International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00222-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Deformation and Stability Analyses of Hybrid Earth Retaining

Structures
V. Sundaravel1   · G. R. Dodagoudar1

Received: 17 March 2020 / Accepted: 5 August 2020

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract
Hybrid earth retaining structure (HERS) is an efficient solution for earth retention problems that face spatial constraints.
Deformation and stability analyses of the HERS have not been studied rigorously. The present study focuses on the devel-
opment of predictive equations for the estimation of maximum lateral facing displacement and global factor of safety of
the mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) over the soil nail (SN) hybrid retaining (MSE/SN) wall, a category of the HERS.
Multiple linear regression is performed using the method of least squares to develop the predictive equations. The regres-
sion models for the MSE/SN wall are proposed using the data generated from the finite element model of the MSE wall of
heights 6, 8 and 10 m. The adequacy of the predictive equations is verified by evaluating the summary of fit statistics. The
failure surface of the MSE/SN wall consists of two parts: (i) a linear surface which propagates internally through the bottom
nail of the SN wall starting at the toe of the MSE/SN wall and propagates externally through the remaining height of the SN
wall, and (ii) continuation of the linear surface externally behind the reinforcement through the MSE wall. It is concluded
that the predominant deformation modes are base sliding, rotation about the base and local bulging of the MSE wall. The
failure surface always passes through the soil nails and therefore, it is recommended that the ultimate pullout capacity of the
nails should be assessed during the design of the MSE/SN walls.

Keywords  MSE/SN wall · Finite element model · Facing displacement · Factor of safety · Failure mechanism · Predictive
equations

Introduction stability of the slopes. The behaviour of the MSE/SN wall,

For several decades, full height mechanically stabilized earth
(MSE) [1–4] and/or soil nail (SN) walls [5–7] have been
successfully used in the transportation infrastructure. How-
ever, the MSE and SN walls are typically fill and cut types
earth retaining structures, respectively. The MSE wall over
the SN wall constitutes a hybrid earth retaining (MSE/SN)
wall, usually categorised under the broad class of hybrid
earth retaining structure (HERS). Nowadays, HERS have
become inevitable in the transportation sector, where both
the cut and fill situations are encountered concurrently and
are very common in the mountainous regions. The use of
MSE/SN wall results in the substantial reduction in earth
volume apart from maintaining and improving the inherent
* V. Sundaravel
sundaravel90@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
being a composite structure of two different passive reinforc-
ing techniques, is complicated due to the complex behaviour
of the individual component materials, their interactions,
geometry and method of construction. The MSE/SN wall is a
highly feasible concept in engineering practice and has been
implemented successfully [8, 9]. The performance of these
walls is generally assessed by evaluating the serviceability
criterion in terms of maximum lateral facing displacement
(y) and stability criterion in terms of the global factor of
safety (FS).
The traditional limit equilibrium (LE) approaches do
not provide information on the y and, therefore, are not
used as standalone techniques for the design of MSE/SN
walls [10, 11]. This necessitates the use of continuum-
based numerical methods to analyse and design the MSE/
SN walls. Numerical methods have the added capabil-
ity to estimate the FS, failure mechanism, deformation
modes and y. The numerical analyses have become feasible
options to simulate the actual behaviour of the retaining

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 37   Page 2 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
walls compared to the other design methods, provided
the proper boundary conditions, interfaces and consti-
tutive models are employed [12–15]. The finite element
(FE) analyses have been used successfully in the numeri-
cal modelling of MSE/SN walls [10, 16–18]. Abbas et al.
[16] compared the efficiency of the FE analyses with the
LE and empirical methods with regard to the modelling
of MSE/SN walls.
The traditional design approach of the MSE/SN wall con-
siders the MSE wall as an equivalent surcharge load, arising
as a combination of the vertical surcharge and shear forces
from the lateral earth pressure acting on the MSE wall [19].
However, the actual behaviour of the MSE/SN wall requires
proper modelling of all the component materials as a single
composite system and evaluating the effect of one retaining
structure over the other. Other studies have resorted to simi-
lar approaches despite the availability of advanced FE tools.
Wei [20] used FE simulations to develop the equivalent sur-
charge loads to represent the MSE walls in the form of load
coefficients for the design of soil nailed segment of the MSE/
SN walls. This approach can be considered as an equivalent
technique wherein the effect of MSE wall is decoupled in the
analyses of MSE/SN wall. A better and accurate approach
would be to perform the analysis considering all the com-
ponents of the MSE/SN walls simultaneously using the
advanced FE tools and computational facilities.
The deformation and stability guidelines are available for
the MSE and SN walls separately, based on the empirical,
semi-empirical and analytical methods [19, 21]. A review of
the existing deformation guidelines of the MSE walls devel-
oped from the empirical and analytical studies was given by
Scotland et al. [22]. However, the proper design guidelines
to predict the y and FS of the MSE/SN walls are not readily
available. It is highly desirable to use the numerical tech-
niques in conjunction with statistical methods to study the
deformation behaviour and stability of the earth retaining
structures [23–29]. The use of such approaches will help to
formulate the necessary design guidelines for the MSE/SN
walls, which are not yet explored in the literature.
Despite the significant reduction in cost, improved flex-
ibility [30] and other engineering advantages, the studies and
use of MSE/SN walls are not widespread barring a few case
and FE studies. This underutilisation of the MSE/SN walls is
attributed to the lack of well-established design procedures.
The objective of this study is to develop predictive equations
for the estimation of y and FS of the MSE/SN wall using
the FE analyses in conjunction with the statistical methods.
The results of such studies will, henceforth, help to formu-
late the design guidelines for the MSE/SN walls. Multiple
linear regression (MLR) is used to develop the predictive
equations using the data generated by the FE analyses with
the programme, PLAXIS. The FE analysis models the MSE/
SN wall as a composite system, thereby incorporating the
13
(2020) 6:37
composite effects efficiently. The responses so obtained from
the FE analyses are used in the regression models.
The full-scale experimental results of the MSE and SN
walls are used for the validation of PLAXIS. Further, the FE
model of the MSE/SN wall is validated by comparing the
results of PLAXIS with the measured wall deformations of
the well-instrumented field studies. A typical MSE/SN wall
modelled using PLAXIS is used to carry out a screening
experiment to identify the input parameters to which the y
and FS are the most sensitive. The parameters considered in
the screening experiment are the geometry, soil, reinforce-
ment and structural properties. The parametric sensitivity
analyses are conducted on the MSE/SN wall considering
only those parameters which affect the overall behaviour of
the composite system the most. The vertical MSE/SN walls
without offsets are only studied, considering their applica-
tion in mountainous regions with probable space constraints.
The shear strength reduction method (SRM) is used to evalu-
ate the FS of the walls. Finally, the predictive equations are
proposed for the estimation of y and FS of the MSE/SN walls
considering different heights (i.e. 6, 8 and 10 m) of the MSE
wall. Suitable adequacy checks are performed to evaluate the
quality of the developed predictive equations.
Constitutive Model and Details of FE
Modelling
Although the MSE/SN wall is a three-dimensional (3D)
structure, it is generally modelled and analysed as a two-
dimensional (2D) problem using the equivalent parameters.
In the present study, the 2D FE programme PLAXIS is used
for modelling and analysing the behaviour of MSE/SN wall.
PLAXIS has been successfully used by many researchers for
modelling the behaviour of MSE [31–35], SN [15, 36–39]
and MSE/SN walls [10, 16–18]. PLAXIS is a FE program
developed exclusively for the analyses of deformation and
stability problems of geotechnical engineering [40].
The hardening soil (HS) model, an extension of Dun-
can and Chang [41] hyperbolic model is used for model-
ling the stress–strain behaviour of the soil and is capable
of simulating both shear and compression hardening of the
soils. Schanz et al. [42] provided information about the for-
mulation, various model parameters and verification of the
HS model. The hyperbolic stress–strain model is a balance
between the prediction accuracy and parameters availability
from the triaxial tests [39, 43, 44]. The failure in the HS
model is defined by means of Mohr–Coulomb (MC) failure
criterion. The plane strain strength properties are chosen for
the soil since they are more representative of the realistic
conditions within the retaining wall. A small value of cohe-
sion is recommended when modelling the granular materi-
als to avoid the numerical instability caused by premature
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
yielding of soil zones subjected to low confining stresses
[13, 14, 34, 45, 46]. The reinforcements in the MSE wall
are idealised using isotropic elastic geogrid elements. The
geogrids are rectangular in shape and are modelled as a sheet
in the out-of-plane direction that handles only the tensile
stresses. The geogrid elements are characterised by axial
stiffness values and maximum tensile forces along the in-
plane and out-of-plane directions. It has been shown that the
choice of constant geogrid tangent stiffness or strain-depend-
ent stiffness has negligible influence on the magnitude of
facing displacements [47]. The soil nails are modelled as
geogrid elements, thereby neglecting the bending stiffness
of nails [39]. The modelling of compaction of backfill lay-
ers in MSE walls plays a vital role in the reduction of post
construction deformations [13, 14, 45, 46, 48, 49]. The
reinforced soil zone in the vicinity of the facing (≈ 1 m) is
assumed to have half of the stiffness of the fully compacted
reinforced soil. This simulates the difference in the com-
paction energy imparted to the backfill due to the use of
light weight tamper close to the facing and that of the roller
in the remaining reinforced zone [32]. The length of each
soil–reinforcement interface is extended by 0.25 m to avoid
stress concentrations at the free end of the reinforcement
layer [40, 50, 51]. When the tensile stresses at the contact
between the structural components and soil exceed the ten-
sile strength of the interface, a gap is formed at the contact.
This gap may result in erratic contact stresses when the load
is reversed. This unrealistic development of contact stresses
at the interfaces is avoided by ensuring that the respective
contacts are restored and modelled accordingly.
A fixed boundary condition is employed at the bottom
of the FE domain. The right lateral boundary is modelled
as vertical rollers. A robust triangulation process is used
to generate a 15-node unstructured mesh for the soil layers
and other volume clusters. The mesh convergence study is
conducted to determine the optimal mesh size considering
the computational time and accuracy and finally, the fine
mesh is chosen. The mesh should be refined in the vicin-
ity of the regions of interest where the stress concentra-
tions are expected. Mesh boundaries are placed far enough
to minimise the boundary effects on the results of the FE
simulation. The membrane effects are taken into account
by performing large deformation analysis according to the
updated Lagrange formulation. This also takes care of the
geometric nonlinearities. The front end of the geogrid and
nail is rigidly connected to the facing elements [13, 14, 46].
The PLAXIS has an automatic load stepping procedure
for the solution of nonlinear plasticity problems. After the
mesh generation, the calculation phase is carried out in dif-
ferent stages. The initial phase consists of the generation of
initial stresses using Ko procedure for the horizontal ground
and gravity loading for the sloping ground. The second
phase is the plastic calculation phase performed to carry
(2020) 6:37 Page 3 of 25  37
out the elasto-plastic deformation analysis. In the present
study, the plastic analysis is carried out assuming drained
conditions to simulate the long-term behaviour of the wall.
The plastic analysis is followed by the safety analysis
using the SRM [52–55] to evaluate the critical failure sur-
face and the FS without any prior assumptions unlike in the
conventional LE methods. In the SRM, the shear strength
parameters (ϕ and c) are successively reduced using an
incremental multiplier Msf until failure of the structusssre
occurs. The failure is confirmed by the presence of a fully
developed failure surface at the end of the final step. The FS
is expressed as
Available strength
∑
FS = = Value of Msf at failure. (1)
Strength at failure
It is noted that the LE methods calculate a higher FS as
compared to the FE method [15]. The FS evaluated using
FE analysis is more reliable than the FS computed using the
LE methods which assume prescribed slip planes and do not
consider the deformations [52, 56].
Validation of FE Model
The accuracy of PLAXIS in analysing the behaviour of
MSE/SN walls is assessed by comparing the results of
PLAXIS with the results of the experimental studies con-
ducted on the MSE (Case 1) and SN walls (Case 2) and a
well-instrumented field study performed on the MSE/SN
wall (Case 3). Details of the validation studies and compari-
son of the results are presented in this section.
Case 1: MSE Wall
The three full-scale test results (Wall 1, Wall 2 and Wall
3) of Hatami and Bathurst [13] obtained for the reinforced
soil segmental walls constructed at the Royal Military Col-
lege (RMC) of Canada are used in the validation study.
Figure 1 shows the geometry of the MSE wall. The height
of all the RMC walls was 3.6 m and the facing inclination
was 8°. The walls were constructed using biaxial polypro-
pylene geogrid with a length of 2.52 m. In case of Wall
2, the reinforcement stiffness and strength of the geogrid
were reduced by 50% by the removal of every other lon-
gitudinal member in each layer of Wall 1 [13]. Wall 3 was
also identical to wall 1, except that only four reinforcement
layers were used in the wall, at a vertical spacing of 0.9 m
[13]. The finite element models of the MSE walls are
shown in Fig. 2. In the present study, the modular blocks
(300 mm wide × 150 mm high) are modelled as linear elas-
tic. The discrete nature of the blocks is accounted for by
reducing the Young’s modulus to 1/10 of that used for the
13
 37   Page 4 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
Fig. 1  a Geometry of MSE wall
(Walls 1 and 2), b geometry of
MSE wall (Wall 3) [13]
solid concrete modular blocks [57, 58]. The elastic proper-
ties of the block are taken from Hatami and Bathurst [59,
60] except for the reduced Young’s modulus. The horizon-
tal block–block interfaces and vertical soil–block inter-
faces are modelled using the same parameters as given by
Hatami and Bathurst [13] using the continuum elements
except for the reduced Young’s modulus of the block [57,
58]. The interface between the soil and reinforcement is
modelled using zero thickness elements considering a
13
(2020) 6:37
strength reduction factor (Ri), which is the ratio of the
interface shear strength to the shear strength of the sur-
rounding soil. The behaviour of the interfaces is modelled
using the MC model. The soil–geogrid interface is con-
sidered as rigid (i.e. no reduction in the interface strength,
Ri = 1.0), which is a reasonable assumption under working
stress conditions [13, 14, 34, 43, 46, 61]. The front of the
geogrid is connected rigidly to the facing blocks to avoid
the slippage of the reinforcement [13, 14, 46].
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
Fig. 2  Details of the FE model
of MSE. a Walls 1 and 2, b
Wall 3
The boundary condition at the base of the block is con-
sidered as horizontal roller. All other boundary conditions
are described in the above section. A horizontal fixed end
anchor with an axial stiffness of 4000 kN/m is applied
at the toe of the block to mimic the horizontal load ring
[13, 14]. The sequential bottom-up construction of the
wall is simulated in the FE analysis by means of staged
construction. The backfill soil and the modular blocks are
placed in lifts until the full height is reached and each
lift corresponds to the thickness of the block (150 mm).
The geogrids are activated as the corresponding elevations
(2020) 6:37 Page 5 of 25  37
are reached. The compaction of the backfill soil layers is
simulated by means of a vertical stress of 8 kPa at the top
of each new lift and then removed before the simulation
of the next lift [13, 14]. The FE analysis is performed to
achieve the equilibrium after the construction of each lift.
The parameters of the HS model are evaluated using the
stress–strain plots of the triaxial test data [13]. After cal-
culation of E50 at 80 kPa as a reference pressure, the other
ref
stiffness parameters are calculated as Eoed ≈ E50 and Eur
ref ref ref
≈ 3 E50  . The axial stiffness of the reinforcement is given
ref
by Hatami and Bathurst [13] as
13
 37   Page 6 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37

Table 1  Material type and soil properties used for MSE, SN and MSE/SN walls
Parameter MSE wall [13] SN wall [62, 63] Hybrid wall
[9, 10]
Backfill Block Loose fill In-situ ground No-fines concrete MSE SN

Material type HS Linear elastic HS Linear elastic Linear elastic HS HS

Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 16.8 21.8* 14.1 18* 22* 19.6 19.6
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) – 2 × 103 – 35 1 × 104 – –
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.25* 0.15 0.05 0.25 0.2 0.35 0.35
Cohesion, c (kPa) 1 – 1 – – 1 25
Friction angle, ϕ (°) 44 – 32 – – 34 35
Dilation angle, ψ (°) 11 – 5 – – 4 5
Secant stiffness, E50 (MPa)
ref 56.667 – 15 – – 28.6 58
Tangent stiffness, Eoed (MPa)
ref 56.667 – 15 – – 28.6 58
Unloading–reloading stiffness, Eur (MPa)
ref 170 – 45 – – 72.1 150
Power for stress level dependency of stiffness, m 0.5* – 0.5* – – 0.5 0.5
Failure ratio, Rf 0.86 – 0.9* – – 0.9 0.9
Strength reduction factor for interfaces, Ri – – – – – 0.8 0.66

*Values adopted in the present study. All the other parameters are from the references cited in the text

Table 2  Properties of the interfaces used for MSE and SN walls T

J= = 119 − 1469𝜀. (2)
Property Value 𝜀

Block–block interface The axial stiffness values of the geogrid for Walls 1, 2
Friction angle, ϕ (°) 57 and 3 are calculated as 97, 48.5 and 97 kN/m, respectively,
Cohesion, c (kPa) 46 considering the maximum strain (ε) of 1.5% observed dur-
Soil–block interface 1 ing the experiment [13]. The properties of the soil, inter-
Cohesion, c (kPa) 1 faces and structural components are given in Tables 1, 2
Friction angle, ϕ (°) 44 and 3 respectively. The comparison of the FE and experi-
Dilation angle, ψ (°) 11 mental results for the horizontal facing displacement, ver-
Soil–nail interface tical earth pressure and connection loads for all the three
Young’s modulus, E (MPa) 10 walls are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In the prototype labora-
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.2 tory experiment, a pair of potentiometers was mounted
Cohesion, c (kPa) 10.6 after the placement of each facing block and the displace-
Friction angle, ϕ (°) 35.8 ments were recorded till the end of construction. Hence,
some amount of displacement was unrecorded which may
be the reason for the discrepancy between the FE and
experimental results. It is also observed that there is a
difference in the vertical stress between the measured and
FE results within the 1 m from the facing in the backfill.

Table 3  Material type and structural properties used for MSE, SN and MSE/SN walls
Parameter Panel Shotcrete Levelling pad MSE/SN wall (Case 3) MSE/SN wall (Baseline case)
Reinforcement Nail Reinforcement Nail

Material type Plate Plate Plate Geogrid Geogrid Geogrid Geogrid

Axial stiffness, EA (kN/m) 6 × 106 4.2 × 106 4.8 × 106 15 × 103 148 × 103 2000 173.4 × 103
Bending stiffness, EI ­(kNm2/m) 45,000 14,000 9000 – – – –
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.15 0.15 0.15 – – – –
Weight, w (kN/m/m) 4.65 4.5 3.75 – – – –

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37 Page 7 of 25  37

Fig. 3  Horizontal facing
displacements from FE analysis
and full-scale test results of 4
Hatami and Bathurst [13] for a (a) (c)
Wall 1, b Wall 2, c Wall 3. Con- (b)
nection loads from FE analysis
and full-scale test results of
Hatami and Bathurst [13] for d 3
Wall 1, e Wall 2, f Wall 3

Elevation (m)
2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Relative facing displacement (mm)

4
(d) (e) (f)

3
Elevation (m)

0
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2

Connection load (kN/m)

This is attributed to the soil arching mechanism between
the back of the facing and rigid foundation base used in
the experiment. The FE model is capable of predicting the
local reduction in the vertical earth pressure immediately
behind the facing that has occurred due to the down-drag
forces. The difference in the results of connection loads
is observed only in the bottom reinforcement layers of all
the three walls. The reason for this deviation is attributed
to the local over compaction directly behind the facing
blocks at the bottom of the walls. Similar numerical obser-
vations have also been reported by Hatami and Bathurst
[13]. The developed FE model is capable of capturing the
measured performance features well as depicted in Figs. 3
and 4. A satisfactory agreement is also achieved for the
reinforcement strains and toe reactions; however, they are
not reported here for brevity.

13
 37   Page 8 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
Fig. 4  Distribution of foundation pressures from FE analysis and full-
scale test results of Hatami and Bathurst [13] for a Wall 1, b Wall 2,
c Wall 3
Case 2: SN Wall
The full-scale test results were reported by Li [62] for the
SN wall constructed at the Kadoorie Agricultural Research
Centre, Hong Kong. The geometry of the SN wall is shown
in Fig. 5a. The height and angle of the slope were 4.75 m
and 33°, respectively, with a total width of 9 m. The crest
width of the slope was 4 m. Ten numbers of grouted nails
divided into two rows were installed with an inclination
of 20° to the horizontal. The vertical spacing between the
boreholes was 1.5 m. The diameter of the boreholes and
the nails was 100 and 25 mm, respectively. The upper and
lower boreholes were 8 and 6 m long, respectively. The
natural ground was isolated from the loose fill by no-fines
concrete, asphalt and blinding layers. These layers and
natural soil are modelled as linear elastic, due to the small
13
(2020) 6:37
deformations reported by Li [62]. The FE model of the SN
wall is shown in Fig. 5b.
For the grouted nails, the equivalent modulus of elasticity
(Eeq) is determined accounting for the contribution of elastic
stiffness of both the grout cover as well as the reinforce-
ment bar taking into account the horizontal spacing of the
nails. The detailed formulation for deriving the Eeq for the
soil nails is given by Singh and Babu [38]. The interfaces
between the no-fines concrete layer and surrounding soil are
assumed as continuous with no slippage. A perfect interface
adherence is assumed between the nails and the soil. The
nail–fill interface properties are chosen as per Zhou et al.
[63] and are given in Table 2. The properties of the soil and
structural elements are given in Tables 1 and 3 respectively.
The comparison of the results shows that the predicted and
measured horizontal displacements are in good agreement
thereby indicating a good predictive capability of the FE
model (Fig. 6c).
Case 3: MSE/SN Wall
The results of the instrumented MSE/SN wall constructed
for an overpass over the Ingram road in San Antonio, Texas
are used in the study [9]. Figure 6a shows the geometry of
the MSE/SN wall. The height of the SN and MSE walls were
4 and 5.4 m, respectively. The MSE wall was constructed
using geogrid reinforcement of length 6.7 m anchored to
precast panels of 2.3 m width. The vertical spacing of the
soil nails was 1 m. The length of the first row of nail was
8.5 m and the remaining rows were 7.9 m. All the nails were
inclined at an angle of 15° to the horizontal. Figure 6b shows
the FE model of the MSE/SN wall. The facing of both the
MSE and SN walls are modelled using plate elements which
include both the axial and flexural stiffness. The plate ele-
ments are also characterised by equivalent thickness and
specific weight based on unit width. The interfaces are mod-
elled using zero thickness elements. The strength reduction
factors, Ri values are evaluated as 0.8, 0.66 and 1 for the
panel–soil, shotcrete–soil and reinforcement–soil interfaces,
respectively [10]. The properties of the soil and structural
elements are given in Tables 1 and 3, respectively. Figure 6d
depicts a reasonable match between the computed and meas-
ured lateral displacement of the MSE/SN wall.
Finite Element Analysis of MSE/SN Wall
Model Description
A numerical example of the MSE/SN wall is used as the
baseline case in the study and analysed using the finite ele-
ment method (FEM). The finite element mesh along with
the geometry of the baseline wall is shown in Fig. 7. The
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37 Page 9 of 25  37
Fig. 5  a Geometry of SN wall
[62], b details of the FE model
height of the SN (h) and MSE (H) wall portions is 4 and 6 m,
respectively. The reinforcement length (L) to H ratio and the
nail length (l) to h ratio are used as 0.7 and 0.6, respectively.
The vertical spacing between the geogrids (Sm) in the MSE
wall is 0.4 m and that between the nails (Sn) in the SN wall is
1.2 m. The inclination (i) of the nails is 15° to the horizontal.
A minimum embedment depth of 0.6 m is provided to the
top of the levelling pad. The levelling pad is modelled using
plate elements. The properties of the reinforced and retained
soils of the MSE wall and the soil stabilised with soil nails
(i.e. foundation soil) are given in Table 4. The precast pan-
els are 0.3 m thick and the final shotcrete is 0.2 m thick.
Usually the panel of the MSE wall is extended down to the
SN wall. In general, the panel–soil interface friction angle
is considered as two-third of the angle of internal friction
of the soil, i.e. δ = (2/3) ϕ [40, 50, 64, 65]. Hence, the Ri is
chosen as 0.7 for the facing–soil interface of both the rein-
forced and foundation soils. The numerical values used for
all the parameters of the baseline case are given in Table 4.
The maximum lateral facing displacement and global factor
of safety of the MSE/SN wall are the two responses evalu-
ated in the study.
Sensitivity Analysis
A local sensitivity analysis, also called as screening experi-
ment, is performed on the MSE/SN walls to identify the key
input parameters having a significant influence on the y and
FS. This study is carried out essentially to reduce the num-
ber of parameters required in the development of regression
models without compromising the prediction accuracy. The
sensitivity analysis is carried out using one factor at a time
13
 37   Page 10 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37

Fig. 6  a Geometry of MSE/SN wall [9], b details of the FE model of MSE/SN wall, c horizontal facing displacement from FE analysis and full-
scale test results of Li [62], d horizontal facing displacement from FE analysis and full-scale test results of Wood et al. [9]

(OFAT) approach [66]. In this method, one factor is varied
at a time, keeping all the other parameters at their respec-
tive reference values. The input parameters are varied from
the reference value to the maximum and minimum values
as given in Table 4. Hence, the input parameters have three
levels of parametric values in the OFAT method.
The parameters included in the sensitivity analyses are
the geometric parameters of the wall and the material param-
eters of the soil and structural components. The geometri-
cal parameters include the h, L/H ratio, l/h ratio, Sm, Sn, i
and facing thickness (t). The soil properties include the unit
weight (γm), friction angle (ϕm) and Young’s modulus (Em)
of the reinforced soil; unit weight (γt), friction angle (ϕt) and
Young’s modulus (Et) of the retained soil and unit weight
(γn), friction angle (ϕn), cohesion (cn) and Young’s modulus
(En) of the foundation soil. The reinforcement properties
include the axial stiffness values of the reinforcement (J) and
soil nail (EA). Apart from these parameters, the surcharge
(q) on the MSE/SN wall and Ri are also considered as vari-
ables. The properties referred to the baseline case are the
reference values.
The lateral displacement of the facing increases drasti-
cally and the FS decreases as the height of the wall increases.
However in the present study, the height of the MSE wall is

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37 Page 11 of 25  37

Fig. 7  Finite element mesh,

model geometry and boundary
conditions of MSE/SN wall

Table 4  Range of parameter Parameter Minimum Baseline case Maximum

values for sensitivity analysis
Height of MSE wall, H (m) 4 6 12
Height of SN wall, h (m) 2 4 8
Reinforcement length/MSE wall height, L/H 0.3 0.7 1.1
Nail length/SN wall height, l/h 0.3 0.6 1.5
Vertical spacing of reinforcements, Sm (m) 0.1 0.4 0.8
Vertical spacing of nails, Sn (m) 0.9 1.2 1.5
Nail inclination, i (°) 5 15 20
Thickness of panel + shotcrete, t (m) 0.125 + 0.1 0.3 + 0.2 0.45 + 0.4
Reinforcement axial stiffness, J (kN/m) 50, 250, 400 2000 5000
Nail axial stiffness, EA, (kN/m) 133.5 × 103 173.4 × 103 455.5 × 103
Strength reduction factor, Ri 0.5 0.7 1
Friction angle, ϕm (°) 29 36 47
Unit weight, γm (kN/m3) 15 17 20
Young’s modulus, Em (MPa) 10 100 150
Friction angle, ϕn (°) 25 36 39
Unit weight, γn (kN/m3) 13 17 20
Young’s modulus, En (MPa) 10 100 150
Cohesion, cn (kPa) 5 30 50
Friction angle, ϕt (°) 30 36 47
Unit weight, γt (kN/m3) 15 17 20
Young’s modulus, Et (MPa) 10 100 150
Surcharge, q (kPa) 0 0 20

not included in the regression models as a variable. Instead, carried out for three heights of the MSE wall (i.e. 6, 8 and
the regression models are proposed for three typical heights 10 m). The results of the sensitivity analyses are depicted in
of the MSE wall. Consequently, the sensitivity analyses are the form of tornado charts and are shown in Figs. 8, 9 and

13
 37   Page 12 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
Fig. 8  Influence of input parameters on the a maximum horizontal facing displacement and b factor of safety for the MSE wall of height 6 m
10. The charts show the variation of percentage change in
the y and/or FS for the given range of the respective input
parameters. It is observed from the tornado charts that the
most influencing parameters affecting the y are: En, J, Em,
cn, q, ϕn, Sm, l/h and ϕm for all the heights of the MSE wall
considered. In addition, L/H ratio and γm also affect the y
for the MSE wall of height 10 m. The order of influential
parameters affecting the FS is as follows: cn, l/h, L/H, and ϕn,
irrespective of the heights of the MSE walls. The effect of
height of the MSE wall on the y and FS is shown in Fig. 11.
Predictive Equations for Lateral
Displacement and Factor of Safety
The sample size of the parameters which affect the
responses most as identified in the sensitivity analyses has
to be increased to incorporate the probable curvature in the
response of the system over the domain of variables and also
to increase the accuracy of the regression models. Then, the
response data for y and FS are generated using those influ-
ential parameters within the range of extremes of the param-
eters selecting increased number of levels from the data as
13
(2020) 6:37
given in Table 4. These response data are used in the MLR
analyses to develop the regression models for y (y model)
and FS (FS model). A few useful conclusions regarding the
y and FS can be made by observing the data thus generated,
which are given in the subsequent sections. The develop-
ment of the predictive equations is described later which
quantify the effects of variations of influential parameters
on the y and FS.
Maximum Lateral Facing Displacement
The deformed mesh of the MSE/SN wall for different MSE
wall heights is shown in Fig. 12a–e. The different deforma-
tion modes of the MSE/SN walls obtained during the FE
analyses are rotation of the wall about the base, base sliding,
and bulging of MSE zone and are shown in Fig. 12f. The
incremental displacement contour representing the prob-
able failure mechanism of the MSE/SN wall for different
MSE wall heights is shown in Fig. 13. The governing failure
mechanism associated with the MSE/SN walls is a two-part
failure plane as shown in Fig. 13, unlike the failure of the
individual MSE [21] and SN walls [19]. The two-part failure
plane is a combination of the internal and external failures in
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
Fig. 9  Influence of input parameters on the a maximum horizontal facing displacement and b factor of safety for the MSE wall of height 8 m
the SN section (Zone I) and external failure passing behind
the reinforcements in the MSE section (Zone II). Zone I
consists of a linear portion passing internally through the
bottom nail followed by an inclined linear plane behind the
nails. Zone II is an extension of the linear portion of Zone I.
Similar failure mechanisms were also observed in the previ-
ous studies [10, 11, 17].
Figure  14a and b show the variation of y and FS for
the various L/H and l/h ratios of the MSE wall of differ-
ent heights considered in the analyses. The increase in L/H
ratio decreases the y of the MSE/SN walls. It is noted that by
increasing the L/H ratio beyond 1.1, there is no substantial
decrease in the value of y. Due to Zone II failure mechanism,
the influence of L/H ratio on the y of the MSE/SN wall is
negligible. However, for the MSE wall of height 10 m, Zone
II shifts from the external failure mode to the internal fail-
ure mode by passing through the reinforced soil zone, thus
making the L/H ratio as the influential parameter. However,
the inclination of the failure plane in Zone II is a function
of L/H.
The increase in l/h ratio decreases the y of the MSE/SN
walls. However, it does not affect the failure plane of Zone
(2020) 6:37 Page 13 of 25  37
I. But the inclination of the failure plane in Zone II is a func-
tion of l/h. It is to be noted that the pullout capacity of the
nails plays an important role in the internal stability of the
MSE/SN wall since the soil nail zone acts predominantly
as an anchorage mechanism across Zone I. It is observed
though that there is no substantial effect of increase of l/h
ratio beyond 1.2 on the y.
Figure 14c and d show the influence of S m and J on
the y for different heights of the MSE wall considered.
It is observed that Zone II failure plane becomes inter-
nal for larger spacing as well as for lower reinforcement
stiffness and consequently resulting in the increase of the
y. For decreased spacing and higher reinforcement stiff-
ness, the y decreases due to the increase in stiffness of
the reinforced soil. It is observed that the bulging mode
fades away only for the MSE wall of height 6 m when
the reinforcement spacing is more than 0.5 m. Figure 15
shows the influence of variation of reinforced soil prop-
erties and q on the y for different heights of the MSE
wall. The increase in ϕ m decreases the y due to lower
lateral earth pressure exerted on the wall. The increase
in Em decreases the y for all the heights of the MSE wall,
13
 37   Page 14 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
Fig. 10  Influence of input parameters on the a maximum horizontal facing displacement and b factor of safety for the MSE wall of height 10 m
implying that the reinforced soil is still largely elastic as
indicated by the failure plane of Zone II. It is observed
that for very low values of Em, the failure plane of Zone
II transforms into an internal failure mechanism and the
bulging deformation mode fades away for all the heights
of the MSE wall. The increase in γm increases the y of the
MSE/SN wall only for the MSE wall of height 10 m. This
is attributed to the fact that as the height of the MSE wall
increases, the lateral thrust on the wall also increases. In
the cases where the MSE walls of heights 6 and 8 m are
involved, there is no influence of γm on the y. The increase
in q eventually increases the y of the MSE/SN wall. It is
also noted that the bulging of the MSE wall fades away
with the increase in the surcharge.
Figure 16 shows the influence of foundation soil prop-
erties on the y and FS of the MSE/SN walls for the cases
of different heights of the MSE wall. It is noted from the
figure that the increase in En, cn and ϕn results in decrease
of the y of the MSE/SN wall. It is observed that the bulg-
ing deformation mode of the MSE/SN wall fades away for
the lower values of En for all the heights of the MSE wall.
13
(2020) 6:37
Global Factor of Safety
The L/H ratio has a significant influence on the FS of the
MSE/SN wall. The increase in L/H ratio increases the FS
of the MSE/SN wall. This is due to the fact that, as the L/H
ratio increases, the external failure plane of Zone II has to
traverse a longer distance thereby providing the increased
shear resistance. It is observed from Fig. 14a that the L/H
ratio of 0.5 is sufficient to achieve a target FS of 1.35. The
FS of the MSE/SN wall converges to a constant maximum
value for the L/H ratio beyond 1.1 (Fig. 14a).
It is observed from Fig. 14b that the increase in l/h ratio
increases the FS of the MSE/SN wall and there is no opti-
mal value for the l/h ratio, out of the values considered in
the study. This is due to increase of the anchorage length in
Zone I. The target FS of 1.35 is achieved for the MSE/SN
wall for the l/h ratio of 0.45. The failure plane of Zone II
extends further away from the reinforced soil zone as the l/h
ratio increases. It can be inferred from Fig. 16a and b that the
increase in cn and ϕn increases the FS of the MSE/SN wall
and, thus, provides the overall stability to the MSE/SN wall.
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
80
Maximum horizontal facing displacement, y 70
60
50
(mm)
40
30
20
10
0 1
2 4
Height of MSE wall, H (m)
Fig. 11  Influence of MSE wall height on: a maximum horizontal facing displacement and b factor of safety. Note: All wall properties are identi-
cal in the models with constant L/H ratio
Predictive Equations: Regression Analyses
The MLR is a statistical tool that helps derive the relation-
ship between the response variable and one or more regres-
sor variables based on a set of available data on realistic
values of the regressor variables. These explicit relationships
will act as predictive equations as against the implicit solu-
tions of the response variables. The candidate polynomials
used in the MLR analyses are given as:
1. First-order polynomial (FOP) model
Z = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 X1 + 𝛽2 X2 + ⋯ + 𝛽n Xn + 𝜀.
2. Second-order polynomial (SOP) model
Z = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 X1 + 𝛽2 X2 + ⋯ + 𝛽n Xn + 𝛽n+1 X12
+ 𝛽n+2 X22 + ⋯ + 𝛽2n Xn2 + 𝜀.
The partial regression coefficients β’s are the unknown
parameters of the regression and are estimated using the
method of least squares in the present study. The random
error term (ε) represents the uncertainty in the dependent
variable unexplained by the regression model. In this study,
the regression models are developed for the estimation of y
and FS for the three different heights of the MSE wall. The
quality of the developed model is assessed based on the coef-
ficient of multiple determination ( R2 ) , adjusted R2 ( R2adj ) ,
(2020) 6:37 Page 15 of 25  37
2
(a) (b)
1.8
Factor of safety, FS
1.6
1.4
1.2
6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Height of MSE wall, H (m)
predicted R2 (R2pred ) and mean square error (MSE). These are
the measures of the amount of variability in the response that
can be explained by the regression model. The higher the R2
and R2adj and lower the MSE, the superior is the regression
model. The R2pred is a measure of the amount of variability
in predicting new observations that can be explained by the
regression model, within the parameter space considered in
the study. The higher the R2pred , the superior is the predictive
capability of the regression model for the new realisations
of the parameters of the MSE/SN wall.
The difference between the observed value of the
(3) response and the response predicted using regression anal-
ysis is defined as the residual. It is also a measure of the
variability in the response variable not explained by the
regression model. It is necessary to verify that none of the
least squares regression assumptions are violated using the
(4) residual analyses. The residual analyses are graphical analy-
ses by which the adequacy of the fitted model can be judged.
For this purpose, the normality of the residuals is ensured
using the normal probability plot in addition to ensuring the
residuals scatter randomly on the plot of residuals versus the
predicted response without following any specific pattern.
The transformation of the response variable is necessary if
the results of the residual analyses are not satisfactory. The
FOP and SOP models developed for the y do not satisfy
the checks for model adequacy (Figs. 17 and 18). These
13
 37   Page 16 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37

Fig. 12  Deformed mesh for different MSE wall heights: a 4 m, b 8 m, c 10 m, d 12 m, e 6 m and f probable deformation modes of MSE/SN wall

violations of the MLR assumptions are overcome by trans- of height 6 m is shown in Figs. 17 and 18. The final trans-
formation of the response variables. The comparison of the formed predictive equations for the y of the MSE/SN wall
residual analyses graphs of the y model for the MSE wall are given as [Eqs. (5), (6), (7)]

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37 Page 17 of 25  37

Fig. 13  Incremental displacement contours showing the observed failure surface (OFS) for different MSE wall heights: a 6 m, b 4 m, c 8 m, d
10 m, e 12 m

13
 37   Page 18 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37

2 2.5
Maximum horizontal facing displacement/Height 1.4 (a) 1.4 (b)

1.2 1.2 2
1.5
of MSE wall, (y/H) (%)

Factor of safety, FS
1 1
1.5
0.8 0.8
1

0.6 0.6 1

0.4 0.5 0.4

0.5
0.2 0.2

0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
L/H ratio l/h ratio

1 1.2
(c) (d)
Maximum horizontal facing displacement/Height

1
0.8

0.8
of MSE wall, y/H (%)

0.6

0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0 0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 0 2000 4000 6000
Vertical spacing, Sm (m) Reinforcement stiffness, J (kN/m)

Fig. 14  Influence of a L/H ratio, b l/h ratio, c vertical spacing of reinforcement and d reinforcement stiffness on the maximum horizontal facing
displacement and factor of safety

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37 Page 19 of 25  37

Fig. 15  Influence of a Young’s
modulus, b friction angle and c
unit weight of reinforced soil,
and d surcharge on the maxi-

Maximum horizontal facing displacement/Height

mum horizontal facing displace- 1.2 (a) (b)
ment and factor of safety
0.6
1

of MSE wall, y/H (%)

0.8
0.4

0.6

0.4 0.2

0.2

0 0
0 100 200 25 35 45 55
Young's modulus, Em (MPa) Friction angle, φ m (°)

0.8
Maximum horizontal facing displacement/Height

(c) (d)
0.6

0.6
of MSE wall, y/H (%)

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0 0
14 16 18 20 22 0 10 20 30
Unit weight, γm (kN/m3) Surcharge, q (kPa)

1∕y2 = − 0.016 + 0.000034 En + 0.000001 J + 0.00002 Em 1∕y2 = − 0.0022 + 0.000004 En + 0.0000002 J + 0.000003 Em
+ 0.000037 cn − 0.00012 q + 0.00017 𝜙n + 0.000011 cn + 0.000025 𝜙n + 0.00046 L∕H
− 0.0051 Sm + 0.0021 l∕h + 0.00014 𝜙m , − 0.001 Sm + 0.000033𝜙M − 0.000009 q
(5) + 0.00042 l∕h − 0.000057 𝛾m .
2
1∕y = − 0.0061 + 0.00001 En + 0.0000004 J + 0.000007 Em (7)
+ 0.000013 cn + 0.000061𝜙n − 0.0023 Sm
For the case of the FS model, the predictive equation
− 0.000034 q + 0.00007 𝜙m + 0.00073 l∕h,
developed by FOP model is adequate based on the residual
(6)

13
 37   Page 20 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37

Fig. 16  Influence of a cohesion,
b friction angle and c Young’s
modulus of foundation soil on
the maximum horizontal facing
displacement and factor of 2 2.5 1.8 2
safety (b)

Maximum horizontal facing displacement/Height

(a)
1.8 1.6
1.6 2 1.4
1.5
1.4
1.2

of MSE wall, y/H (%)

Factor of safety, FS
1.2 1.5
1
1 1
0.8
0.8 1
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4 0.5

0.2 0.2

0 0 0 0
0 20 40 60 20 25 30 35 40
Cohesion, cn (kPa) Friction angle, φ n (°)

2.2
Maximum horizontal facing displacement/Height

2 (c)

1.8

1.6
of MSE wall, y/H (%)

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 50 100 150 200
Young's modulus, En (MPa)

analyses. It can be inferred from Fig. 19 that the MLR FS = − 0.627 + 0.014 cn + 0.588 L∕H + 0.03 𝜙n + 0.487 l∕h,
assumptions are violated when the SOP model is used and (9)
hence, the SOP model is not used for the development of
FS = − 0.805 + 0.623 L∕H + 0.032 𝜙n + 0.013 cn + 0.472 l∕h.
predictive equations. The comparison of the residual anal-
(10)
yses graphs of the FS model for the MSE wall of height
10 m is shown in Fig. 19. The predictive equations are
developed based on the FOP model for the FS of the MSE/ The corresponding summary of fit data obtained as part
SN wall and are given below: of the development of predictive equations for both the y and
FS models is given in Table 5.
FS = − 0.444 + 0.016 cn + 0.535 l∕h + 0.603 L∕H + 0.026 𝜙n ,
(8)

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
Fig. 17  Normal probability plots of residuals for a FOP, b SOP, c
transformed response for MSE wall of height 6 m for y model
Conclusions
This paper has described the robust methodology of the
development of ready-to-use predictive equations for the
estimation of y and FS of a typical HERS. The method-
ology involved is the use of FEM for the evaluation of
response of the MSE/SN wall in terms of y and FS in
conjunction with the statistical analyses to develop the
(2020) 6:37 Page 21 of 25  37
Fig. 18  Plots of residuals versus predicted response for a FOP, b
SOP, c transformed response for MSE wall of height 6 m for y model
predictive equations. The FEM is used initially to perform
the screening experiment to assess the sensitivity of both
the responses to the variations of twenty-one candidate
input parameters. The results of the sensitivity analyses are
used to identify the most influential parameters affecting
the y and FS. The effects of the influential parameters on
the y and FS of the MSE/SN wall are further analysed by
conducting parametric sensitivity analyses using the FEM.
13
 37   Page 22 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37

Fig. 19  Normal probability plots of residuals for a FOP, b SOP, and plots of residuals versus predicted response for c FOP, d SOP for MSE wall
of height 10 m for FS model

Table 5  Summary of fit statistics for multiple linear regression 1. The potential failure surface of the MSE/SN wall con-
Height (m) Response MSE
sists of two parts: Zone I passes internally through the
R2 R2adj R2pred
bottom soil nail consisting of a linear portion starting
6 y 0.9058 0.8885 0.8547 0.0226 × 10–5 from the toe and propagates externally behind the nails
FS 0.9739 0.9684 0.9453 0.0017 through the remaining portion of the SN wall. Zone II
8 y 0.9301 0.9140 0.8626 0.0023 × 10–5 is an extension of the linear portion of the failure plane
FS 0.9375 0.9208 0.8550 0.0044 of Zone I passing externally behind the reinforcement
10 y 0.9495 0.9371 0.8609 0.0003 × 10–5 of the MSE wall and progresses up to the top of the
FS 0.9591 0.9482 0.8978 0.0027 retained soil (backfill).
2. The decrease in reinforcement stiffness and/or increase
in the spacing of the reinforcement results in the increase
The MLR analyses are carried out on the data generated of the lateral facing displacement and leads to the inter-
using the FE analyses to develop the predictive equations nal instability of the MSE wall instead of the external
for the y and FS. The predictive equations are proposed failure plane of Zone II. The same behaviour is observed
for the MSE wall of heights 6, 8 and 10 m. The developed for the lower values of the Young’s modulus of the rein-
equations are assessed for their predictive capability using forced soil. The inclination of the failure plane of Zone
the model summary statistics and adequacy of the mod- II in the MSE wall and location of the failure plane in
els is checked using the residual analyses. The following Zone I in the SN wall are the functions of L/H and l/h
conclusions are arrived at from the study presented in the ratios.
paper: 3. Based on the parametric studies, it is noted that the pull-
out capacity of the soil nails should be assessed carefully
during the design of MSE/SN wall as the soil nails resist

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
the shear stresses along the internal failure plane of Zone
I.
4. The lateral displacement of the MSE/SN wall is inde-
pendent of the L/H and l/h ratios for values above 1.1
and 1.2, respectively. However, the FE analyses have
provided the optimal values of 0.5 and 0.45 for L/H and
l/h ratios respectively and are sufficient to achieve a tar-
get FS of 1.35 for the MSE/SN wall for the cases con-
sidered in the study. It is noted that the minimum values
of L/H and l/h ratios required in the design should be
decided based on the maximum allowable lateral dis-
placement and minimum overall factor of safety of the
MSE/SN wall.
5. The predominant deformation modes involved in the
MSE/SN wall are the rotation of wall about the base,
base sliding of the MSE/SN wall and local bulging of
the MSE wall. The bulging deformation mode fades
away for the increased spacing of the reinforcement
(> 0.5 m) in the case of MSE wall of height 6 m. The
bulging deformation mode is absent in the case of lower
values of the reinforcement stiffness, Young’s modulus
of the reinforced and foundation soils (i.e. J, Em, En) and
higher values of the surcharge irrespective of the heights
of the MSE wall.
6. The developed predictive equations are capable of pro-
viding reasonably accurate predictions for the maximum
lateral facing displacement and global factor of safety
of the MSE/SN wall. However, it is advised to exercise
caution in the application of these equations outside the
parameter space considered in the study. These equa-
tions are deterministic in nature and cannot account for
the material and model uncertainties. The same meth-
odology can be used to develop similar predictive equa-
tions for the other response quantities of interest related
to the MSE/SN wall.
Funding None.
Compliance with ethical standards  limit equilibrium and finite element methods. Int J Geosynth Gr
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Anderson PL, Gladstone RA, Sankey JE (2012) State of the
practice of MSE wall design for highway structures. Geo-
technical Engineering State of the Art and Practice, Proceed-
ings of Geo-Congress. Oakland, pp. 443–463. https://doi.
org/10.1061/9780784412138.0018
(2020) 6:37 Page 23 of 25  37
2. Bathurst RJ (2020) Developments in MSE wall research and
design. Innovative infrastructure solutions using Geosynthetics,
Proceedings of the GeoMEast 2019. Egypt, pp. 22–50. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-34242-5_3
3. Koerner RM, Koerner GR (2018) An extended data base and
recommendations regarding 320 failed geosynthetic reinforced
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. Geotext Geomem
46:904–912. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geote​xmem.2018.07.013
4. Tatsuoka F, Tateyama M, Koseki J, Yonezawa Y (2014) Geo-
synthetic-reinforced soil structures for railways in Japan. Transp
Infrastruct Geotech 1:3–53. https​: //doi.org/10.1007/s4051​
5-013-0001-0
5. Koerner RM (2015) In-situ stabilization of soil slopes using
nailed or anchored geosynthetics. Int J Geosynth Gr Eng 1:2.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4089​1-014-0002-2
6. Liu J, Shang K, Wu X (2016) Stability analysis and performance
of soil-nailing retaining system of excavation during construc-
tion period. J Perform Constr Fac 30:C4014002–C4014011.
https​://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.00006​40
7. Zolqadr E, Yasrobi SS, Olyaei MN (2016) Analysis of soil nail
walls performance: case study. Geomech Geoengi 11:1–12.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/17486​025.2015.10062​63
8. Turner JP, Jensen WG (2005) Landslide stabilisation using soil
nail and mechanically stabilized earth walls: case study. J Geo-
tech Geoenviron Eng 131:141–150. https​: //doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:2(141)
9. Wood TA, Jayawickrama PW, Lawson WD (2009) Instrumen-
tation and monitoring of an MSE/soil nail hybrid retaining
wall. Proceedings of the International Foundation Congress
and Equipment Expo. Orlando, pp. 177–184. https://doi.
org/10.1061/41023(337)23
10. Rabi M (2016) Performance of hybrid MSE/soil nail walls using
numerical analysis and limit equilibrium approaches. HBRC J
12:63–70. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj​.2014.06.012
11. Wei WB, Cheng YM (2010) Soil nailed slope by strength reduc-
tion and limit equilibrium methods. Comput Geotech 37:602–
618. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compg​eo.2010.03.008
12. Hatami K, Bathurst RJ, Di Pietro P (2001) Static response of
reinforced-soil retaining walls with non-uniform reinforce-
ment. Int J Geomech 1:477–506. https​: //doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1532-3641(2001)1:4(477)
13. Hatami K, Bathurst RJ (2005) Development and verification of a
numerical model for the analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
segmental walls under working stress conditions. Can Geotech
J 42:1066–1085. https​://doi.org/10.1139/t05-040
14. Hatami K, Bathurst RJ (2006) Numerical model for rein-
forced soil segmental walls under surcharge loading. J Geo-
tech Geoenviron Eng 132:673–684. https​: //doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:6(673)
15. Rawat S, Gupta AK (2016) Analysis of a nailed soil slope using
Eng 2:34. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4089​1-016-0076-0
16. Abbas HS, El-Sherbiny RM, Salem AM (2019) Numerical
analysis of mechanically stabilized earth walls in hybrid retain-
ing wall systems. Advanced Research on Shallow Foundations,
Proceedings of GeoMEast 2018. Cairo, pp. 249–264. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01923-5_18
17. Alhabshi A (2006) Finite element based design procedures for
MSE/soil-nail hybrid retaining wall systems. Ph.D. Thesis,
Texas Tech University
18. Eldiasty WA, Altahrany AI, Elmeligy MM (2019) Compari-
son between monotype and hybrid earth retaining structures.
Innov Infrastruct Solut 4:30. https​: //doi.org/10.1007/s4106​
2-019-0213-4
19. Lazarte CA, Robinson H, Gomez E, Baxter A, Cadden A, Berg
R (2015) Geotechnical engineering circular No. 7 Soil nail
13
 37   Page 24 of 25 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering
walls—Reference manual. FHWA0-IF-03-017. Federal Highway
Administration. Washington, DC
20. Wei Y (2013) Development of equivalent surcharge loads for the
design of soil nailed segment of MSE/soil nail hybrid retaining
walls based on results from full-scale wall instrumentation and
finite element analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas Tech University
21. Berg, RR, Christopher, BR, and Samtani, NC (2009) Design and
construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced
soil slopes, vol I. FHWA-NHI-10-024. Federal Highway Admin-
istration. Washington, DC.
22. Scotland I, Dixon N, Frost M, Fowmes G, Horgan G (2016) Mod-
elling deformation during the construction of wrapped geogrid-
reinforced structures. Geosynth Int 23:219–232. https​://doi.
org/10.1680/jgein​.15.00049​
23. Kibria G, Hossain MDS, Khan MS (2014) Influence of soil
reinforcement on horizontal displacement of MSE wall. Int J
Geomech 14:130–141. https:​ //doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.00002​97
24. Lin B, Yu Y, Bathurst RJ, Liu C (2016) Deterministic and
probabilistic prediction of facing deformations of geosynthetic-
reinforced MSE walls using a response surface approach. Geo-
text Geomem 44:813–823. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.geote​
xmem.2016.06.013
25. Sayed S, Dodagoudar GR, Rajagopal K (2010) Finite element reli-
ability analysis of reinforced retaining walls. Geomech Geoengi
5:187–197. https​://doi.org/10.1080/17486​02090​35767​88
26. Sharma A, Ramkrishnan R (2020) Parametric optimization
and multi-regression. Analysis for soil nailing using numerical
approaches. Geotech Geol Eng. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1070​
6-020-01230​-8
27. Sivakumar Babu GL, Singh VP (2009) Deformation and stability
regression models for soil nail walls. Proc Inst Civ Eng Geotech
Eng 162:213–223. https​://doi.org/10.1680/geng.2009.162.4.213
28. Yu Y, Bathurst RJ (2017) Probabilistic assessment of reinforced
soil wall performance using response surface method. Geosynth
Int 24:524–542. https​://doi.org/10.1680/jgein​.17.00019​
29. Yuan J, Lin P, Mei G, Hu Y (2019) Statistical prediction of defor-
mations of soil nail walls. Comput Geotech 115:13. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compg​eo.2019.10316​8
30. Yazdandoust M (2019) Shaking table modeling of MSE/soil
nail hybrid retaining walls. Soils Found 59:241–252. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sandf​.2018.05.013
31. Capilleri PP, Ferraiolo F, Motta E, Scotto M, Todaro M (2019)
Static and dynamic analysis of two mechanically stabilized earth
walls. Geosynth Int 26:26–41. https​: //doi.org/10.1680/jgein​
.18.00034​
32. Damians IP, Bathurst RJ, Josa A, Lloret A (2015) Numerical anal-
ysis of an instrumented steel-reinforced soil wall. Int J Geomech
15:04014037. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.00003​94
33. Djabri M, Benmebarek S (2016) FEM analysis of back-to-back
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. Int J Geosynth Gr
Eng 2:26. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4089​1-016-0067-1
34. Mirmoradi S, Ehrlich M (2018) Numerical evaluation of com-
paction-induced stress for the analysis of RS walls under work-
ing conditions. Geotext Geomem 46:354–365. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1016/j.geote​xmem.2018.01.006
35. Zevgolis IE (2018) A finite element investigation on displacements
of reinforced soil walls under the effect of typical traffic loads.
Transp Infrastruct Geotech 5:231–249. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s4051​5-018-0059-9
36. Fan CC, Luo JH (2008) Numerical study on the optimum layout
of soil-nailed slopes. Comput Geotech 35:585–599. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compg​eo.2007.09.002
37. Pak A, Maleki J, Aghakhani N, Yousefi M (2019)
Numerical investigation of stability of deep excavations
13
(2020) 6:37
supported by soil-nailing method. Geomech Geoeng. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/17486​025.2019.16808​78
38. Roca JG, Capa V, Torrijo FJ, Company J (2019) Designing
soil-nailed walls using the Amherst wall considering problem-
atic issues during execution and service life. Int J Geomech
19:05019006–5019011. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.00014​53
39. Singh VP, Sivakumar Babu GL (2010) 2D Numerical simula-
tions of soil nail walls. Geotech Geol Eng 28:299–309. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1070​6-009-9292-x
40. PLAXIS (2019) Finite element code for soil and rock analyses.
Delft University of Technology, Plaxis BV, The Netherlands
41. Duncan JM, Chang CY (1970) Nonlinear analysis of stress and
strain in soils. J Soil Mech Found Div 96:1629–1653
42. Schanz T, Vermeer PA, Bonnier PG (1999) The hardening soil
model: Formulation and verification. Proceedings of Plaxis
symposium on beyond 2000 in computational geotechnics. Rot-
terdam, pp. 281–296.
43. Huang B, Bathurst RJ, Hatami K (2009) Numerical study of
reinforced soil segmental walls using three different constitutive
soil models. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135:1486–1498. https​
://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.00000​92
44. Ling HI, Liu H (2009) Deformation analysis of reinforced soil
retaining walls—simplistic versus sophisticated finite element
analyses. Acta Geotech 4:203–213. https​: //doi.org/10.1007/
s1144​0-009-0091-6
45. Guler E, Hamderi M, Demirkan MM (2007) Numerical analy-
sis of reinforced soil retaining wall structures with cohesive
and granular backfills. Geosynth Int 14:330–345. https​://doi.
org/10.1680/gein.2007.14.6.330
46. Hatami K, Witthoeft AF, Jenkins LM (2008) Influence of inad-
equate compaction near the facing on the construction response
of wrapped-face MSE walls. Transp Res Rec 2045:85–94. https​
://doi.org/10.3141/2045-10
47. Yu Y, Bathrust RJ, Allen T, Nelson R (2016) Physical and
numerical modelling of a geogrid-reinforced incremental con-
crete panel retaining wall. Can Geotech J 53:1–19. https​://doi.
org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0207
48. Bathurst RJ, Nernheim A, Walters DL, Allen TM, Burgess P,
Saunders DD (2009) Influence of reinforcement stiffness and
compaction on the performance of four geosynthetic-reinforced
soil walls. Geosynth Int 16:43–59. https​: //doi.org/10.1680/
gein.2009.16.1.43
49. Sravanam S, Balunaini U, Madhav M (2019) Behaviour and
design of back-to-back walls considering compaction and
surcharge loads. Int J Geosynth Gr Eng 5:31. https​: //doi.
org/10.1007/s4089​1-019-0180-z
50. Yu Y, Damians IP, Bathurst RJ (2015) Influence of choice of
FLAC and PLAXIS interface models on reinforced soil-struc-
ture interactions. Comput Geotech 65:164–174. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.compg​eo.2014.12.009
51. Cristelo N, Felix C, Lopes ML, Dias M (2016) Monitoring and
numerical modelling of an instrumented mechanically stabilized
earth wall. Geosynth Int 23:48–61. https​://doi.org/10.1680/jgein​
.15.00032​
52. Dawson EM, Roth WH, Drescher A (1999) Slope stability anal-
ysis by strength reduction. Geotechnique 49:835–840. https​://
doi.org/10.1680/geot.1999.49.6.835
53. Griffiths DV, Lane PA (1999) Slope stability analysis by finite
elements. Geotechnique 49:387–403. https​://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.1999.49.3.387
54. Matsui T, San KC (1992) Finite element slope stability analysis
by shear strength reduction technique. Soils Found 32:59–70.
https​://doi.org/10.3208/sandf​1972.32.59
55. Zienkiewicz OC, Humpheson C, Lewis RW (1975) Associ-
ated and non-associated viscoplasticity and plasticity in soil
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2020) 6:37 Page 25 of 25  37
mechanics. Géotechnique 25:671–689. https​://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.1975.25.4.671
56. Krahn J (2004) Stability modelling with SLOPE/W: an engi-
neering methodology. Geo-Slope International Ltd., Calgary
57. Yoo C (2004) Performance of a 6-year-old geosynthetic-rein-
forced segmental retaining wall. Geotext Geomem 22:377–397.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geote​xmem.2003.12.001
58. Salem MA, Hammad MA, Amer MI (2018) Field monitoring
and numerical modelling of 4.4 m-high mechanically stabilized
earth wall. Geosynth Int 25:545–559. https​://doi.org/10.1680/
jgein​.18.00027​
59. Hatami K, Bathurst RJ (2006) Parametric analysis of reinforced
soil walls with different backfill material properties. Proceedings
of the NAGS’ 2006 Conference. Las Vegas, p. 15
60. Huang B, Bathurst RJ, Hatami K (2007) Numerical study of the
influence of block interface stiffness on reinforced soil segmental
walls of variable height. Proceedings of the OttawaGeo2007: 60th
Canadian Geotechnical Conference (Diamond Jubilee), Ontario.
61. Hegde A, Roy R (2018) A comparative numerical study on soil–
geosynthetic interactions using large scale direct shear test and
pullout test. Int J of Geosynth Gr Eng 4:2. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/
s4089​1-017-0119-1
View publication stats
62. Li J (2003) Field study of a soil nailed loose fill slope. Ph.D.
Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
63. Zhou YD, Cheuk CY, Tham LG (2009) Numerical modelling of
soil nails in loose fill slope under surcharge loading. Comput Geo-
tech 36:837–850. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compg​eo.2009.01.010
64. Abdelouhab A, Dias D, Freitag N (2011) Numerical analysis of
the behaviour of mechanically stabilized earth walls reinforced
with different types of strips. Geotext and Geomem 29:116–129.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geote​xmem.2010.10.011
65. Yu Y, Bathurst RJ, Miyata Y (2015) Numerical analysis of
mechanically stabilized earth wall reinforced with steel strips.
Soils Found 55:536–547. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf​
.2015.04.006
66. Hamby DM (1994) A review of techniques for parameter sensi-
tivity analysis of environmental models. Environ Monit Assess
32:135–154. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF005​47132​
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13