend
observed in these studies was confirmed by numerical model described earlier. Namely, vertical
stress increment in the vicinity of the transverse ribs was observed with numerical analysis, as well
as by doing laboratory measurements.

(a) (b)
Figure 16: (a) Vertical effective stress pattern along the inclusion at pre-failure stress state
and comparison with observed values (Alfaro et al., 2005)
(b) Plastic points distribution at pre-failure stress state

Numerical modeling of test wall

Numerical analysis was performed using the Plaxis Geotechnical Software Package (Brinkgreve
et al., 2002). A plane strain numerical model of reinforced earth wall built on stiff foundation soil is
made of reinforcing element, soil elements and boundary conditions (loads and displacements). A
total of 26720 triangular finite elements with 6 nodes and 3 Gauss integration points were used (see
Figure 17). Backfill material, inclusion and soil inclusion interface were modeled as described
earlier for pullout conditions. The parameters of the granular backfill material and material
supported by the wall, as well as foundation soil are listed in Table 4. Surcharge was modeled
according to real construction sequence by installing additional soil layer above the wall.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2887

Table 4: Soil parameters

Parameter Granular backfill MC (loose) – surcharge soil Foundation soil
 [kN/m ]3
22,0 21,0 24,0
'p [] 48 29 45,0
c' [kPa] 0,0 0,0 0,0
 [] 15 0,0 0,0
m 0,9 0,7 0,9
E50,ref [MPa] 75,0 25,0 300,0
Eur [MPa] 225,0 75,0 900,0
Eoed,ref [MPa] 75,0 25,0 300,0
 [-] 0,15 0,15 0,15
Ri* 0,15 - -

The stiffness characteristics of the backfill material were determined by back-analysis on

numerical model of static plate load test. The axisymmetric numerical model of this test provided
good agreement with the measurements. Dilatancy angle for modeling non-associative flow was
determined according to the modified Bolton’s equation (Simoni et al., 2006) for plane strain
conditions in gravel sand mixtures.
The longitudinal members of inclusions were modeled as described earlier (Figure 12), with
axial stiffness of longitudinal ribs as EA = 1.11105 kN/m', obtained for the maximum elastic strain
of steel (in air tensile test). with bending stiffness defined by the thickness of the facing elements
(for t = 10.0 cm follows: EA = 3·106 kN/m and EI = 2500 kNm2/m).

(a) (b)
Facing
Figureelements were modeled
17a: Numerical modelasand
beams, Figure 17b: Detail of inclusions
wall geometry numerical model (see Figure 12)
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2888

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Deformed model mesh for two characteristic overburden loading phases are shown in Figure 18.
A comparison between numerically obtained and field measured displacements is shown on graphs
below (Figures 19 and 20). Figures 19 and 20 show predicted and measured horizontal
displacements at the location of inclinometer casing and horizontal displacements of wall face
respectively.
The mismatch between measured and predicted horizontal displacements in first phase of
surcharge load application is probably due to inadequate soil constitutive model. Namely, hardening
soil model underrate soil stiffness for small deformations range. On the other hand, the displacement
field for the final phase of surcharge load application (larger deformations) is quite well predicted.

(a)

(b)

Figure 18: Deformed mesh (not in scale): (a) Surcharge load phase 1;
(b) Surcharge load phase 2
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2889

Figure 19: Inclinometer reading results and Figure 20: Result of geodetic survey of wall
comparison with predicted values face and comparison with predicted values

CONCLUSIONS
MSEW with WWM and coarse crushed limestone aggregate backfill was built in order to
observe its behavior under stage-vise loading conditions. Numerical analysis with discrete-like
modeling of inclusions was introduced to capture the transverse ribs bearing resistance during wall
construction and after the surcharge load applications. First, the proposed model was presented for
pullout test conditions with validation of results reported for laboratory measurements. Later, a full-
scale wall was numerically modeled and results were compared with the one obtained by field
measurements. MSEW built of closely spaced stiff inclusions in coarse granular backfill behaves as
a stiff block. Experimental results presented here confirm the predictions of failure mechanism given
by numerical analysis from previous studies (Leshchinsky and Vulova 2001, Guler et al., 2007). The
proposed numerical model results were compared with displacement field measurements and are in
relatively good agreement. This type of numerical model may be used in design of similar practical
geotechnical engineering problems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express deep gratitude to the following companies for providing
location, financial support, construction equipment and manpower for this project: PC Motorways of
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Euro-Asfalt, DIVEL, BASF, Geokonzalting.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2890

REFERENCES
1. Abdelouhab, A., Dias, D., Freitag N. (2011). Numerical analysis of the behaviour of
mechanically stabilized earth walls reinforced with different types of strips, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes 29 116-129
2. Allen, T. M. and Bathurst, R. J. (2003). Prediction of Reinforcement loads in
Reinforced Soil Walls, Final Research Report, Washington State Department of
Transportation and in cooperation with US Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration.
3. Allen, T.M., Bathurst, R.J, Holtz, R. D., Walters, D.L. and Lee, W.F. (2003). A new
working stress method for predicting of reinforcement loads in geosynthetic walls.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(5) : 976 – 994
4. Alfaro, M. C. & Pathak, Y. P. (2005). Dilatant stresses at the interface of granular fills
and geogrid strip reinforcements. Geosynthetics International, 12, No. 5, 239–252.
5. Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T., Walters, T. (2002). Reinforcement Loads in Geosynthetic
Walls and the Case for a New Working Stress Design Method , Geosinthetics
International , 9(5-6) : 525-566
6. Bergado, D.T., Youwai, S., Teerawattanasuk, C. & Visudmedanukul, P. (2003). The
interaction mechanism and behavior of hexagonal wire mesh reinforced embankment
with silty sand backfill on soft clay, Computers and Geotechnics 30 517–534
7. Bolton, M.D., (1986). The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique 36 (1), 65–78.
(Bolton se spominje samo kao ime kroz “Boltonova modifikovana jednačina” … pa
skontaj ako ne treba biti u referencama)
8. Brinkgreve, R.B.J. (2002). PLAXIS - Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses:
Users Manual – Version 8, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
9. Carruba, P., Luchetta, F., Montanelli, F. & Moraci, N. (1999). Instrumented Reinforced
Wall : Measurements and FEM Results, Geosynthetics '99, 271 – 291.
10. Wilson-Fahmy, R. F., Koerner, R. M., & Sansone, L. J. (1994). Experimental behavior
of polymeric geogrids in pullout. Journal of geotechnical engineering,120(4), 661-677.
11. Farrag, K., Acar, Y.B., & Juran, I. (1993). Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 12 (2), 133–160.
12. Hsieh, C.W., Chen, G.H. & Wu, J-H. (2011). The shear behavoir obtained from direct
shear test and pullout test for different poor graded soil-geosinthetic system, Journal of
GeoEngineering, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 15-26
13. Griffiths, D.V. & Lane, P.A. (1999). Slope stability analysis by finite elements,
Geotechnique 49 (3): 387-403.
14. Guler, E., Hamderi, M. & Demirkan, M. M. (2007). Numerical analysis of reinforced
soil-retaining wall structures with cohesive and granular backfills. Geosynthetics
International, 14, No. 6, 330–345.
15. Hayashi, S., Alfaro, M.C., & Watanbe, K., (1996). Dilatancy effects of granular soil on
the pullout resistance of strip reinforcement. Proceedings of the International
Symposium: Earth Reinforcement, Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan, pp. 39–44.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2891

16. Holtz, R.D. (1977). Laboratory Studies of Reinforced Earth Using a Woven Polyester
Fabric, “Proceedings of International Conference on the use of fabric in Geotechnics,
Paris, Vol. III, pp. 149-154.
17. Hu, L. & Pu, J. (2004). Testing and Modeling of Soil-Structure Interface, Journal Of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering © ASCE /860
18. Jewell RA, Miligan GWE, Sarsby RW, Dubois D. Interaction between soil and geogrids.
In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Polymer Grid Reinforcement in Civil
Engineering. London (UK): Thomas Telford; 1984. p. 19–29.
19. Leshchinsky, D. & Vulova, C. (2001). Numerical investigation of the effects of
geosynthetic spacing on failure mechanisms in mechanically stabilized earth block
walls. Geosynthetics International, 8, No. 4, 343–365.
20. Marques J.M.M.C. (2005). Finite element modelling of the pull-out test of
geosynthetics. VIII International Conference on Computational Plasticity, Barcelona.
21. Milligan, G.W.E. & Tei, K. (1998). The pull out Resistance of Model Soil Nails. Soils
and Foundations. Vol 38, No. 2, 179 – 180. Japanese Geotechnical Society.
22. Minazek K. (2010). Modelsko Ispitivanje interakcije geomreže i tla, Phd thesis,
University of Zagreb, Faculty of civil Engineering, Zagreb, Croatia.
23. Mulabdić, M., Minažek, K., & Mračkovski, D. (2005, September). Influence of
Reinforcing Grids od Soil Properties. In XVI International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotehnical Engineering.
24. Palmeira, E. M. (2004). Bearing force mobilisation in pull-out tests on
geogrids.Geotextiles and geomembranes, 22(6), 481-509.
25. Palmeira, E. M. (2009). Soil–geosynthetic interaction: Modelling and analysis,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 368–390
26. Perkins S.W., & Edens, M.Q. (2003). Finite element modeling of a geosynthetic pullout
test, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 21: 357–375
27. Teixeira S. H. C., Bueno B. S. & Zornberg, J. G. (2007). Pullout Resistance of
Individual Longitudinal and Transverse Geogrid Ribs Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 133, No.1
28. Yogarajah, I. & Yeo, K.C. (1994). Finite Element modeling of Pull-Out tests with the
Load and Strain Measurements, Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13 43-54
29. Rowe, R. and Ho, S. (1997). ”Continuous Panel Reinforced Soil Walls on Rigid
Foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,123(10), 912–920.
30. Simoni, A. & Houlsby G.T (2006). The direct shear strength and dilatancy of sand –
gravel mixtures, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 24 : 523 - 549
31. Skejic, A. (2012). Interface Formulation Problem in Geotechnical Finite Element
Software, The Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 17, Bund. N.
2035–2041, ISSN: 10893032
32. Skejic A., Balic A, Jasarevic H., Namas T., Selman S., Karamehmedovic E., Karic E.,
Buco J. (2013). Observation and numerical modeling of MSE test wall constructed near
Motorway 5C section Drivusa-Gorica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Geosynthetics 2013,
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. N 2892

Long Beach, California.Sugimoto, M., A. M. N. Alagiyawanna, and K. Kadoguchi.

(2001). "Influence of rigid and flexible face on geogrid pullout tests." Geotextiles and
geomembranes 19.5: 257-277.
33. Sugimoto, M., Alagiyawanna, A. M. N., & Kadoguchi, K. (2001). Influence of rigid and
flexible face on geogrid pullout tests. Geotextiles and geomembranes,19(5), 257-277.
34. Suksiripattanapong C., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Horpibulsuk, S., Rujikiatkamjorn, C. &
Tanhsutthinon T. (2012). Numerical analysis of bearing reinforcement earth (BRE) wall,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 32 28-37
35. Yang, G., Zhang B., Ly & P. Zhou, Q. (2009). Behaviour of geogrid reinforced soil
retaining wall with concrete-rigid facing, Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27, 350-356.
36. Yogarajah, I., & Yeo, K. C. (1994). Finite element modelling of pull-out tests with load
and strain measurements. Geotextiles and geomembranes, 13(1), 43-54.
37. Zhou, J., Chen, J.-F., Xue, J.-F. & Wang J.-Q. (2012). Micro-mechanism of the
interaction between sand and geogrid transverse ribs, Geosynthetics International, 19,
No. 6

© 2013 ejge