Accepted manuscript doi:

10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Accepted manuscript
As a service to our authors and readers, we are putting peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts
(AM) online, in the Ahead of Print section of each journal web page, shortly after acceptance.

Disclaimer
The AM is yet to be copyedited and formatted in journal house style but can still be read and
referenced by quoting its unique reference number, the digital object identifier (DOI). Once
the AM has been typeset, an ‘uncorrected proof’ PDF will replace the ‘accepted manuscript’
PDF. These formatted articles may still be corrected by the authors. During the Production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal relate to these versions also.

Version of record
The final edited article will be published in PDF and HTML and will contain all author
corrections and is considered the version of record. Authors wishing to reference an article
published Ahead of Print should quote its DOI. When an issue becomes available, queuing
Ahead of Print articles will move to that issue’s Table of Contents. When the article is
published in a journal issue, the full reference should be cited in addition to the DOI.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Submitted: 30 April 2018

Published online in ‘accepted manuscript’ format: 12 November 2018

Manuscript title: Seismic responses of vertical-faced wrap-around reinforced soil walls

Author: Ching-Chuan Huang

Affiliation: Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University

Rd., Tainan 70101, Taiwan

Corresponding author: Ching-Chuan Huang, Department of Civil Engineering, National

Cheng Kung University, 1 University Rd., Tainan 70101, Taiwan.

E-mail: samhcc@mail.ncku.edu.tw

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Abstract

A series of shaking table tests on geosynthetic-reinforced walls with a height of H = 0.6 m is performed to

investigate the seismic performance of prototype walls with H = 6 m. Ground-wall resonance occurs at small

values of horizontal peak ground acceleration (HPGA), namely 0.1- 0.5 g, with an amplification factor of Am =

1.2-2.2 at the crest of the wall. This factor decreases with increasing HPGA. For walls that attain states of

maximum horizontal displacement (Dmax)/H > 5%, the failure mechanism consists of a vertical failure surface at

distance from the facing of 0.3H for the upper half of the wall and a Rankine triangular wedge over the lower

of the wall. Mononobe-Okabe theory gives dynamic earth pressure coefficients that agree well with

results based on kh = η·HPGA/g, where kh and η are the horizontal seismic coefficient and an empirical constant,

respectively, with values of η ranging from 1/4 to 1/3. Furthermore, the maximum tensile forces induced by

shaking increase as the depth of reinforcement increases, generating a trapezoidal shape, rather than the inverted

trapezoidal shape proposed in the literature.

Keywords: Geosynthetics; Reinforced wall; Shaking table test; Resonance; Failure mechanism; Lateral earth

pressure

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
1. INTRODUCTION

Shaking table tests are widely used to study the response of geosynthetic-reinforced

walls subjected to earthquake-induced ground excitations (Richardson and Lee, 1975; Koseki

et al., 1998; Tatsuoka et al., 1998; Matsuo et al., 1998; El-Emam and Bathurst 2005, 2007;

Krishna and Latha, 2009; Sabermahani et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2010, 2011; Huang, 2013).

The results of shaking table and post-earthquake studies have substantiated the aseismic

design of geosynthetic-reinforced structures in terms of failure mechanisms, dynamic earth

pressure distributions, and reinforcement configurations (Bathurst, 1998; Tatsuoka et al.,

1998; JRTRI, 1999; FHWA, 2009). For performance-based design of geosynthetic-reinforced

slopes and walls, the normalized seismic displacement (Dn) proposed by Newmark (1965)

has been used as an order-of-magnitude estimation of the seismic displacement of soil walls

and slopes. Dn is expressed as:

where HPGA is the horizontal peak ground acceleration, Dmax is the maximum horizontal

displacement of the wall, and vmax is the maximum velocity of input ground excitation.

Wu and Prakash (1996) proposed a failure state criterion of Dmax/H = 10% (H: wall

height) for soil retaining structures subjected to earthquake excitations. Huang et al. (2009)

examined existing seismic displacement criteria from the point view of soil strength

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
mobilization. They proposed the use of Dmax/H = 5% as a conservative seismic displacement

criterion to prevent significant post-peak softening of sandy backfills. In the following,

Dmax/H = 10% is used as an indicator of the ultimate failure state of reinforced soil walls.

The amplification of ground accelerations at the crest of geosynthetic-reinforced walls

has been extensively studied (Krishna and Latha, 2007, 2009, 2012; Huang et al., 2010;

Wang et al., 2015; Yazdandoust, 2018). However, a general conclusion regarding the

amplification of ground accelerations in reinforced soil walls is yet to be determined. A

widely used equation for ground acceleration amplification was proposed by Segrestin and

Bastik (1988) based on the results of numerical analyses of some large-scale soil walls

reinforced with stiff metal strip reinforcement. Idriss (1990) proposed an empirical rule of

ground amplification based on a study of the response of soft grounds subjected to strong

earthquake excitations. It is clear that these analytical and empirical rules for ground

amplification are not based on observations of geosynthetic-reinforced structures, suggesting

that further studies are needed.

Regarding the dynamic earth pressure increment induced by earthquake shaking, an

inverted trapezoidal distribution of the dynamic lateral earth pressure increment was

suggested by Seed and Whitman (1970), Whitman (1990), Ebeling and Morrison (1993),

Bathurst and Cai (1995), and Bathurst et al. (2002). This hypothetical seismic earth pressure

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
distribution with an inverted trapezoidal shape is based on experience with design of

conventional soil retaining walls. Its applicability to geosynthetic-reinforced walls with

ductile behavior is yet to be verified. Moreover, experimental studies of

geosynthetic-reinforced model walls have revealed that shaking-induced lateral earth pressure

distribution may not be best represented by an inverted trapezoid (Krishna and Latha, 2009;

Yazdandoust, 2018). This issue is another focus of the present study.

2. SHAKING TABLE TEST SET-UP

Figure 1 shows the uni-axial, 1.52-m-wide, 1.52-m-long shaking table system used in the

tests. It has a maximum payload of 20 kN, maximum accelerations of 2.2g and 1.1g (g:

gravitational acceleration), respectively, for unloaded and fully loaded conditions, a

maximum velocity of 1000 mm/s, and a maximum displacement of ±200 mm. Figure 2 shows

the detailed geometry and the instrumentation for the geosynthetic-reinforced vertical wall.

The 600-mm-high wall is a wrap-around wall with five heat-bonded nonwoven geotextile

layers serving as reinforcement. Six displacement transducers (linear variable displacement

transformers, LVDTs 1-6) were installed in the front of the wall to measure the horizontal

displacement; three accelerometers (ACCtable, ACC1, and ACC2; MEAS 4602-002-C007632)

were placed at the base of the shaking table and the crest of the slope to measure the base

input and the acceleration response of the wall.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
The data acquisition system (NI CompactDAQ, National Instruments, USA) consisted of

an analog input module (NI 9220; sampling rate: 100 kS/s/channel) and four bridge modules

(NI 9237; sampling rate: 50 kS/s/channel), data acquisition software, and a personal

computer.

3. LAMINAR SAND BOX AND MODEL WALLS

A wooden laminar sand bin consisting of 12 layers of 50-mm-high, 1220-mm-long, and

600-mm-wide inner laminar frames (Fig. 3) was used to contain the 600-mm-high (Hm = 0.6

m) geosynthetic-reinforced model wall with a wrap-around facing. The long sides of the

laminar boxes were externally supported by low-friction guideways (with a friction angle of

0.5) attached to a rigid supporting wall to achieve a plane-strain condition. The

600-mm-high model wall was used to simulate a 6.0-m-high (Hp = 6.0 m) prototype wall

backfilled with sands whose unit weight and shear strength were identical to those used in the

model tests. Therefore, a scale ratio between the prototype and the model walls, namely λ =

10 (= Hp/Hm), is considered here. Sandpaper was attached to the bottom of the laminar sand

bin to simulate a rough condition at the base of the model wall. The interface friction angle

(φb) between the sand backfill and the sandpaper (TJ 32; mean particle size D50 = 0.15 mm)

was larger than the internal friction angle of the sand based on the results of direct shear tests.

Therefore, the wall base-foundation interface can be considered as a "very rough" condition.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
To prevent sand from leaking out, 0.3-mm-thick latex membranes were attached to the four

inner sides of the sand bin. Two reinforcement lengths (L) are used in the present study, i.e.,

L = 0.7H and 0.5H (H: total height of the wall; H = 0.6 m). The results of pseudo-static

stability analyses revealed that the critical seismic coefficient (values of input kh that generate

factors of safety equal to unity), kcrit, was 0.8 and 0.5 (controlled by a pull-out failure) for the

cases of L = 0.7H and 0.5H, respectively.

To avoid local failures adjacent to the facing and to eliminate the influence of redundant

reinforcement in the reinforced soil zone, the 20 mm-long wrap-around reinforcement was

glued to the upper layer of reinforcement. Furthermore, to avoid pull-out failure in the

uppermost layer of reinforcement, this layer of reinforcement was embedded at a depth of

about 5 mm under the crest of the wall with a wrap-around length of 420 mm. An overburden

pressure of q = 5 kPa was applied at the crest of the wall using steel plates. The surcharge

used in the tests simulates an external footing load, which also provides necessary overburden

pressure for the uppermost wrap-around reinforcement to prevent pull-out failure. The

influence of a uniform external footing load can be evaluated theoretically.

4. PROPERTIES OF TEST MEDIUM

The sand medium was river sand (called Mei-Shi sand) from Nantou County, Taiwan.

The physical properties of the sand medium are summarized in Table 1. The model

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
reinforced wall was backfilled to a uniform soil unit weight of  = 15 kN/m3 using a sand

pluviation system. Preliminary investigations on the influence of the traveling speed of the

sand hopper as well as the drop height of sand were conducted to determine the optimal

operational conditions for preparing sand specimens with a targeted dry unit weight of  = 15

kN/m3 (void ratio e = 0.74; relative density Dr = 60%), representing a medium-dense

condition. A medium-dense sand rather than a dense sand as the test medium was used for the

following reasons: (1) a medium-dense condition fulfills compaction requirements in design

guidelines for mechanically stabilized soil structures (e.g., FHWA, 2009) for a minimum

95% degree of compaction according to AASHTO T 99. For some types of soil, a 95%

degree of compaction corresponds to a medium-dense condition with Dr = 55% (Jensen et al.,

2005); (2) internal friction angles (φ) for the medium-dense test under a low confining

pressure of σn = 25 kPa are in the range of 41° to 45°; this is the upper limit of φ used in

practice; (3) structures with medium-dense backfill (rather than dense or very dense backfill)

are worth studying from the viewpoint of energy and budget savings; (4) medium-dense

sands with Dr = 52- 55% have been used in studies on the seismic response of

geosynthetic-reinforced walls (Wang et al., 2015; Ling et al., 2005).

A series of medium-scale direct shear tests using 300-mm-wide and 300-mm-long shear

boxes with heights of 100 mm (upper box) and 150 mm (lower box) was performed (Hsu,

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
2017) to determine the internal friction angle (φ) of the tested sand. A medium-scale direct

shear test was used to measure the internal friction angle of the sands because it reduces the

influence of the boundary on the development of shear planes and friction angles. Thus

obtained friction angles are more accurate than those obtained in small-scale (or conventional

scale) direct shear tests (e.g., Wu et al., 2008). For the tested sand, the values of φ can be

expressed as follows for σn = 20-100 kPa and σn0 = 20 kPa (Hsu, 2017):

( )

For the peak condition, φ = 44°- 45° and Δφ = 9°, and for the residual condition, φ = 41° and

Δφ = 6.7°. φ = 44° is preliminarily used as the internal friction angle for the model wall based

on a low confining pressure of σn ≤ 20 kPa.

A series of medium-scale direct shear tests was performed (Wei, 2017) to obtain the

soil-geotextile interface friction angle (μ), expressed as:

( )

For the peak condition, μ= 44° and Δμ = 8°, and for the residual condition, μ = 36° and

Δμ = 3°. Furthermore, a series of pull-out tests using the same sand and geotextile as those

used in the present study was performed (Huang et al., 2017) to model the response of the

geotextile subjected to pull-out. Test results showed that the apparent value of the

soil-geotextile interface friction angle is a function the effective length of the pull-out

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
specimen, which is in turn a function of overburden pressures and the total embedment length

of the pull-out specimens. Therefore, the pull-out test is suitable for modeling the response of

geotextiles subjected to pull-out, rather than simply providing interface friction angles.

5. GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT MATERIAL

The reinforcement used here is a heat-bonded nonwoven geotextile with an in-air

thickness of 0.25 mm, a weight per unit area of 0.957 N/m2, and a wide-width tensile strength

of Tult = 4.1 kN/m at a rupture strain of εf = 37%. Detailed tensile test results were reported

by Huang et al. (2017). According to the similitude of stresses between the model and the

prototype walls, the heat-bonded nonwoven geotextile used here mimics a tensile stiffness

with λ2 (= 102) times that used in the model tests (Huang, 2016). Tensile stiffness values

obtained at tensile strains of 2% and 5% (J2% and J5%, respectively) in the model and

prototype walls are summarized in Table 2. Based on the results of strain measurements in

the shaking table tests, the reinforcement strains mobilized in the model wall were smaller

than 5%. Therefore, the ultimate strength of Tf = 4.1 kN/m at a breakage strain of εf = 37%

and the tensile stiffness at a strain of 10% (J10%) are not relevant to the behavior of the

prototype wall. Instead, the secant stiffnesses of the reinforcement at strains of 2% and 5%

(J2% = 7000 kN/m; J5% = 3600 kN/m) are significant parameters for the prototype wall; they

fall within the range of reinforcement stiffness (500-69000 kN/m) used by Bathurst and

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Hatami (1998) in a numerical simulation for the seismic response of geosynthetic-reinforced

vertical-faced walls. Bathurst and Hatami (1998) suggested that a tensile stiffness larger than

2000 kN/m can be classified as a relatively stiff geosynthetic reinforcement, with which

seismic earth pressure distributions against walls are different from those obtained with

relatively low-stiffness reinforcements. The elasticity stiffness of the geotextile is not

reported here because the geosynthetic-reinforced soil mass is not an elastic mass. This can

be seen from the measured slope displacements (in Fig. 12(c), shown later), in the sense that

plastic (or irreversible) deformation occurred at the early stages of seismic loading.

Strain gauges (YFLA-20, Tokyosokki Ltd, Japan) capable of measuring tensile strains

of up to 15% were glued to the surface of the reinforcement to monitor the tensile strains

during shaking tests. Before the shaking tests, strain gauges were attached to the wide-width

tensile test specimen to obtain the relationship between the strain gauge output (or the digital

signal from the data logger) and the strain of the reinforcement. This relationship was used to

convert the strain gauge output into the reinforcement strains (and forces) shown later.

Details of the calibration of stain gauges and the conversion of strain gauge output to the

reinforcement forces were reported by Huang et al. (2017).

6. PERFORMANCE OF LAMINAR AND RIGID SAND BOXES

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
To investigate the effectiveness of using a laminar sand box, two shaking tests on a

model horizontal ground with the geometry shown in Fig. 4(a) were conducted. A rigid sand

box condition was achieved by adding four steel stiffeners at the two long ends of the laminar

sand bin to prevent relative movement between the laminar boxes. The input sinusoidal

waves for the shaking table can be expressed as:

where

a(t): horizontal base acceleration at time t

ω: radian frequency (= 2π/T; T: period; T = 1/f )

Figure 4(b) shows the time history of sinusoidal input base accelerations with HPGA =

0.9g, f = 6 Hz, and a duration of 3 s. Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show acceleration responses at the

center and edge, respectively, of the sand bin. Consistent and symmetric (against abscissa)

responses with some acceleration amplification can be seen at the center of the laminar box.

However, a major part of the negative accelerations (toward the right of the figure) were

amplified significantly. Based on the model wall set-up shown in Figs. 1 and 2, negative

accelerations are associated with inertial forces acting toward the backfill; these forces are

not the focus of the present study. Therefore, the less accurate negative accelerations are not

considered as a shortcoming of the sand bin. Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show the results of the fast

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Fourier transform (FFT) for the acceleration responses recorded at the center and edge,

respectively, for the test shown in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b). It can be seen that a strong Fourier

amplitude appears at f = 6 Hz and some negligibly small ones appear at high frequencies. The

acceleration responses in the rigid sand box are shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) for the center

and edge, respectively. In this case, distorted waves with high-frequency noise can be seen.

The results of FFT for the data shown in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) are plotted in Figs. 8(a) and 8(b),

respectively. A comparison of Figs.7 and 8 with Figs. 5 and 6 reveals the advantage of using

the laminar box, which provides response waves with less noise and distortion compared with

those obtained using the rigid box.

7. WHITE NOISE AND FREE-VIBRATION TESTS

A white noise test was performed on the reinforced model wall shown in Fig. 2. The

white noise contained a frequency range of 0-50 Hz with HPGA = 0.06g, as shown in Fig.

9(a). The result of FFT for the response measured at ACC1, shown in Fig. 9(b), suggests that

the predominant frequencies of the model walls (f1) fall within the range of 12-14 Hz. Based

on the results of a numerical study reported by Hatami and Bathurst (2000), the resonant

response (in terms of Dmax/H) of vertical-faced geosythetic-reinforced walls occur at values of

f/f1 in the range of 0.6 to 1.0, suggesting that a vertical wall subjected to input waves with f/f1

(= 10/13 = 0.77) mimics a close-to-resonance state. In addition, a free-vibration test was

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
performed to confirm the dominant frequency of the model wall. Figure 10(a) shows the time

history of the base input and the response at ACC1, consisting of forced vibrations for about

2.5 s followed by free vibration. A detailed acceleration response during the free vibration is

shown in Fig. 10(b). Based on the theory of damped free vibration (Chopra, 2001), a

dominant frequency of f = 11.3 Hz and a damping ratio of D = 21% were obtained for the

tested model wall. The dominant frequency f1 of 11.3 Hz is comparable with f = 10 Hz used

in the present study. A comparative study on the influence of wave frequency using f = 6 Hz

is also conducted in the present study.

8. ACCELERATION RESPONSES OF MODEL WALLS

Figure 11 schematically shows the composition of input base accelerations for a specific

loading step in subsequent shaking tests. Each loading step consisted of four cycles of

sinusoidal control waves with specific frequency (f) and HPGA values. Some tapered waves

were applied at the beginning and the end of the control waves to complete a loading step.

Each step of shaking consists of two or four major pulses with a target value of HPGA, and

some tapered waves. In the case of f = 6 Hz, the durations of each shaking step (Ts) with two

and four major pulses are Ts = 10/6 and 4/3 s, respectively. In the case of f = 10 Hz, the

durations for four and two major pulses are Ts = 1.0 and 8/10 s, respectively. In earthquake

engineering practice, Ts is an important parameter for characterizing ground excitations

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
consisting of random waves. This is not the case in a study using input waves with controlled

number and frequency of sinusoidal waves. In this case, Ts is a function of f, and their

conjunctive effect can be evaluated using other parameters, such as the root-mean-square

acceleration (arms), Arias intensity (Ia), or maximum wave velocity (vmax). Typical examples

of input base accelerations, input table velocity, and horizontal displacements for a step-wise

intensified shaking test are shown in Figs. 12(a), 12(b), and 12(c), respectively. The value of

HPGA for the first shaking step is 0.1g; it increases by 0.05g for each successive shaking

step, up to an ultimate displacement state of Dmax/H = 10% (Wu and Prakash, 1996; Huang et

al., 2009). Figures 13(a)-(c) show typical examples of input base accelerations, acceleration

response at ACC1, and acceleration response at ACC2, respectively, for the case of f = 6 Hz.

The responses at ACC1 and ACC2, shown in Figs. 13(b) and 13(c), respectively, exhibit

contrasting behavior in the sense that input accelerations were amplified in opposite

directions at different elapsed times. At a near-slope location (ACC1), accelerations are

amplified in the positive direction (with outward seismic inertia); at a behind-reinforced-zone

location (ACC2), accelerations are amplified in the negative direction (with inward seismic

inertia). These different responses suggest that the near-facing zone is subjected to a more

severe outward seismic force (or inertia) than that for the unreinforced zone. A detailed

investigation on the phase difference between reinforced and unreinforced zones, as

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
discussed by Tatsuoka et al. (1998) and Bathurst et al. (2002), should be conducted in the

future. The issue of acceleration amplification at the crest of walls is further investigated in

Fig. 14, which shows the relationship between the acceleration amplification factor (Am; the

ratio between the acceleration measured at the crest of the wall and the input base

acceleration) and HPGA for all tests performed here. Based on the results of numerical

studies, Segrestin and Bastick (1988) proposed a transitional state of HPGA at about 0.45g, at

which the reinforced soil wall response to earthquake excitations changes from amplifying

states into de-amplifying ones. Similar trends of amplification and de-amplification are

obtained in the present study, as shown in Fig. 14. Note that all curves obtained in the present

study extend to high shaking intensities of HPGA = 1.6-1.8g due to the ultimate displacement

criterion (Dmax/H = 10%) used. In the case of Dmax/H = 2% as a permissible displacement

state (Wu and Parakash, 1996; Huang et al., 2009), two sets of data with f = 6 and 10 Hz (L/H

= 0.5) shown in Fig. 14 are terminated at HPGA = 0.5-0.7 (also see Fig. 17), suggesting that

these model walls are not overdesigned. It is noted in Fig. 14 that at a small input ground

acceleration of 0.1g, values of Am for the case of f = 10 Hz (Am = 2.1) are significantly higher

than those for f = 6 Hz (Am = 1.4), regardless of the value of L/H. This supports the

conclusion obtained in the white noise and free-vibration tests that f = 10 Hz is a

close-to-resonance frequency of the model wall. Figure 14 also shows that for HPGA > 0.2g,

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
a descending trend of Am approximately follows those reported by Segrestin and Bastick

(1988) and Idriss (1990), regardless of the value of f. Ground-wall resonance occurs at small

values of HPGA (0.1-0.5 g) with an amplification factor of Am = 1.2-2.2 at the crest of the

wall; this factor decreases with increasing HPGA. This may be attributed to the fact that the

determination of the dominant frequency for the model wall using white noise tests was

conducted with a small input HPGA of 0.06g, at which the wall may be close to an intact

state. The dominant frequency may have shifted as the input HPGA increased. Huang et al.

(2011) attributed the decrease of Am with increasing HPGA to the development of failure

planes within the backfill, i.e., the backfill gradually transforms from an elastic state under

low HPGAs into plastic and discrete states as the input HPGA increases. A preliminary

comparative study is also performed using Fig. 14, in which data of wall crest amplifications

reported by Krishma and Latha (2007), Komak Panah et al. (2015), and Wang et al. (2015)

are plotted. Experimental evidence provided by Krishna and Latha (2007) and Komak Panah

et al. (2015) approximately follows the trend discussed above, except for one data point

provided by Wang et al. (2015), which reveals an amplification state of Am= 2.1 at HPGA =

0.5g. This inconsistency may be attributed to the use of low values of f1 = 1-3 Hz for a

0.7-m-high model wall. It is considered that the shear waves with f1 = 1-3 Hz are not properly

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
scaled down according to the similitude of wave frequencies for a 0.7-m-high model wall.

This requires further verification in the future.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
9. DISPLACEMENT RESPONSES OF MODEL WALLS

Figures 15(a), 15(b), and 15(c) show typical examples of the model wall before shaking,

during shaking, and at ultimate displacement states, respectively. It can be seen that the wall

behaved as a coherent body with no local and/or total collapses. The measured wall

deflections at various shaking intensities are shown in Figs. 16(a)-(d) for various

reinforcement lengths and input excitations. In general, the cases with L = 0.7H have smaller

wall deflections than those for L= 0.5H under similar shaking intensities. The walls with L=

0.7H exhibit a predominant mode of overturning. However, those with L= 0.5H may exhibit

multiple modes of deformation under various input excitations, including bulging and

overturning.

Figure 17 shows the maximum wall deflection (Dmax) measured at each step of loading

with a specific value of HPGA. A bi-linear relationship between Dmax and HPGA was

obtained for all cases. The point of gradient transition is defined as the experimental value of

the yielding input acceleration, ay, which is different from that calculated using a

pseudo-static approach. Figure 17 also shows that the case of L/H = 0.7 has smaller values of

Dmax and greater values of ay than those for the case of L/H = 0.5. Furthermore, the curves for

f = 6 Hz generally have greater values of Dmax than those for f = 10 Hz, regardless of the fact

that f = 10 Hz is close to the predominant frequency of the reinforced wall. This is

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
attributable to the greater kinetic energy (Ek) associated with f = 6 Hz sinusoidal waves

compared to that for f = 10 Hz sinusoidal waves. The equation of kinetic energy, Ek, is:

where

m: mass of reinforced soil wall (assumed to be equal in the cases of f = 6 and 10 Hz)

The velocity function v(t) can be obtained by integrating Eq. (4) and applying the initial

condition of v(t) = 0 at t = 0 s as:

Figure 18 shows functions of a(t) and v(t)2 using HPGA = 1 m/s2 for the cases of f = 6

and 10 Hz. It can be seen that the wave with f = 6 Hz has a peak value of v(t)2 about 2.7 times

that for f = 10 Hz. This value can also be obtained from Eq. (6):

Figure 19 shows normalized displacement (Dn) vs. ay/HPGA relationships for the tests

conducted here and those reported in the literature (Newmark, 1965; Whitman and Liao,

1985; Cai and Bathurst, 1996; Huang and Wu, 2006). It can be seen that the experimental

curves for the case of f = 6 Hz fall within those reported by Huang et al. (2011) based on the

results of shaking table tests on a geosynthetic-reinforced wall with a slope angle of 60°.

However, the curves for f = 10 Hz tend to deviate from the previously reported ones,

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
suggesting a critical feature for a wall subjected to a wave frequency that is close to the

predominant frequency of the wall. Two issues are worth noticing:

(1) The theoretical and analytical results of Dn vs. ay/HPGA provided by Whitman and Liao

(1985), Cai and Bathurst (1996), and Huang and Wu (2006) (shaded area) deviate from the

experimental ones reported by Huang et al. (2011) and the present study. This issue has

been discussed by Huang et al. (2011), who attributed it to the pre-yielding wall

displacement, which was ignored in the pseudo-static analyses.

(2) The tests with f = 10 Hz have higher values of Dn compared with those for tests with f = 6

Hz for ay/HPGA > 3, suggesting that a relatively large value of Dn may be generated under

relatively small shaking intensity due to the resonance of the wall, as discussed previously

for Fig. 14.

10. REINFORCEMENT FORCES AND FAILURE MECHANISMS

In the following, the locus of maximum tensile forces of the reinforcement is deemed as

the potential failure surface, based on experimental observations (e.g., Yazdandoust, 2018).

Figures 20(a) and 20(b) show distributions of reinforcement forces measured at the final steps

of shaking for walls with L/H = 0.5 and 0.7, respectively. The mobilized reinforcement forces

are greater for the latter case, except at the final step of shaking (HPGA = 1.67g), at which a

great reinforcement force developed near the facing for the case with L/H = 0.5, suggesting

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
that a potential failure occurs adjacent to the facing. The maximum values of reinforcement

forces consistently develop around the center of the reinforcing layers for the case of L/H =

0.7, suggesting that a vertical potential failure surface develops at a distance of Ls = 200 mm

(Ls/H = 200/600 = 0.33) from the facing, which well agrees with the failure mechanism for

Ls/H = 0.3 proposed by Segrestin and Bastick (1988) for mechanically stabilized walls using

stiff reinforcement. Figures 20(a) and 20(b) also compare the observed potential failure

surface with those proposed by Rankine and Mononobe-Okabe (M-O). It can be seen that the

potential failure surface mimics the Rankine one. In the case of L/H = 0.7, there is a vertical

potential failure line at Ls/H = 0.33, which extends vertically into the lowest layer at a depth

of z = 400 mm (z/H = 400/600 = 0.67). A potential failure surface with this pattern may

reflect a relatively high margin of safety even at HPGA = 1.72g (this test was terminated at

HPGA = 1.72g with a small value of Dmax/H = 3% because of the limited shaking table

capacity). Figures 21(a) and (b) show the cases of L/H = 0.7 and 0.5, respectively, subjected

to f = 6 Hz at an ultimate failure state of Dmax/H = 10%. Both figures show that the lower part

of the failure surface tends to develop at the vicinity of the facing, resembling Rankine's

failure wedge. In general, at the ultimate states of the walls, as shown in Figs. 20(b), 21(a),

and 21(b), a potential failure surface consisting of a vertical failure plane at the upper half

and a Rankine wedge at the lower half of the wall is applicable, regardless of the values of L

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
and f used here. However, this observation requires further verification based on wide ranges

of L and input values of f. It is noted in Fig. 21(a) that the second layer of reinforcement

(from the top) may have a larger potential of pull-out failure compared with those of other

layers because a peak reinforcement force occurs near the end of this reinforcing layer.

However, the results of a detailed examination of the second layer reinforcement against

pull-out failure revealed that the safety factor against pull-out (Fsp) under a pull-out force of

0.2 kN/m (as shown in Fig. 21(a)) is Fsp = 25, suggesting that pull-out failure is not likely to

occur in this case. This calculation is based on a geotextile-sand interface friction angle of 

= 0.8φ, an anchoring length of 0.6 m, and an overburden pressure of 6 kPa (including

self-weight of soil and external load with 2:1 spreading).

11. DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

Previous studies by Seed and Whitman (1970), Ebeling and Morrison (1993), Bathurst and

Cai (1995), and Bathurst et al. (2002) stated that the seismic active earth pressure coefficient

(KAE) can be expressed as:

where

KA: active earth pressure coefficient under static condition

ΔKdynamic: increment of earth pressure coefficient induced by seismic forces

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
KAE: M-O's seismic earth pressure coefficient

For the case of a vertical facing and a horizontal crest of the backfill, M-O's KAE can be

expressed as:

where

δ: friction angle at soil-wall interface (= 2/3φ = 30° in the present study)

θ: angle of resultant earth thrust from the vertical

where kh = η·(HPGA/g), with η ranging from 1/3 to 1/2, as suggested by Whitman (1990). In

the following analyses, η = 1/3 is used. The static lateral earth pressure coefficient (KA) was

calculated using φ = 44° and θ = 0°. In the design of geosynthetic-reinforced steep slopes and

walls, the layout and strength of the reinforcement are based on lateral earth pressures

calculated using Rankine's, Coulomb's, or modified earth pressure theories (Koerner, 2005;

FHWA, 2009). Although the design methodology is based on a simplified force equilibrium

scheme, assuming no interaction between the soil reaction forces and the reinforcement

forces, the use of measured maximum reinforcement forces in reinforced soil walls to verify

the earth pressure theory is of practical significance (Allen and Bathurst, 2002; Allen et al.,

2003, 2004; Bathurst et al., 2005, 2008). On the other hand, earth pressures against the facing

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
can be directly measured using earth pressure cells attached to the facing, such as those

reported by Krishina and Latha (2009) and Yazdandoust (2018). It is believed that the strain

gage and earth pressure cell techniques are complementary in the study of lateral earth

pressures in reinforced soil structures. The experimental values of ΔKdynamic were converted

from the measured maximum reinforcement force increment induced by shaking (ΔTmax, i ; i:

reinforcement layer number) shown in Figs. 20 and 21 based on the following equation:

Experimental values of ΔKdynamic were calculated using Eq. (11) for q = 5 kPa and q = 0

conditions to account for the partially loaded condition at the crest of the wall, as shown in

Fig. 2. In the following, only ΔKdynamic is investigated; a discussion on the experimental value

of KA is beyond the scope of the present study. Figure 22 compares M-O's theoretical values

of ΔKdynamic with experimental ones. Experimental values of ΔKdynamic, which are functions of

HPGA (in g), are compared with theoretical values of ΔKdynamic, which are functions of kh.

Therefore, an empirical relationship of kh = HPGA/(3·g) is necessary. Also note that true

values of ΔKdynamic may lie between the solid line (taking into account surcharge q = 5 kPa)

and the dashed line (q = 0 is assumed) with the same symbol pattern (or identical test

conditions). Figure 22 indicates that:

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
(1) M-O's theoretical line with kh = HPGA/(3·g) consists of the upper limit for all

experimental values of ΔKdynamic with minor exceptions. M-O's theoretical line with kh =

HPGA/(4·g) may give a better fit to the experimental data, in the sense that this line

approximately falls between the solid (q = 5 kPa) and dashed (q = 0 kPa) lines.

(2) The cases with L/H = 0.7 generally have higher values of ΔKdynamic than those for the

cases with L/H = 0.5, even though the former cases had smaller wall displacements under

similar values of HPGA.

(3) The cases with f = 6 Hz generally have higher values of ΔKdynamic than those for the cases

with f = 10 Hz, even though f = 10 Hz is close to the resonant frequency of the wall.

12. DYNAMIC EARTH PRESSURE DISTRIBUTIONS

Experimental values of dynamic lateral earth pressure (σh,dynamic) were converted from the

measured reinforcement forces using the following equation:

where

Sv: tributary spacing of a reinforcing layer (= 100 mm in the present study)

The theoretical normalized lateral earth pressure distributions shown in Figs. 23(a) and

23(b) are inverted trapezoids, with a top width of σh,dynamic/·H (= 0.8·ΔKdynamic··H/·H =

0.8·ΔKdynamic) and a base width of σh, dynamic/·H (= 0.2·ΔKdynamic), as suggested in the

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
literature (Seed and Whitman, 1970; Ebeling and Morrison, 1993; Bathurst and Cai, 1995;

Bathurst et al. 2002). It can be seen in Figs. 23(a) and 23(b) that the measured values of σh,

dynamic are generally trapezoids, not the inverted trapezoids proposed in the literature. Figures

24(a) and 24(b) show lateral stress distributions for the case of f = 6 Hz. Compared to the

case of f = 10 Hz shown in Figs. 23(a) and 23(b), an even larger discrepancy between the

theoretical and the experimental can be seen at the lower part of the wall. In Figs. 24(a) and

24(b), the experimental results reported by Krishna and Latha (2009) and Yazdandoust

(2018) are also plotted to compare the patterns of dynamic earth pressure distributions. These

data were selected based on their similar reinforcement configurations (namely, L/H = 0.7

and 0.5 for Figs. 24(a) and 24(b), respectively), despite their different patterns of input

waves, values of HPGA, and H. A more rigorous and precise comparative study should be

performed in the future to verify the conclusion obtained here. The upper and lower limits of

σh,dynamic/·H reported by Krishna and Latha (2009) were obtained with a small HPGA of

0.2g, showing an approximately uniform distribution along the full height of the wall. On the

other hand, the patterns of σh,dynamic/·H reported by Yazdandoust (2018) for the walls

subjected to 0.5g resemble a rectangle for L/H (= 0.7 and 0.5 shown in Figs. 24(a) and 24(b),

respectively); those for the walls subjected to 0.8g and 0.7g resemble trapezoids for L/H = 0.7

and 0.5, as shown in Figs. 24(a) and 24(b), respectively.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
13. CONCLUSIONS

Shaking table tests were carried out using 600-mm-high (H = 0.6 m)

geosynthetic-reinforced model walls with a vertical wrap-around facing. The tensile stiffness

of the reinforcement was scaled-down to meet the similitude of stresses requirement between

a 6-m-high prototype and 0.6-m-high model walls. Four cycles of sinusoidal waves with a

specific HPGA and a wave frequency (f) were used in each loading stage, with the value of

HPGA increased by 0.05g in successive loading steps until ultimate displacement states were

attained. Reinforcement forces developed in the backfill subjected to ground shaking were

measured and converted to experimental values of dynamic earth pressure increments. The

following are the major findings:

(1) The results of white noise tests on the geosynthetic-reinforced model wall indicate that the

predominant frequency (f1) for the model wall falls between 12 and 14 Hz. Based on a

free-vibration test, a predominant frequency of f1 = 11.3 Hz and a damping ratio of D =

21% were obtained for the model wall. Therefore, the shaking table tests using sinusoidal

input waves with a frequency of f = 10 Hz represented the case of ground excitations with

a predominant frequency near that of the soil wall.

(2) Ground-wall resonance occurs at small values of HPGA (0.1-0.5g) with an amplification

factor of Am = 1.2- 2.2 at the crest of the wall; this factor decreases with increasing HPGA.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
The effect of resonance on wall displacement was dwarfed by that of kinetic energy,

which may account for a large portion of the plastic displacement of the wall subjected to

input waves with f = 6 Hz. This observation holds true for limited values of f (= 6 and 10

Hz) and L/H (= 0.5 and 0.7) used here, requiring further confirmation in the future.

(3) Based on the hypothesis that the locus of maximum tensile reinforcement force mimics

that of a potential failure surface, the wall under critical states (Dmax/H > 5%) exhibited a

failure mechanism similar to that proposed in the literature, i.e., a vertical failure surface

with a distance of Ls = 0.3H for the upper half of the wall and the Rankine active failure

wedge for the lower half of the wall. This observation holds true for all values of f (= 6

and 10 Hz) and L/H (= 0.5 and 0.7) used, and is consistent with suggestions in the

literature for reinforced soil walls with a stiff reinforcement.

(4) For the wall with L/H = 0.7 subjected to input waves with f = 10 Hz (Dmax/H = 3.3% at

HPGA = 1.7g), a vertical potential failure surface developed throughout the full height of

the wall with a distance from the facing of Ls = 0.3H, with no sign of failure wedge over

the lower half of the wall.

(5) M-O theoretical solutions for ΔKdynamic based on the assumption of kh = HPGA/(3g) are an

approximate upper limit for the experimental values of ΔKdynamic obtained from the

measured reinforcement forces during shaking. A theoretical line based on the

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
assumption of kh = HPGA/(4g) may provide solutions for ΔKdynamic that better fit the

experimental values.

(6) Distributions of dynamic earth pressure increments converted from the measured tensile

force in reinforcement layers resemble trapezoids, rather than the inverted trapezoids

proposed in the literature. This observation was supported by some recent studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan,

under research grant MOST 104-2221-E-006-MY3.

NOTATION

Basic SI units are shown in parentheses.

Am: amplification ratio (dimensionless)

arms: root-mean-square acceleration (m4/s2)

a(t): horizontal base acceleration at time t (s)

ay: yield acceleration (m/s/s)

D85, D60, D50, D30, D10: particle sizes of 85%, 60%, 50%, 30%, and 10% finer, respectively

(m)

D: damping ratio (dimensionless)

δ: friction angle at soil-wall interface (degrees)

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
ΔKdynamic: increment of earth pressure coefficient induced by seismic forces (dimensionless)

ΔTi: dynamic reinforcement force increment at layer i (N/m)

ΔTmax, i : maximum dynamic reinforcement force increment at layer i (N/m)

Dmax: maximum wall deflection (m)

Dn: normalized seismic displacement (dimensionless)

Dr: relative density (dimensionless)

e: void ratio (dimensionless)

Ek: kinetic energy (J)

εf: rupture strain (dimensionless)

f: frequency of input waves (Hz)

f1: dominant frequency (Hz)

φ, φ: internal friction angle and decrease of φ per log cycle of confining pressures,

respectively, of soils (degrees)

φb: wall base geosythetic reinforcement interface friction angle (degrees)

Fsp: safety factor against pull-out (dimensionless)

g: gravitational acceleration (= 9.81 m/s2)

γ: dry unit weight (N/m3)

H: full height of geosythetic-reinforced wall (m)

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Hm, Hp: full heights of model and prototype walls, respectively (m)

Ia: Arias intensity (m/s)

η: empirical constant (dimensionless)

J2%, J5%, J10%: tensile stiffness of reinforcement at strains of 2%, 5%, and 10%, respectively

(N/m)

KA: active earth pressure coefficient under static condition (dimensionless)

KAE: Mononobe-Okabe's seismic earth pressure coefficient (dimensionless)

kcrit: critical seismic coefficient (dimensionless)

kh: horizontal seismic coefficient (dimensionless)

λ: scale ratio (dimensionless)

L: length of reinforcing layer (m)

Ls: distance from facing where maximum tensile force occurs (m)

, : soil-geosynthetic interface friction angle and decrease of  per log cycle of confining

pressures, respectively, of soils (degrees)

ω: radian frequency (1/s)

q: intensity of surcharge (Pa)

Sv: tributary spacing of a reinforcing layer (m)

σn, σn0: normal pressure and reference normal pressure, respectively (Pa)

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
σh, dynamic: dynamic earth pressure increment (Pa)

T: wave period (s)

t: elapsed time (s)

Ts: duration of shaking for each shaking step (s)

θ: angle of resultant earth thrust from the vertical (degrees)

Tult: ultimate tensile strength (N/m)

vmax: maximum velocity (m/s)

v(t): velocity at time t (m/s)

z: depth from the crest of wall (m)

ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration

HPGA: horizontal peak ground acceleration (g: gravitational acceleration)

M-O: Mononobe-Okabe

JRTRI: Japanese Railway Technical Research Institute

LVDT: Linear variable displacement transducer

ACCtable, ACC1, ACC2: accelerometers mounted on the shaking table, the crest of the

reinforced zone, and the crest of unreinforced zone, respectively

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
REFERENCES

Allen, T.M. and Bathurst, R.J. (2002) "Soil reinforcement loads in geosynthetic walls at

working stress conditions" Geosynthetics International, Vol. 9, Nos. 6-6, pp. 525-526.

Allen, T.M., Bathurst, R.J., Lee, W.F., Holtz, R.D. and Walter, D.L. (2003) "A new working

stress method for prediction of reinforcement loads in geosynthetic walls" Canadian

Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 976-994.

Allen, T.M., Bathurst, R.J., Holtz, R.D., Lee, W.F. and Walters, D.L. (2004) "A new working

stress method for prediction of loads in steel reinforced walls" Journal of Geotechnical

and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp. 1109-1120.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

T 99 (2017). Standard Method of Test for Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a

2.5-kg (5.5-lb) Rammer and a 305-mm (12-in.) Drop.

ASTM D2487 Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified

soil classification system). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.

Bathurst, R. J. (1998). Segmental Retaining Walls: Seismic Design Manual, 1st ed., National

Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M. and Walters, D.L. (2005) "Reinforcement loads in geosynthetic

walls and the case for a new working stress design method" Geotextiles and

Geomembranes, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 287-322.

Bathurst, R.J. and Cai, Z. (1995) “Pseudo-static seismic analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced

segmental retaining walls” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 5, pp. 787-830.

Bathurst, R.J and Hatami, K (1998) "Seismic response analysis of a reinforced soil retaining

wall" Geosynthetics International (Special issue on Earthquake Engineering), Vol. 5,

Nos. 1-2, pp. 127-166.

Bathurst, R. J., Hatami, K. and Alfaro, M.C. (2002) “Geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls and

slopes- seismic aspects” Ch. 14 of Geosynthetics and Their Applications, Ed. Shukla,

S.K, Thomas Telford, London. pp. 327-392.

Bathurst, R.J., Miyata, Y., Nernheim, A. and Allen, A.M. (2008) "Refinement of K-stiffness

method for geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls" Geosynthetics International, Vol. 15,

No.4, pp. 269-295.

Cai, Z. and Bathurst, R.J. (1996) “Deterministic sliding block methods for estimating seismic

displacements of earth structures” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 15,

No. 4, pp. 255-268.

Chopra, A.K (2001) Dynamic of Structures, Prentice Hall, 2nd Edition, Chapter 2, pp. 39-64.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Ebeling, R.M. and Morrison, E.E. (1993) “The seismic design of waterfront retaining

structures” Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Technical Report ITL-92-11 NCEL

TR-939, Port Huenene, California, USA.

El-Emam, M.M. and Bathurst, R.J. (2005) “Facing contribution to seismic response of

reduced-scale reinforced soil walls” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.

215-238.

El-Emam, M.M. and Bathurst, R.J. (2007) “Influence of reinforcement parameters on the

seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil retaining walls” Geotextiles and

Geomembranes, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 33-49.

Federal Highway Administration, FHWA (2009). Design and Construction of Mechanically

Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume 1. Publication No.

FHWA-NHI-10-024. U. S. Department of Transportation, 737p.

Hatami, K. and Bathurst, R.J. (2000) "Effect of structural design on fundamental frequency

of reinforced-soil retaining walls" Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 19,

pp. 137-157.

Hsu, H.-Y. (2017) Direct Shear Testing and Modeling on the Behavior of Sand under Cyclic

loading. Master thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung

University, Tainan, Taiwan. (in Chinese)

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Huang, C.-C. and Wu, S.-H. (2006) “Simplified approach for assessing seismic

displacements of soil-retaining walls. Part 1: geosynthetic-reinforced modular block

walls” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 219-233.

Huang, C.-C. (2013) “Vertical acceleration response of horizontally excited reinforced walls”

Geosynthetics International, Vo. 20, No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Huang, C.-C., Horng, J.-C. Chang, W.-J., Chueh, S.-Y., Chiou, J.-S. and Chen, C.-H. (2011)

“Dynamic behavior of reinforced walls- horizontal displacement responses” Geotextiles

and Geomembranes, Vol. 29, pp. 257-267.

Huang, C.-C., Horng, J.-C. Chang, W.-J., Chueh, S.-Y., Chiou, J.-S. and Chen, C.-H. (2010)

“Dynamic behavior of reinforced slopes: horizontal acceleration response” Geosynthetics

International, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 207-219.

Huang, C.-C., Wu, S.-H. and Wu, H-J. (2009) "Seismic displacement criterion for soil

retaining walls based on soil strength mobilization" Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 135, No. 1, 74-83.

Huang, C.-C., Yin, S.-C. and Hsu, H.-Y. (2017) “Comparative study on the pull-out response

of nonwoven geotextile in dry and saturated sands” Journal of GeoEngineering, Vol. 12,

No. 3, pp. 97-107.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Idriss, I. M. (1990) “Response of soft soil sites during earthquakes” Proceedings H. Bolton

Seed Memorial Symposium, Duncan J. M. Editor, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, British

Columbia, Vol. 2, pp. 273- 289.

Japanese Railway Technical Research Institute, JRTRI (1999). Design Guidelines for

Railway Structures: Seismic Design, Maruzen, Tokyo, pp. 317-329 (in Japanese).

Jensen, K.A., Schaefer, V.R., Suleiman, M. T., White, D. J. (2005) "Characterization of

utility cut pavement settlement and repair techniques" Proceedings of the 2005

Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, Iowa, August 2005.

Koerner, R.M. (2005). Designing with Geosynthetics. 5th edition, Pearson Prentice Hall,

New Jersey, US, pp. 197-210, 356-361.

Komak Panah, A., Yazdi, M. and Ghalandarzadeh, A. (2015) "Shaking table tests on soil

retaining walls reinforced by polymeric strips" Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 43,

No. 2, pp. 148-161.

Koseki, J., Munaf, Y., Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Kojima, K. and Sato, T. (1998) “Shaking

and tilting tests of geosynthetic-reinforced soil and conventional type retaining walls”

Geosynthetics International, Vol. 5, No. 1-2, pp. 73-96.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Krishna, A.M. and Latha, G.M. (2007) "Seismic response of wrap-faced reinforced

soil-retaining wall models using shaking table tests" Geosynthetics International, Vol.

14, No. 6, pp. 355-364.

Krishna, A.M. and Latha, G.M. (2009) “Seismic behavior of rigid-faced reinforced soil

retaining wall models: reinforcement effect” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 16, No. 5,

pp. 364-373.

Krishna, A.M. and Latha, G.M. (2012) "Modeling the dynamic response of wrap-faced

reinforced soil retaining walls" International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 12, No. 4,

pp. 439-450.

Ling, H.I, Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K., Liu, H.B. (2005)

"Large-scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls"

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 4, pp.

465-476.

Matsuo, O., Tsutsumi, T., Yokoyama, K. and Saito, Y. (1998) “Shaking-table tests and

analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced soil” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 5, No. 1-2,

pp. 97-126.

Newmark, N.M. (1965) “Effects of earthquake on dams and embankments” Geotechnique,

Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 139- 159.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Richardson, G.N. and Lee, K.L. (1975) “Seismic design of reinforced earth walls” Journal of

the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Proceedings of ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT2, pp.

167-188.

Sabermahani, M., Ghalandarzadeh, A. and Fakher, A. (2009) “Experimental study on seismic

deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 27,

No. 2, pp. 121- 136.

Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V. (1970) “Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic

loads” Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference: Lateral Stresses in the Ground

and Design of Earth Retaining Structures. Ithaca, New York, pp. 103-147.

Segrestin, P. and Bastick, M.J. (1988) “Seismic design of reinforced earth retaining walls- the

contribution of finite element analysis” IS-Kyushu ’88, Fukuoka, Japan, October 1988,

Yamanouci, T., Miura, N. and Ochiai, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International

Geotechnical Synposium on Theory and Practice of Earth Reinforcement, Balkema,

Rotterdam, pp. 577-582.

Tatsuoka, F., Koseki, J., Tateyama, M., Munaf, Y. and Horii, K. (1998) “Seismic stability

against high seismic loads of geosynthetic-reinforced retaining structures” Keynote

lecture, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, GA,

pp. 103-142.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Wang, L., Chen, G. and Chen, S. (2015) "Experimental study on seismic response of geogrid

reinforced retaining walls with saturated backfill sand" Geotextiles and Geomembranes,

Vol. 43, pp. 35-45.

Wei, C.-L. (2017) "Modeling on the behavior of sand and sand-geosynthetic interface

subjected to cyclic shear loads" Master thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, National

Cheng Kung University (in Chinese).

Whitman, R.V. (1990) “Seismic design of gravity retaining walls” ASCE Specialty

Conference: Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Geotechnical

Special Publication No. 25, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA, pp. 817-842.

Whitman, R.V. and Liao, S. (1985) “Seismic design of gravity retaining walls”

Miscellaneous Paper GL-85-1, Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers,

Washington, DC.

Wu, P.-K., Matsushima, K. and Tatsuoka, F. (2008) "Effects of specimen size and some other

factors on the strength and deformation of granular soil in direct shear tests"

Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 1-20.

Wu, Y. and Prakash, S. (1996) "On seismic displacements of rigid retaining walls" ASCE

Geotechnical Special Publication: Analysis and Design of Retaining Structures Against

Earthquakes, S., Prakash, ed., ASCE, New York, 21-37.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Yazdandoust, M. (2018) "Laboratory evaluation of dynamic behavior of steel-strip

mechanically stabilized earth walls" Soils and Foundations, Vol. 58, pp. 264-276.

Table 1 Physical properties of the sand medium.

Index Property

Specific gravity, Gs 2.66

Minimum void ratio, emin 0.581

Maximum void ratio, emax 0.980

D85 (mm) 0.38

D60 (mm) 0.23

D50 (mm) 0.20

D30 (mm) 0.17

D10 (mm) 0.10

Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 2.30

Unified Soil Classification

SP
System (ASTM D 2487)

γd (kN/m3) 15

Void ratio, e 0.74

Relative density, Dr 60%

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Table 2 Reinforcement properties for the geotextiles used in the reduced-scale model and the

prototype walls.

Index property Reduced-scale 0.6 Simulated 6.0 m-high

m-high model wall prototype wall

(1) = (1)‧λ2= (1)‧102

Ultimate tensile strength (kN/m) 4.1 Not simulated (2)

Tensile modulus at 2% strain 70 7000

(kN/m), J2%

Tensile modulus at 5% strain 36 3600

(kN/m), J5%

Tensile modulus at 10% strain 19 Not simulated (2)

(kN/m), J10%

(2): the ultimate tensile strength and tensile modulus at strain of 10% are not simulated in the

present study because measured maximum reinforcement strains in the model tests were less

than 5%.

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig.1 Shaking table test set-up

Fig. 2 Geometry of the geosynthetic-reinforced model wall

Fig. 3 Top view of the wooden laminar sand bin

Fig. 4 Test set-up for examining effects of boundary rigidity on the response of horizontal

sandy ground: (a) geometry of horizontal sand ground and (b) input base accelerations

Fig. 5 Responses at the surface of horizontal ground in the laminar sand box: (a) at the center

and (b) edge of the box

Fig. 6 Results of FFT for the response of the laminar box: (a) at the center and (b) edge of the

box

Fig. 7 Responses at the surface of horizontal ground in the rigid sand box: (a) at the center

and (b) edge of the box

Fig. 8 Results of FFT for the response of the rigid box: (a) at the center and (b) edge of the

box

Fig. 9 Results of white noise test: (a) input base accelerations and (b) FFT results for the

response at ACC1 (at 100 mm from facing)

Fig. 10 Results of free-vibration tests: (a) input base accelerations and response at ACC1; (b)

close-up view of free vibration at ACC1

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Fig. 11 Typical step of shaking waves used in the present study

Fig. 12 Typical examples of step-wise intensified shaking tests using f = 10 Hz: (a) input base

accelerations, (b) input ground velocity, and (b) lateral wall displacements measured at

various heights

Fig. 13 Typical examples of step-wise intensified shaking tests using f = 6 Hz: (a) input base

accelerations, (b) acceleration response at ACC1, and (b) acceleration response at ACC2

Fig. 14 Acceleration amplification at the crest of the wall

Fig. 15 Various states of the model wall: (a) before shaking, (b) small facing displacement,

and (c) ultimate displacement state

Fig. 16 Measured facing displacements at various heights and shaking intensities for the cases

subjected to four major pulses and (a) L/H = 0.7, f = 10 Hz, (b) L/H = 0.5, f = 10 Hz, (c)

L/H = 0.7, f = 10 Hz, and (d) L/H = 0.5, f = 6 Hz.

Fig. 17 Maximum lateral wall displacements vs. input HPGA relationships

Fig. 18 Comparisons of a(t) and v(t)2 for sinusoidal waves with f = 6 and 10 Hz

Fig. 19 Normalized lateral displacements vs. normalized yielding acceleration of earth slopes

and walls obtained in various studies

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044
Fig. 20 Observed dynamic increments of reinforcement force (ΔTi) and potential failure

surfaces for (a) L/H = 0.7 and f = 10 Hz at HPGA = 1.72g and Dmax/H = 3% and (b) L/H

= 0.5 and f = 10 Hz at HPGA= 1.67g and Dmax/H = 10%.

Fig. 21 Observed dynamic increments of reinforcement force (ΔTi) and potential failure

surfaces for (a) L/H = 0.7 and f = 6 Hz at HPGA = 1.42g and Dmax/H = 10% and (b) L/H

= 0.5 and f = 6 Hz at HPGA = 1.27 g and Dmax/H = 10%.

Fig. 22 Comparisons of experimental and M-O's theoretical values of ΔKdynamic

Fig. 23 Dynamic lateral earth pressure increments measured at various HPGA values for (a)

L/H = 0.7 and f = 10 Hz and (b) L/H = 0.5 and f = 10 Hz

Fig. 24 Dynamic lateral earth pressure increments measured at various HPGA values for (a)

L/H = 0.7 and f = 6 Hz and (b) L/H = 0.5 and f = 6 Hz

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International
 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jgein.18.00044

Geosynthetics International