applied
sciences
Article
A Review of the Methods Calculating the Horizontal
Displacement for Modular Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls
Xiaoguang Cai 1,2,3, * , Shaoqiu Zhang 1 , Sihan Li 1,2,3, * , Honglu Xu 4 , Xin Huang 1,2,3,4






Citation: Cai, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, S.; Xu,
H.; Huang, X.; Zhu, C. A Review of
the Methods Calculating the
Horizontal Displacement for Modular
Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls. Appl.
Sci. 2021, 11, 8681. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app11188681
Academic Editor: Panagiotis
G. Asteris
Received: 11 August 2021
Accepted: 14 September 2021
Published: 17 September 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188681
and Chen Zhu 5
1 College of Geological Engineering, Institute of Disaster Prevention, Sanhe 065201, China;
204661132@st.cidp.edu.cn (S.Z.); huangxin2017@cidp.edu.cn (X.H.)
2 Hebei Key Laboratory of Earthquake Disaster Prevention and Risk Assessment, Sanhe 065201, China
3 CEA Key Laboratory for Building Collapse Mechanism and Disaster Prevention, Sanhe 065201, China
4 Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China;
xuhonglu@st.cidp.edu.cn
5 College of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China;
194661133@st.cidp.edu.cn
* Correspondence: cxg@cidp.edu.cn (X.C.); lisihan@st.cidp.edu.cn (S.L.);
Tel.: +86-15003166920 (X.C.); +86-18730659598 (S.L.)
Abstract: Most of the damage to reinforced retaining walls is caused by excessive deformation;
however, there is no calculation method for deformation under static and dynamic loads in the
design codes of reinforced soil retaining walls. In this paper, by collecting the measured displacement
data from four actual projects, four indoor prototype tests and two indoor model tests under a total
of 10 static load conditions, and comparing the calculation results with seven theoretical methods, the
results show that the FHWA method is more applicable to the permanent displacement prediction of
indoor prototype tests and that the CTI method is more applicable to the permanent displacement
prediction of actual projects and indoor model tests. Two yield acceleration calculation methods
and four permanent displacement calculation formulas were selected to calculate the displacement
response of two reinforced soil test models under seismic loads and compared with the measured
values, and the results showed that the Ausilio yield acceleration solution method was better. When
the input peak acceleration ranges from 0.1 to 0.6 g, the Richards and Elms upper limit method is
used, and when the input peak acceleration is 0.6–1.0 g, the Newmark upper limit method can predict
the permanent displacement of the retaining wall more accurately.
Keywords: displacement calculation method; summary calculation; module reinforced soil retaining
wall; deformation mode; yield acceleration
1. Introduction
A modular reinforced soil retaining wall is a flexible retaining structure composed of
a modular panel, reinforcement, and backfill. Because of their simple structures, strong
adaptability, and many other advantages, modular reinforced soil retaining walls are
widely used [1–5]. However, problems related to the loss of structural function due to
excessive deformation of the retaining wall have arisen in construction and use [6–8].
Robert M. Koerner et al. [6] investigated 320 damaged retaining walls, of which 99 were
damaged due to excessive deformation (Figure 1). The reinforced soil retaining wall at
the bridgehead approach of Xinzhuang Interchange at the turnout of Ningzhen Highway
(312 National Highway)-Qixiashan Section in China [7]. In the late construction period, the
southern panel of the eastern section of the bridge is obviously convex. Subsequently, due
to many days of rain, the deformation of the whole wall gradually intensified, the road
surface seriously subsided, and the wall was seriously tilted and bulging, which forced half
of the traffic to be interrupted, and there was the possibility of collapse at any time. Hoe I.
Ling et al. [8] investigated the failure of reinforced soil retaining walls in Highway 129 of
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
 Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 2 of 15

Hoe I. Ling et al. [8] investigated the failure of reinforced soil retaining walls in Hig
Hoe I. Ling et al. [8] investigated the failure of reinforced soil retaining walls in High
129 of Dagong City (Figure 2) after the Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan in 1999
Dagong City 129 of Dagong
(Figure
analyzed 2) the City
afterreasons
the (Figure
Chi-Chi 2) after the
earthquake
for failure.
Chi-Chiinearthquake
in Taiwan
They believed that 1999 and
failure
in Taiwan
analyzed
was causedthe
in 1999
by the exce
analyzed
reasons for failure. the reasons
They believed for failure. They believed that failure was caused by the exce
displacement of the that failure
modular wasduring
panel causedtheby the excessiveThe
earthquake. displacement
main reason of for the fa
displacement
the modular panel during theof the modularThe panel during thefor
earthquake. Thereinforced
main reasonsoilfor the fa
of reinforced soilearthquake. main
is that the influence reason
of the failure
deformation on theofstructure is not consider
of reinforced
is that the influence soil is that the influence of deformation on the structure is not consider
of deformation
the design process. on the structure is not considered in the design process.
the design process.

Figure 1. Excessive
Figure 1. Excessive Figure
deformation deformation
of the retaining of
wallof the retaining wall [6].
[6].
1. Excessive deformation the retaining wall [6].

Figure 2. Failure case of reinforced soil retaining walls under earthquake action [8].
FigureFigure 2. Failure
2. Failure case ofcase of reinforced
reinforced soil retaining
soil retaining walls under
walls under earthquake
earthquake action action
[8]. [8].

At present, the steps for the design of modular reinforced soil retaining walls a
At present, the Atsteps
present, the design
for the steps for of the designreinforced
modular of modular soilreinforced
retaining soilwalls retaining
are as walls a
follows (based on the [9,10] railway subgrade retaining structure design specific
follows (basedfollows (based
on the [9,10] on thesubgrade
railway [9,10] railway
retaining subgrade
structureretaining structure design
design specification, 2006): specifica
2006): (1) determine the engineering conditions. (2) Determine the engine
(1) determine2006):
the engineering conditions. (2) Determine the
(1) determine the engineering conditions. (2) Determine the engineering parameters. (3) engine
parameters.
Determine theparameters.
wall height,(3)(3)
wallDetermine
panel andthe the wall height,
reinforcement wall panel and reinforcement parameter
Determine wall height,parameters.
wall panel (4) andCheck the external
reinforcement parameter
Check
stability. (5) When the
thethe external
internal stability.
stability (5) When
is checked, the
there isthe internal stability
no deformation checking is checked,
process there there
Check external stability. (5) When internal stability is checked,
deformation
or steps. Because checking
the panel,checking process
reinforcement, or steps.
backfill, Because
andBecause
foundation the panel, reinforcement, backfill
deformation process or steps. the conditions will lead to backfill
panel, reinforcement,
foundation
and affect thefoundation
deformation, conditions will
it is verywill lead to and
important affect the deformation, it calculation
is very important to
conditions lead to toand find a reliable
affect deformation
the deformation, it is very important to
method. Many a reliable
scholars deformation
have performed calculation
relevant method.
research on Many scholars
deformation have
calculations.performed rel
a reliable deformation calculation method. Many scholars have performed rele
research
For the method on deformation calculations.
researchfor calculating the
on deformation deformation of reinforced soil retaining walls
calculations.
under static forces, For the method
Wang et al. [11]forcalculated
calculating the
thethe deformation
equivalent of reinforced
reinforced soil retaining
soil retaining
For the method for calculating deformation of reinforced soil retaining
under
wall structureunder static
for horizontal forces, Wang
isotropic et al. [11] calculated the equivalent reinforced soil retaining
static forces, Wang vertical
et al. [11]elastic beams,
calculated theaccording
equivalenttoreinforced
Rayleigh-Ritz soil retaining
method, and the structure for
calculation horizontal isotropic vertical elastic beams, according to Rayleigh
structure for method
horizontal of horizontal
isotropic displacement
vertical elastic of reinforced soil retaining
beams, according to Rayleigh
method,
wall under static and
force was the calculation method of horizontal displacement of reinforced
method, and deduced, while the
the calculation deformation
method was the sum
of horizontal of the bending
displacement of reinforced
deformation and retaining wall
shear wall under
deformation. static force was deduced, while the deformation was the sum o
retaining under static force was deduced, while the deformation was the sum o
bending deformation
Mahsa Khosrojerdi and shear deformation.
et al. [12] introduced six calculation methods for the horizontal
bending deformation and shear deformation.
Mahsa Khosrojerdi
deformation of reinforced soil retaining etwalls
al. [12]andintroduced
reinforcedsix six calculation
abutments methods
(FHWA for the horiz
method,
Mahsa Khosrojerdi et al. [12] introduced calculation methods for the horiz
deformation
GeoService method, CTI of reinforced
method, soil retaining
JeWell-Miigan method, walls
Wu and reinforced
method, and abutments
Adams method).(FHWA me
deformation of reinforced soil retaining walls and reinforced abutments (FHWA me
GeoService
Among them,GeoService
the FHWA method method, CTI
is an method,
analysis JeWell-Miigan
formula based on the method,
regression Wu method, and A
method, CTI method, JeWell-Miigan method, Wuanalysis
method, of and A
method).
actual engineering Among
andAmong
numerical them, the
simulation FHWA method
results, is
andisthe an analysis formula based on the regre
method). them, the FHWA method anmaximum horizontal
analysis formula baseddefor-
on the regre
analysis
mation can beanalysis
calculated of actual engineering and numerical simulation results, and the maxi
ofonly by the
actual reinforcement
engineering and length (L) and
numerical retaining wall
simulation results,height
and (H).the maxi
The GeoService horizontal
method isdeformation
based on thecan limitbeequilibrium
calculated theory.
only by Thethe reinforcement
horizontal deforma- length (L)
horizontal deformation can be calculated only by the reinforcement length (L)
tion of each layer can be calculated only by knowing the limit strain or the maximum strain
and length of each layer. Based on actual engineering and finite element analysis, the CTI
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 3 of 15

method for calculating the structural deformation during the service period can be used to
calculate the horizontal deformation of each layer if the ultimate strain or the maximum
strain of each layer of the reinforcement and the height of the retaining wall are required.
The Wu method is based on the lifting method of the Jewell and Milligan method, which
can be used to calculate the horizontal deformation of each layer without considering the
strain of the reinforcement and the influence of the panel stiffness. The Adams method
assumes that the volume strain is 0, the synchronous deformation of the reinforcement and
soil, and the horizontal strain is less than 1%, which can be used to calculate the horizontal
deformation of the top of the structure.
Mahsa Khosrojerdi et al. [12] compared the six methods with the experimental data of
17 reinforced soil retaining walls and reinforced abutments to determine the practicability
of the six calculation methods. Krystyna Kazimierowicz-Frankowska [13] reviewed five
calculation methods for the deformation of reinforced soil retaining walls, and the advan-
tages and disadvantages of these five calculation methods were explained. At the same
time, an IBWPAN method that can evaluate strain-displacement was introduced. The IBW
PAN method divides the displacement into the creep displacement of the free zone and the
tensile displacement of the anchorage zone, and the horizontal displacement calculation
is divided into three modes: (1) the mode where only the displacement generated by the
free zone is calculated; (2) the mode without external loads, the displacement of the free
zone and the anchorage zone; and (3) the mode with external loads, the displacement of
the free zone and the anchorage zone. He [14] established a numerical model through
FLAC3D , summarized the horizontal deformation formula of reinforced soil retaining walls,
and obtained the formula of each influencing factor and the horizontal deformation of
retaining walls, as well as the horizontal deformation formula of reinforced soil retaining
walls containing each influencing factor. Each calculation method is summarized in Table
S1.
For the deformation of reinforced soil retaining walls under seismic loads, Z. Cai and
R.J. Bathurst [15] compared several calculation methods (Newmark upper bound method,
Richards and Elms upper bound method, Whitman and Liao average fitting method, and
Cai and Bathrust method) and showed that although different methods are calculated with
different parameters, the permanent displacement values obtained by all methods are in
a reasonable area. Budhu [16] used the sliding safety factor method to analyze the yield
acceleration of a backpacked reinforced soil retaining wall. Younan et al. [17] simplified
the retaining wall as a cantilever spring model and proposed a calculation method of the
retaining wall deformation considering panel stiffness. Based on the calculation method
of horizontal displacement of reinforced soil retaining walls under static action, Wang
et al. [11] deduced the theoretical research formula for the horizontal seismic deformation
of reinforced soil retaining walls under seismic action by using the quasi-static method.
After analyzing the existing models (Ambraseys and Menu method, Jibson method, and
Roberto method), Xu et al. [18] established a permanent displacement prediction model
based on the critical acceleration ratio, Arias strength, and seismic residual strength by
using a large number of strong motion records recorded during the Wenchuan earthquake.
The energy method was used to convert the measured displacement of the slope into the
permanent displacement of the slope without a supporting structure, and the validity of
the model was verified by the measured data.
Although there are many calculation methods under static load and seismic load, there
is no recognized calculation method because of the accuracy of the data. Dunnicliff [19]
judged the reliability of measured data by numerical calculation, and Pantelidis [20]
compared solutions, design specifications and centrifuge tests to support the effectiveness
of the proposed coefficients. In order to find a suitable deformation calculation method for
modular reinforced earth retaining wall, this paper first describes the actual deformation
of retaining wall under 10 static loads, and predicts the displacement by seven calculation
methods. Then, through two indoor dynamic test models, the measured displacement
values are compared with the calculated values under four calculation methods to verify the
 Many experts and scholars have performed relevant research on the deformation
mode of modular reinforced soil retaining walls under static action (Figure 3), which is
mainly divided into tilting types (Figure 3a) and bulging types (Figure 3b).
Bathurst et al. [21] introduced deformation monitoring of a 6.1 m-high modular
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 4 of 15
reinforced soil retaining wall in Illinois, USA, after completion and after loading. The
monitoring results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.
accuracy ofDeformation aftermethod.
the calculation completion and loading.
Finally, the calculation method that is most suitable for
predicting
Wall Surfacedisplacement under static and dynamic loads is
Inside obtained. The research results
a Soil-Mass
can provide reference for the deformation design of modular reinforced earth retaining
Maximum Maximum
Condition Maximum
wall. Deformation Maximum Deformation
Deformation Deformation
Deflection Mode Deflection Mode
Position 2. Study on the Deformation under Static Position
Forces
107 days after 2.1. 19.56
Study mm
on the Deformation
3.07 m BulgingMode 6.1 m 28.7 mm Tilting
completion Many experts and scholars have performed relevant research on the deformation
370 days after mode of modular reinforced
3.07 m 91.44 mm Tilting soil retaining
6.1 walls
m under60.71
staticmm
action (Figure 3), which is
Tilting
loading mainly divided into tilting types (Figure 3a) and bulging types (Figure 3b).

Initial Location Initial Location

Deformation Deformation

(a) Tilting (b) Bulging

Figure 3. Horizontal
Figure deformation
3. Horizontal mode
deformation of the
mode of reinforced soil soil
the reinforced retaining wall.
retaining wall.

Bathurst et al.
N. Abu-Hejleh [21][22]
et al. introduced
introduced deformation monitoring
the deformation of a of
response 6.1reinforced
m-high modular
soil
reinforced
retaining soil retaining
wall abutment wall incompleted
structures Illinois, USA,
near after completion
Denver, Colorado, and after during
in 1999 loading. theThe
monitoring
construction resultsThe
period. are maximum
shown in Table 1. displacements of Section 200, Section 400,
outward
and Section 800 are 7, 9m and 10 mm, respectively. Among them, the maximum
deformationTable 1. Deformation
positions after200
of Section completion and loading.
and Section 800 are equal to 2/3 of the wall height,
and the deformation mode
Wall Surface
is bulging. The maximum deformation position of Section 400
Inside a Soil-Mass
is at the top of the wall, and the deformation mode is an outward-dip type. This may be
Condition Maximum Maximum
Maximum
due to the difference Deformation modes caused by different
in the deformation Maximum
construction Deformation
seasons
Deformation Deformation
Deflection Mode Deflection Mode
and different construction processes.
Position Position
107 days after Hatami et al. [23,24] and Bathurst et al. [25,26] introduced four 3.6 m high reinforced
3.07 m 19.56 mm Bulging 6.1 m 28.7 mm Tilting
completion soil retaining walls constructed by the Royal Canadian Military Academy, and four
370 days after loading 3.07 m 91.44 mm Tilting 6.1 m 60.71 mm Tilting

N. Abu-Hejleh et al. [22] introduced the deformation response of reinforced soil

retaining wall abutment structures completed near Denver, Colorado, in 1999 during
the construction period. The maximum outward displacements of Section 200, Section
400, and Section 800 are 7, 9m and 10 mm, respectively. Among them, the maximum
deformation positions of Section 200 and Section 800 are equal to 2/3 of the wall height,
and the deformation mode is bulging. The maximum deformation position of Section 400
is at the top of the wall, and the deformation mode is an outward-dip type. This may be
due to the difference in the deformation modes caused by different construction seasons
and different construction processes.
Hatami et al. [23,24] and Bathurst et al. [25,26] introduced four 3.6 m high reinforced
soil retaining walls constructed by the Royal Canadian Military Academy, and four mod-
els were different due to different spacings and stiffnesses of the reinforcement. In the
observation after completion and after loading, the maximum deformation position is
approximately 2.7 m high, and the deformation mode bulges.
Jennifer E. Nicks et al. [27] developed a model with dimension of 1.4 m (length) ×
1.4 m (width) × 2.0 m (height) to study the deformation mode of reinforced soil columns.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 5 of 15

The deformation modes under different loads, different ultimate tensile forces of the
reinforcement, and different vertical spacings were obtained. The test results show that
the maximum lateral deformation occurs at a height of one-third from the top regardless
of whether the veneer is included in the test process, and the overall deformation trend is
inclined.
Xiao et al. [28] made a retaining wall with dimensions of 1.0 m (length) × 0.54 m
(height) to analyze the influence of the distance between the strip foundation and wall
panel on the deformation characteristics of the reinforced retaining wall. The results show
that when the foundation deviation distance D is less than 0.5 H, the top deformation of
the retaining wall is the largest, and the overall deformation trend is inclined. When D is
0.6H and 0.8H, the deformation of the upper part of the retaining wall is the largest, and
the overall trend changes to bulging.
In conclusion, due to different factors, such as the height of the retaining wall, the
length of the reinforcement, the spacing of the reinforcement, the stiffness of the reinforce-
ment, the construction season and the construction sequence, the modular reinforced soil
retaining wall has different deformation modes and deformation amounts. Therefore, it is
necessary to evaluate the applicability and accuracy of existing deformation calculation
methods.

2.2. Comparison of the Measured Data and Calculation Methods

To analyze the applicability of the deformation calculation methods, this paper uses
the measured values of 10 modular reinforced soil retaining walls to calculate the results of
the FHWA (F) method, GeoService (G) method, CTI (C) method, Wu (1,2) method, Adams
(A) method, and Wang (W) method, and analyzes the practicability of seven calculation
methods. Table S2 summarizes the parameters of the 10 structures. Models 1, 2, 3, and 4
are practical engineering, models 5, 6, 7, and 8 are indoor prototype tests (1:1 indoor model
test is carried out according to the test prototype), and models 9 and 10 are indoor model
tests (according to the test prototype, the indoor model test designed by similarity ratio).
Table S3 lists the measured values of 10 cases and the calculated values of 7 calculation
methods under static P (kPa). Figures 4–6 show the comparison between the calculated
values and the measured values (M) under each working condition. Because the calculated
results of the IBW PAN method and He Wei method are negative and inconsistent with the
actual situation, they are not included in the table. In this paper, the η value (1-calculated
value/measured value) is defined. When η is 0, the predicted value is the same as the
measured deformation. When the η value is greater than 0, the prediction method is
not conservative, and the prediction method with an η value less than 0 represents the
conservative prediction method. In 10 cases η the values are shown in Table 2 and Figure 5.
The displacement value of case 9 under FHWA method in Figure 5 is −466.71, which is
excessively conservative, so it is not shown in Figure 5.

Table 2. η value.

F G C Wu(1) Wu(2) A W
1 −0.30 0.58 0.06 - - - -
2 - −2.00 −0.53 −2.25 - 0.18 -
3 - −0.38 0.08 −0.50 - −0.58 -
4 - −0.80 −0.20 −0.95 - −0.58 -
5 −2.51 0.60 0.22 0.67 0.96 −3.11 −4.01
6 −0.89 0.79 0.58 0.82 0.92 −3.11 −4.01
7 −7.13 −1.08 −3.08 −0.73 1.00 −3.11 −4.01
8 −2.72 0.58 0.17 0.61 0.88 −3.11 −4.02
9 −466.71 0.33 −0.81 - - −0.8 -
10 −11.56 0.75 0.51 0.02 - - -
 4 - −0.80 −0.20 −0.95 - −0.58 -
5 −2.51 0.60 0.22 0.67 0.96 −3.11 −4.0
6 −0.89 0.79 0.58 0.82 0.92 −3.11 −4.0
7 −7.13 −1.08 −3.08 −0.73 1.00 −3.11 −4.0
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 8 −2.72 0.58 0.17 0.61 0.88 −3.11
6 of 15 −4.0
9 −466.71 0.33 −0.81 - - −0.8 -
10 −11.56 0.75 0.51 0.02 - - -

C 86.4 A 14.7

Calculation method

Calculation method
C 19.5
G 38.7
G 9.2
F 118.44
F 18

M 91.44 M 6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 5 10 15 20 25
Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)
(a) Case 1 P = 35 kPa (b) Case 2 P = 150 kPa
A 28.5 A 28.5
Calculation method

Calculation method
Wu(1) 19.5 Wu(1) 19.5

C 12 C 12

G 18 G 18

M 13 M 10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Deformation (mm) Deformation (mm)
(c) Case
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 P = 150 kPa (d) Case 4 P = 115 kPa 7o

Figure 4. Comparison
Figure 4. Comparison between measured
between measured value andvalue and calculated
calculated value in value in case 1–4.
case 1–4.

140 140
122.8 122.8
120 110.2 120 110.2
Deformation (mm)

Deformation (mm)

100 100

80 80

60 60 58.44
51.4 51.4
40 31.4 40
24.5 24.5
20 12.5 10.4 20 12.5 10.4 8.3
4.1
0 0
M F G C Wu(1)Wu(2) A W M F G C Wu(1)Wu(2) A W
Calculation method Calculation method
(a) Case 5 P = 70 kPa (b) Case 6 P = 70 kPa
140 140
122.7 122.9
120 120 110.2
Deformation (mm)

100 100
Deformation (mm)

80 80

60 51.4 60 51.4
48.8
40 40
29.6
24.5 24.5
20 12.5 10.4 20 12.5 11.6 12.8
6
0 0
M F G C Wu(1) A W M F G C Wu(1)Wu(2) A W
Calculation method Calculation method
(c) Case 7 P = 0 kPa (d) Case 8 P = 70 kPa

Figure 5. Figure 5. Comparison

Comparison between between
measuredmeasured value
value and and calculated
calculated value invalue
case in case 5–8.
5–8.

20 8

16.3 16.2
16 5.94
6 5.8
ion (mm)
ion (mm)

12
 29.6
24.5 24.5
20 12.5 10.4 20 12.5 11.6 12.8
6
0 0
M F G C Wu(1) A W M F G C Wu(1)Wu(2) A W
Calculation method Calculation method
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 (c) Case 7 P = 0 kPa (d) Case 8 P = 70 kPa 7 of 15

Figure 5. Comparison between measured value and calculated value in case 5–8.

20 8

16.3 16.2
16 5.94
6 5.8

Deformation (mm)
Deformation (mm)
12
9 4
8 2.9
6
2 1.5
4

0 0
M G C A M G C A
Calculation method Calculation method
(a) Case 9 P = 400 kPa (b) Case 10 P = 200 kPa
Figure 6. Comparison between measured
Figure 6. Comparison value
between and calculated
measured valuecalculated
value and in cases 9–10 (note:
value since 9–10
in cases the calculated values
(note: since the under
the FHWA method
calculated values under the FHWA method in case 9 and case 10 are 4209.4 and 74.6, respectively,are not
in case 9 and case 10 are 4209.4 and 74.6, respectively, which are excessively conservative, they
shown in the figure.).
which are excessively conservative, they are not shown in the figure.).
As can bemethods
The seven calculation seen fromare
Figure
note7,applicable
the calculation
to allresults
cases, under seven
and there calculation
may not be method
ηn value analysis shows that, in 10 cases, the relative difference between the CTI metho
parameters in the formula in the case. The L/H values of case2–4under FHWA method
and the GeoService method is the smallest, because most ηn value is less than 0, so th
are 1.778–2.667, 1.355–2.033, 1.355–2.033, respectively, which are not between 0.3 and 1.175,
existing calculation methods are conservative in predicting deformation, and the FHW
which do not meet the conditions of formula, so the permanent displacement value cannot
method is the most conservative. In cases 1–4 of the practical engineering cases, th
be obtained. In case 1 of the Wu (1) method, the reinforcement stiffness (K) parameter is
GeoService method and CTI method show good practicability. Although the two method
missing. Case 9 cannot get a displacement because L/H = 0.5 is less than 0.7. In cases 1–4
need accurate reinforcement strain in calculation, the CTI method has less difference, s
and 10 under Wu (2) method, due to the lack of the friction angle (δ) between the module
the CTI method is more accurate in displacement prediction in practical engineering. I
bricks and the friction angle between the brick and soil (β), in case 9, since L/h is 0.5 less
than 0.7, the displacement value cannot be obtained. Due to the lack of data in case 1 and
case 10 under the Adams method, the displacement value cannot be obtained. Under the
W method, case 1 lacks the geogrid elastic modulus (Er ) geogrid Poisson’s ratio (vr ), cases
2–4 lack the geogrid elastic modulus (Er ) and the fill elastic modulus (Es ), and case 9 and
case 10 lack the fill elastic modulus (Es ), so the calculated value cannot be obtained.
As can be seen from Figure 7, the calculation results under seven calculation methods,
ηn value analysis shows that, in 10 cases, the relative difference between the CTI method
and the GeoService method is the smallest, because most ηn value is less than 0, so the
existing calculation methods are conservative in predicting deformation, and the FHWA
method is the most conservative. In cases 1–4 of the practical engineering cases, the
GeoService method and CTI method show good practicability. Although the two methods
need accurate reinforcement strain in calculation, the CTI method has less difference, so the
CTI method is more accurate in displacement prediction in practical engineering. In cases
5–8 of the indoor prototype test, the relative difference between the Adams method and
the Wang (W) method is the largest, so both methods are not suitable for the prediction of
indoor prototype test displacement, while the CTI method, GeoService method, and Wu (1)
method show good practicability. In case 7, the GeoService method is more conservative
than the Wu (1) method; therefore, the Wu (1) method is more appropriate. In cases
9–10, the relative differences obtained by GeoService method, CTI method, and Wu (1)
method are similar. Therefore, the GeoService method and CTI method have shown good
performance in predicting indoor model tests. Comparing the calculated/measured values
of the GeoService method and the CTI method, the ratios of the two calculation methods
are 1.5, 3.96, 0.55, and 2.048, respectively, in cases 9 and 10. Because the difference between
the calculated value and the measured value of CTI method is smaller, the CTI method is
selected as the displacement prediction method of the indoor model test. The GeoService
method and CTI method can get the predicted value when predicting 10 cases, so they are
more practical than the other five methods.
 method have shown good performance in predicting indoor model tests. Comparing the
calculated/measured values of the GeoService method and the CTI method, the ratios of
the two calculation methods are 1.5, 3.96, 0.55, and 2.048, respectively, in cases 9 and 10.
Because the difference between the calculated value and the measured value of CTI
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 method is smaller, the CTI method is selected as the displacement prediction method 8 ofof
15
the indoor model test. The GeoService method and CTI method can get the predicted
value when predicting 10 cases, so they are more practical than the other five methods.

2
0
-2
-4 F
G
ηn -6 C
-8 Wu(1)
Wu(2)
-10 A
-12 W
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Case number
Figure7.
Figure valueanalysis
7. ηηnnvalue analysisdiagram.
diagram.

2.3. Discussion
2.3. Discussion
The model fabrication process in the model test and indoor prototype test is rigorous
The model fabrication process in the model test and indoor prototype test is rigorous
and precise, so the deformation is small. The construction quality of actual projects is often
and precise, so the deformation is small. The construction quality of actual projects is often
difficult to guarantee due to factors such as the construction period and cost. Robert M. Ko-
difficult to guarantee due to factors such as the construction period and cost. Robert M.
erner et al. [6] considered that improper filler, poor compaction effect, unreasonable design,
Koerner
and pooretdrainage
al. [6] considered
were the mainthat improper
reasons for filler,
the poor
failurecompaction effect, unreasonable
of 320 reinforced soil retaining
design,
walls. At the same time, because the modulus of the foundation soil,320
and poor drainage were the main reasons for the failure of the reinforced
stiffness ofsoil
the
retaining walls. the
reinforcement, At the samespacing
vertical time, because
of the the modulus of the
reinforcement, the foundation
length of the soil, the stiffness
reinforcement,
of
thethe reinforcement,
nature of the backfillthe soil,vertical spacing
the change in theofwalltheheight,
reinforcement, the load,
the additional lengththeofdepth
the
reinforcement, the nature of the backfill soil, the change in the wall height,
of the panel foundation and other factors will affect the deformation of the reinforced soil the additional
load, the depth
retaining wall, of the be
it can panel foundation
speculated thatand other factors
an accurate will affect
deformation the deformation
calculation methodofdoes
the
reinforced
not exist. soil retaining wall, it can be speculated that an accurate deformation calculation
method does notto
According exist.
the suggestion of the η value, the FHWA method is used to predict
According tovalue
the deformation the suggestion
before the of the η value,ofthe
construction FHWA method
a modular is used
reinforced to predictwall.
soil retaining the
deformation value before
Under the premise of knownthe construction
reinforcement of deformation,
a modular reinforced
the Wu (1) soil retaining
method andwall.
CTI
Under
methodthe arepremise of knownthereinforcement
used to estimate deformation of deformation, the Wu soil
modular reinforced (1) method
retainingand CTI
walls in
method are
normal use. used to estimate the deformation of modular reinforced soil retaining walls in
normal use.
3. Study on the Deformation under Seismic Loads
3. Study
3.1. on the Method
Calculation Deformation under
of the Yield Seismic Loads
Acceleration
3.1. Calculation Method
Under seismic of the Yield
loading, Acceleration calculation of reinforced soil retaining walls
the displacement
is generally based on the Newmark sliding block
Under seismic loading, the displacement method.
calculation ofThe Newmark
reinforced soil sliding method
retaining walls
theory was originally used to estimate the permanent displacement of embankment
is generally based on the Newmark sliding block method. The Newmark sliding method slope
caused by earthquake. When the ground acceleration exceeds the critical
theory was originally used to estimate the permanent displacement of embankment slopeacceleration of
the soil, the block will move. Other calculation methods are modified and improved on
the basis of the Newmark method. For example, Whitman and Liao carried out regres-
sion analysis on Newmark displacement data and put forward formulas for estimating
permanent displacement.
The test data selected Li et al.’s [29] single-step, two-tiered modular reinforced soil
retaining wall model scale test, and the test parameters are shown in Table 3. The model
size of the single-step modular reinforced soil retaining wall is 2.0 × 1.5 × 1.8 m (length ×
width × height), which is divided into 12 layers, and the height of each layer is 0.15 m. To
monitor the displacement response of the retaining wall under input acceleration, a rod
displacement meter is arranged at the middle position of each layer module, for a total of
12 displacement meters, and an accelerometer is arranged from the bottom to the top of
each pair of layers in the reinforced area and non-reinforced area, for a total of 12 locations,
to obtain the acceleration response. The size of the two-tiered modular reinforced soil
retaining wall model and the layout of the accelerometer and the top rod displacement
 12 displacement meters, and an accelerometer is arranged from the bottom to the top of
each pair of layers in the reinforced area and non-reinforced area, for a total of 12 locations,
to obtain the acceleration response. The size of the two-tiered modular reinforced soil
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 retaining wall model and the layout of the accelerometer and the top rod displacement 9 of 15
meter are the same as those of the single-step modular reinforced soil retaining wall
model. The design diagram of the two models is shown in Figure 8.
The yield acceleration method proposed by Newmark gives the acceleration value
meter are the same as those of the single-step modular reinforced soil retaining wall model.
when the safety factor is 1. When the yield acceleration value is greater than the input
The design diagram of the two models is shown in Figure 8.
acceleration value, displacement accumulation will occur. By summarizing and analyzing
the results ofTable
previous studies
3. Calculation andand large shaking table tests, Muni obtained the yield
test parameters.
acceleration formula through the safety factor of anti-slip earthquakes. E. Ausilio applied
Angle of Internal Inclined Angle of
Model Types the limit analysis
Friction method to obtain
Reinforcement the yield acceleration
Reinforcement method under
Height of the
the Wallseismic
Back loads.
Spacing b/m Length L/m Retaining Wall H/m
ϕ/◦
Table 4 introduces four calculation methods for the yield acceleration. β/The ◦
calculated
Single-step block values
41 of the yield 0.15
acceleration of reinforced
1.26 retaining walls
1.8 with two different
0 forms of
Two-tiered block 41 0.15 0.9 1.8 0
panels under the Muni method and E. Ausilio method are shown in Table S4.

(a) Single-step modular reinforced retaining wall. (b) Two-tiered modular reinforced retaining wall.
Figure
Figure8.8.Model planediagram.
Model plane diagram.

The Table
yield acceleration method
3. Calculation proposed
and test by Newmark gives the acceleration value
parameters.
when the safety factor is 1. When the yield acceleration value is greater than the input
Angle of Internal Height
acceleration value, displacement accumulation will occur. of the
By summarizing Inclined Angle of
and analyzing
Reinforcement Reinforcement
Model Types Frictionthe results of previous studies and large shaking table tests, Muni
Retaining Wall obtained the yield
the Wall Back
Spacing b/m Length L/m
𝜑/° acceleration formula through the safety factor of anti-slip earthquakes.
H/m E. Ausilio applied
β/°
the limit analysis method to obtain the yield acceleration method under seismic loads.
Single-step block 41 0.15 1.26 1.8 0
Table 4 introduces four calculation methods for the yield acceleration. The calculated
Two-tiered block 41 values of the yield
0.15acceleration of reinforced
0.9 retaining walls1.8 0 of
with two different forms
panels under the Muni method and E. Ausilio method are shown in Table S4.

Table 4. Calculation value of the yield acceleration.

Serial Number Calculation Method Single-Step Block Two-Tiered Block

1 Muni Budhu method [16] 0.34 g 0.32
2 E. Ausilio method [30] 0.36 g 0.36

3.2. Calculation Method of the Permanent Displacement

The empirical formula method is one of the main contents of the residual displacement
estimation method of reinforced soil retaining walls after earthquakes. Table S5 summarizes
five empirical formula methods, namely, the Richards method [31], Whitman method [32],
Cai and Bathrust method [15], and Newmark method [33]. The five methods are based on
the critical acceleration coefficient kc, peak acceleration km and propagation velocity Vm
of seismic waves. The Vm values of the two shaking table tests are shown in Table 5.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 10 of 15

Table 5. Peak velocity values of the reinforced soil retaining wall of the single-step module and two-tiered module Vm (m/s).

Peak Single-Step Block Two-Tiered Block

Acceleration (g) Ratio of Similitude 1:2 Ratio of Similitude 1:4 Ratio of Similitude 1:10
WL wave EL wave WL wave EL wave WL wave EL wave
0.1 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.05 - -
0.2 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.1
0.4 0.09 0.17 0.1 0.13 0.13 0.17
0.6 0.12 0.2 0.1 0.15 - -
0.8 0.16 0.26 0.13 0.2 0.26 0.3
1 0.2 0.32 0.15 0.24 - -

3.3. Comparison between the Experimental and Calculated Values

By analyzing the ηn values of two different panel forms of modular reinforced soil
retaining walls under the action of WL waves and EL waves, the practicability of four
calculation methods for the displacement prediction of modular reinforced soil retaining
walls is judged. The meaning of ηn is shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Description of the method.

ηn Implication
η1 1 − Richard method calculated value/measured value
η2 1 − Cai method calculated value/measured value
η3 1 − Whitman method calculated value/measured value
η4 1 − Newmark method calculated value/measured value

3.3.1. Comparative Analysis of the Test Values and Measurement Values of the Single-Step
Module Shaking Table
The ηn obtained by the four calculation methods in Figures 9 and 10 show that with
the increase of input ground motion, the relative difference under each calculation method
increases gradually, indicating that the deviation between the calculated value and the
measured value is getting larger and larger, and the difference between each method is
increasing. When the ηn value was at the initial 0.1 g, each ηn value was the closest. With
the increase of acceleration, the gap between each η1 , η2 and η3 , η4 values showed an
increasing trend, and the size and trend of η1 and η2 were almost consistent from beginning
to end. When the similarity ratio is 1:4, the WL wave is input. When the peak acceleration is
less than 0.6 g, the ηn values are all greater than 0, and the calculated values are less than the
measured values. When the peak acceleration reaches 1.0 g, the ηn values are all less than 0,
and the calculated values are greater than the measured values. The calculated values are
conservative. When the peak acceleration is 0.1–0.6 g, the η1 values are smaller than other
ηn values, which can be predicted by the Richards and Elms upper bound method. When
the peak acceleration is 0.6–1.0 g, the η1 < η2 < η4 < η3 ; that is, the Richards and Elms upper
bound method < Cai and Bathurst average upper bound method < Newmark upper bound
method < Whitman and Liao average fitting method. Correspondingly, EL wave is input
at the similarity ratio of 1:2. When the input peak acceleration is 0.1–0.6 g, ηn values are
greater than 0, η1 values and η2 values are close to 0, and when the input peak acceleration
is 0.8–1.0 g, ηn values are all less than 0, η3 and η4 are much larger than η1 and η2 . At this
time, η3 minimum distance from 0 line, and the Whitman and Liao average fitting method
is more suitable for predicting the displacement value. Comparing Figures 8 and 9, it can
be seen that the ηn value under the Ausilio calculation method is generally closer to the 0
value line than that under the Muni method, so the Ausilio method is more suitable.
 acceleration
acceleration is
is 0.1–0.6
0.1–0.6 g,
g, ηηnn values
values are are greater
greater than
than 0, 0, η
η11 values
values and
and ηη22 values
values areare close
close
0,
0, and
and when
when the
the input
input peak
peak acceleration
acceleration is is 0.8–1.0
0.8–1.0 g,g, η
ηnn values
values are
are all
all less
less than
than 0,0, η
η33 and
and
are
are much
much larger
larger than
than η
η11 and
and η η22.. At
At this
this time,
time, ηη33 minimum
minimum distance
distance from
from 00 line,
line, and
and
Whitman
Whitman and and Liao
Liao average
average fitting fitting method
method is is more
more suitable
suitable for for predicting
predicting
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 displacement
displacement value. Comparing Figures 8 and 9, it can be seen that the η
value. Comparing Figures 8 and 9, it can be seen that the value
ηnn of
11 15 under
value under
Ausilio
Ausilio calculation method is generally closer to the 0 value line than that under the
calculation method is generally closer to the 0 value line than that under the Mu
M
method, so the Ausilio method is more
method, so the Ausilio method is more suitable. suitable.

22 55

00
00

-5
-5 ηη1
-2 ηη1

ηηnn

ηηnn
1
-2 1 ηη2
ηη2 -10
-10 2
2 ηη3
-4 ηη3 3
-4 3
-15 ηη4
ηη4 -15 4
4

-6
-6 0.1g -20
-20 0.1g
0.1g 0.2g
0.2g 0.4g
0.4g 0.6g
0.6g 0.8g
0.8g 1.0g
1.0g 0.1g 0.2g
0.2g 0.4g
0.4g 0.6g
0.6g 0.8g
0.8g 1.0g
1.0g
Peak
Peak acceleration (g)
acceleration (g) Peak acceleration (g)
Peak acceleration (g)
(a)
(a) WL1:4
WL1:4 (b)
(b) WL1:2
WL1:2
Figure 9. Muni methodFigure 9.
9. Muni
[16] under
Figure WLmethod
Muni wave η[16]
method under
under WL
n value.
[16] WL wave
wave η
ηnn value.
value.

22 33

11 00

00 -3
-3
ηη1 -6 ηη1
-1 -6
ηηnn

ηηnn
-1 1
1
ηη2 ηη2
2 -9
-9
-2
-2 ηη3 2
3 ηη3
3
ηη4 -12
-12 ηη4
-3
-3 4
4
-15
-15
-4
-4 0.1g 0.2g 0.1g 0.2g
0.2g 0.4g
0.4g 0.6g
0.6g 0.8g 1.0g
0.1g 0.2g 0.4g
0.4g 0.6g
0.6g 0.8g
0.8g 1.0g
1.0g 0.1g 0.8g 1.0g
Peak acceleration (g) Peak
Peak acceleration (g)
acceleration (g)
Peak acceleration (g)
(a)
(a) WL1:4
WL1:4 (b)
(b) WL1:2
WL1:2
Figure
[31] 10.
Figure
Figure 10. Ausilio 10. Ausilio
Ausilio
method [31]
[31] method
under the WL under
method wave the
under the WL
with thewave
WL wave with
with the
ηn value. the η
ηnn value.
value.

Figures 11 andFigures
12 show
Figures 11 and
and 12
11 that the
12 show
value
show that
ofthe
that ηnvalue
the decreases
value of
of ηηnn decreases
with the with
decreases increase
with the
the increase
of input
increase of
of input
input pe
pe
acceleration,
acceleration,
peak acceleration, and the change and
and the the change amplitude
change amplitude
amplitude is larger and is larger
is larger
larger. and and
Under larger.
larger. Under the condition
Under theofcondition
the condition
similarity
similarity
similarity ratio 1:4 ratio
ratio 1:
and similarity 1: 44ratio
and
and similarity
similarity ratio
ratio 1:
1:2, the change 2,
2, the
1:trendtheofchange
change
ηn valuetrend
trend is of
of ηηnn value
value is
consistent. consistent.
consistent. W
isWith W
the increase
the increase
the increase of peak of peak
of peak
acceleration, acceleration,
acceleration,
the trend line of the trend
theη1trend
value line
line
and of η value and
of ηη21 value and
1 η value
η2 value is
2
is gradually is gradually
gradually aw
away aw
from η3 and η4 . from
At 1.0η
from 3 and
η3g,and η
η44.. At
η1 and Atη21.0
areg,
1.0 η
η11 and
and η
g,farthest 22 are
ηfromare ηfarthest
farthest
3 and ηfrom
from η
η33 and
4 . In the caseη
and .. In
η44of the
the case
case of
Insimilarity of similarity
similarity ra
ratio ra
1:
1: 4,
4, when
when the
the input
input peak
peak acceleration
acceleration is
is 0.1–0.6
0.1–0.6 g,
g,
1:4, when the input peak acceleration is 0.1–0.6 g, the η1 value is less than 0 under 0.2 g the
the η
η 11 value
value is
is less
less than
than 0
0 under
under 0.2
0.2 g
g
Figure
Figure 11,
11, and
and the
the other
other values
values are
are greater
greater than
than
in Figure 11, and the other values are greater than 0, which shows that each calculation 0,
0, which
which shows
shows that
that each
each calculat
calculat
method
method in is conservative
is predicting
conservative in predicting
predicting the displacement value under
under small earthquak
method is conservative theindisplacement the displacement
value under small value
earthquakes, small
andearthquak
the η1 value is relatively more reasonable, so Richards and Elms upper bound method
is more reasonable. When the input peak acceleration is 0.8–1.0 g, the η1 and η2 values
are gradually away from the zero line, so Richards and Elms upper bound method and
Cai and Bathurst average upper bound method are not applicable at this time. Relatively
speaking, η3 and η4 values show good applicability, η4 value is more conservative, so the
Whitman and Liao average fitting method is more reasonable. When the similarity ratio is
1:2, the input peak acceleration is 0.1–1.0 g, and the ηn value gradually decreases. When
the similarity ratio is 0.1–0.4 g, the ηn values are all greater than 0, and the η1 value is
smaller. Therefore, the Richards and Elms upper bound method is suitable for this stage.
At 0.6–1.0 g, the η4 value is more conservative than the η3 value, and the Whitman and
Liao average fitting method is more suitable.
 gradually away from the zero line, so Richards and Elms upper bound method and C
speaking,
and Bathurst η3 and η4 values
average show
upper boundgoodmethod
applicability,
are notη4applicable
value is more conservative,
at this so
time. Relativ
speaking, η3 and η4 values show good applicability, η4 value is more conservative, sora
Whitman and Liao average fitting method is more reasonable. When the similarity
is 1:2, the input
Whitman peakaverage
and Liao acceleration
fittingismethod
0.1–1.0 g,isand thereasonable.
more ηn value gradually
When thedecreases.
similarityWhra
the similarity ratio is 0.1–0.4 g, the η n values are all greater than 0, and the η1 value
is 1:2, the input peak acceleration is 0.1–1.0 g, and the ηn value gradually decreases. Wh
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 smaller. Therefore,
the similarity ratio the Richards
is 0.1–0.4 andηElms
g, the upper bound method is suitable
n values are all greater than 0, and
forηthis
12 ofthe
15 sta
1 value
At 0.6–1.0 g, the η4 value is more conservative than the η3 value, and the Whitman a
smaller. Therefore, the Richards and Elms upper bound method is suitable for this sta
Liao
At average
0.6–1.0 fitting
g, the method
η4 value is is more
more suitable. than the η3 value, and the Whitman a
conservative
Liao average fitting method is more suitable.
2 2
2 2
0 0

0 0
-2
-2
-2
ηn ηn
η1 -4 η1

ηn ηn
-2
-4 η η
η21 -4
-6 η21
-4 η η
η3
η3
-6 2 -6
-8 η
2
η4
η η43
3
-6 -8 η4
-8 η4 -10
0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g 0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g
-8 -10
0.1g 0.2gPeak0.4g
acceleration
0.6g (g)0.8g 1.0g 0.1g 0.2gPeak0.4g
acceleration
0.6g (g)0.8g 1.0g
(a)
Peak acceleration (g) (b)
Peak acceleration (g)
Figure 11.11.
Figure Under thethe
Under (a)
yield acceleration
yield obtained
acceleration by the
obtained by Muni method
the Muni method [16](b)
[16] under the Elthe
under wave and ηand
El wave n value.
ηn
value.
Figure 11. Under the yield acceleration obtained by the Muni method [16] under the El wave and ηn value.
2 2
21 2
0
01
-10 0
-2
-2 η1
ηn ηn

ηn ηn
-1 η1 -2
-3 η -4 η
-2 η21 η12
-4 η
η3 -4 η
η3
-3 2 -6 2

-5 η4
η η
η43
-4 3
-6
-6
-5 η4 -8 η4
0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g 0.1g 0.2g 0.4g 0.6g 0.8g 1.0g
-6 -8
0.1g 0.2gPeak0.4g
acceleration
0.6g (g)0.8g 1.0g 0.1g 0.2gPeak0.4g
acceleration
0.6g (g)0.8g 1.0g
(a)
Peak acceleration (g) (b)
Peak acceleration (g)
(a) 12. Ausilio [31] method under the El wave and ηn(b)
Figure value.
Figure 12. Ausilio Figure 12. Ausilio
[31] method under[31]
themethod under
El wave the
and η El wave and ηn value.
n value.
3.3.2. Comparative Analysis of the Test and Measurement Values of the Two-Tiered
Module
3.3.2. Comparative Shaking
3.3.2.Analysis
Comparative Table
of the Test andofMeasurement
Analysis Values of the Values
the Test and Measurement Two-Tiered
of the Two-Tiered
Module ShakingModuleTable
Figures 13 and
Shaking Table 14 show that the change trend of the two-tiered modular reinforc
Figures 13 earth retaining
and Figures
14 show13thatwalltheunder
change earthquake
trend of is
thethe same
two-tiered as that of
modular the single-step
reinforced
and 14 show that the change trend of the two-tiered modular reinforc modu
reinforced
earth retaining earth earth
wall retaining retaining
under earthquake wall. When
wall underis earthquake
the same as the input
is that peak acceleration
of theassingle-step
the same is small,
that of the modular the value
single-step modu of
is greater
reinforced earthreinforced than
retainingearth 0. With
wall.retaining
When thethe increase
input
wall. When of
peak the peak acceleration,
the acceleration the
is small, the
input peak acceleration value of
valuethe
is small, η decrea
of value of
n

gradually.
ηn is greater than
is greater When
0. Withthan 0.the
the increaseinput
With of peak
thethe acceleration
peak
increase is 0.2–0.4
acceleration,
of the peak the g, Richards
value
acceleration, ηnand
ofthe Elms
decreases
value of upper
ηn decreabou
method
gradually. Whengradually. can
the inputWhenbetter
peak the predict the
acceleration
input peak displacement
isacceleration value.
0.2–0.4 g, Richards When
is 0.2–0.4and the similarity
Elms upper
g, Richards and boundratio is
Elms upper bou1:10,
method can betterCai and Bathurst
predict the average
displacement upper bound
value. method
When is
the more suitable
similarity
method can better predict the displacement value. When the similarity for
ratio the
is input
1:10, theofisWL
ratio wa
1:10,
Cai and Bathurst When EL
average wave
upper is input,
bound Whitman
method isand
moreLiao average
suitable fitting
for the method
input of
Cai and Bathurst average upper bound method is more suitable for the input of WL wa WLand Newmark
wave. up
When EL wave bound
is input,
When method
EL wave are
Whitman both suitable.
and Whitman
is input, Liao averageSince η4 isaverage
and fitting
Liao more
methodconservative,
and Newmark
fitting method the Whitman
and upper
Newmark andupL
bound method bound
are both suitable.
method Sincesuitable.
are both η4 is more conservative,
Since the Whitmanthe
η4 is more conservative, and Liao and L
Whitman
average fitting method is selected. The ηn values of yield acceleration obtained by the
Ausilio method were 0.76372, −0.14144, −9.89728 and −56.87885 under the EL wave at
0.2–1.2 g, respectively. The ηn values of yield acceleration obtained by Muni method were
0.7029, −0.43424, −12.69613, and −10.83064. At this time, the calculated value obtained
by the Ausilio method is closer to the measured value. Thus, the Ausilio method is more
accurate than the Muni method.
 average fitting
average fitting method
method is
is selected.
selected. The
The ηn
ηn values
values of
of yield
yield acceleration
acceleration obtained
obtained byby
Ausilio method
Ausilio method were
were 0.76372,
0.76372, −0.14144,
−0.14144, −9.89728
−9.89728 and
and −56.87885
−56.87885 under
under the
the EL
EL wave
wave atat 00
1.2 g,
1.2 g, respectively.
respectively. The
The ηnηn values
values of
of yield
yield acceleration
acceleration obtained
obtained by
by Muni
Muni method
method w w
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 0.7029, −0.43424,
0.7029, −0.43424, −12.69613,
−12.69613, and
and −10.83064.
−10.83064. At
At this
this time,
time, the
the calculated
calculated13
value
value obtained
of 15 obtained
the Ausilio
the Ausilio method
method is
is closer
closer to
to the
the measured
measured value.
value. Thus,
Thus, the
the Ausilio
Ausilio method
method isis m
m
accurate than
accurate than the
the Muni
Muni method.
method.

22 44

00 00

-2
-2 -4
-4

ηn

ηn
ηη11 ηη11
-4
-4 -8
-8
ηη22 ηη22
ηη33 -12 ηη33
-6
-6 -12
ηη44 ηη44
-8
-8 -16
-16
0.2g
0.2g 0.4g
0.4g 0.8g
0.8g 1.2g
1.2g 0.2g
0.2g 0.4g
0.4g 0.8g
0.8g 1.2g
1.2g
Peak acceleration
Peak acceleration (g)
(g) Peak acceleration
Peak acceleration (g)
(g)
(a) WL1:10
(a) WL1:10 (b) EL1:10
(b) EL1:10
Figure 13.
Figure
Figure 13. Muni method 13. Muni
Muni
[16] method
method
for yield [16] for
[16] for yield
accelerationyield acceleration
at aacceleration at
. aa value
value of ηnat value of
of ηηn.n.

22 15
15

00
00
-15
-15

-2
-2 -30
-30 ηη11
ηn

ηn
ηη11
ηη22
ηη22 -45
-45
-4 ηη33
-4 ηη33
-60
-60 ηη44
ηη44
-6
-6 -75
-75
0.2g
0.2g 0.4g
0.4g 0.8g
0.8g 1.2g
1.2g 0.2g
0.2g 0.4g
0.4g 0.8g
0.8g 1.2g
1.2g
Peak acceleration
Peak acceleration (g)
(g) Peak acceleration
Peak acceleration (g)
(g)
(a) WL1:10
(a) WL1:10 (b) EL1:10
(b) EL1:10
Figure
Figure
Figure 14. 14. Ausilio
14.
Ausilio Ausilio method
method method [31]toused
[31]
[31] used used to calculate
to calculate
calculate the acceleration
the
the yield yield acceleration
yield acceleration at aa value
at
at a value value of
. ηηnn
of ηnof

3.4. Discussion 3.4.

3.4. Discussion
Discussion
According to the Newmark
According
According to sliding
to the Newmark
the block method
Newmark slidingtheory,
sliding block the reason
block method
method for the
theory,
theory, theaccu-
the reason for
reason for
mulation of permanent
accumulation displacement
of permanent after an earthquake
displacement after is
an that
accumulation of permanent displacement after an earthquake is that when the input pp when
earthquake the
is input
that peak
when the input
acceleration km acceleration
is greater than
acceleration the
kkmm is
is critical
greater
greater acceleration
than
than criticalkacceleration
the critical
the c , there is nok
acceleration kcdisplacement
c,, there
there is is no when
no displacement
displacement wh
wh
kc is less than kkkmcc.isIn the
is less actual
less than process,
than kkmm.. In In the when
the actual k
actual process, is
process,
c less than
when kkcc is
when k , there
is less
m less than is still a
than kkmm,, theregradual
there isis still
still aa grad
grad
decrease in the internal
decreasesoil;
decrease in the
in thethat is, there
internal
internal will
soil;
soil; that
thatbeis,
is,athere
smallwill
there displacement.
will be aa small
be Therefore, although
small displacement.
displacement. Therefore, althou
Therefore, althou
the yield accelerations
the yield
the yieldcalculated
accelerations
accelerations by the Muni method
calculated
calculated by the
by and E.
the Muni
Muni Ausilio
method
method and
and method
E. Ausilio
E. are greater
Ausilio method are
method are grea
grea
than the
than the peak acceleration
than the peak
peak acceleration
of the of the
partial input,
acceleration of thevarious
partial input,
partial input, various
calculation
various calculation
methods
calculation methods
canmethods
be used can can be
to be used
used
predictof
predict the generation
predict the
the generation
the displacement.
generation of the
of the displacement.
displacement.
In the single-step In and
In the single-step
the single-step
two-tieredand and two-tiered
two-tiered
reinforced reinforced
soilreinforced
retaining soil soil retaining
wall retaining
models, wall wall models,
the ηmodels,
n valuesthe the ηηnn val
val
obtained
obtained underobtained
the yieldunderunder the yield
the
acceleration yield acceleration
acceleration
values obtained values
values
by the obtained
obtained
E. Ausilio by the
by the E. Ausilio
E.
method Ausilio method
andmethod
the and
and
Muni method are Muni
Muni method are
method
compared. are compared.
Thecompared.
ηn value underThe ηηnnthe
The value
value under the
under
E. Ausilio the E. Ausilio
E.
method Ausilio method
method
is smaller is smaller
is
than smaller th th
that under
that
that under the Muni under
method, the Muni
the Muni
and the method,
method,
measured and the
and the
valuemeasured
measured
is closer value
value
to the is closer
is closer to the
to
calculated thevalue.
calculated val
calculated va
Therefore, the E. Therefore,
Therefore,
Ausilio the the E.
method E. Ausilio
Ausilio
is more method
method
suitableis more
is more
for the suitable
suitable for the
for
displacement the displacement
displacement
prediction of prediction
prediction
modular
modular reinforced
reinforced soil
soil retaining
retaining walls.
walls. The
The
modular reinforced soil retaining walls. The E. Ausilio method is more suitable because E.
E. Ausilio
Ausilio method
method is
is more
more suitable
suitable beca
beca
the yield acceleration obtained by this method is slightly larger than Muni method, so the
displacement value is more accurate.

4. Conclusions
In this paper, the experimental and calculated values are compared, and the calculation
methods suitable for predicting the behavior of modular reinforced soil retaining walls
under static and dynamic loads are obtained, and suggestions are provided for future
experimental analysis and practical engineering.
(1) In the prediction of retaining wall calculation method under static action (P),
since the FHWA method only requires few parameters (wall height and reinforcement
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 14 of 15

length), the deformation value can be roughly estimated before the construction of modular
reinforced retaining wall; the FHWA method is the most conservative method and the
Wu (1) method is the least conservative method. Under the premise of knowing the
deformation of reinforcement, the GeoService method is an accurate method to predict
the lateral deformation. It is more practical to select the CTI method without knowing the
strain of reinforcement. Therefore, the CTI method is recommended to estimate the normal
deformation of modular reinforced earth retaining wall.
(2) By comparing the ηn values of single-step and two-tiered modular reinforced
earth retaining walls, it can be seen that the ηn values are quite different when the peak
acceleration is less than or greater than 0.6 g, which also leads to the need to use different
calculation methods to predict the results. When the input peak acceleration is 0.1–0.6 g,
the actual displacement value can be calculated by the Richards and Elms upper bound
method through numerical calculation. When the input peak acceleration is 0.6–1.0 g, the
Whitman and Liao average fitting method can truly reflect the permanent displacement of
the retaining wall.
(3) Since the measured values of permanent displacement of modular reinforced earth
retaining wall under static and dynamic actions are relatively large, the panel is prone
to damage. Therefore, engineers should evaluate the displacement in the early and after
the actual construction, and take the horizontal displacement as one of the indicators to
evaluate the safety of the project.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/

10.3390/app11188681/s1, Table S1: Calculation methods of the deformation of RSRW under static
loading, Table S2: Reinforced soil retaining wall parameters of 10 case histories, Table S3: Measured
and predicted maximum lateral deformations of GRS walls, Table S4: Introduction of the yield
acceleration, Table S5: Calculation method of the horizontal displacement for the retaining wall
under earthquake action. Reference [34] refer to the supplementary material.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.Z.; methodology, S.L.; validation, H.X.; formal analysis,
X.H.; data curation, C.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, X.C. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research reported in this manuscript was supported by the Earthquake Technol-
ogy Spark Program of China (no. XH204402); the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (no. ZY20215107); and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 51778144).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: This study did not report any data.
Acknowledgments: The writers appreciate the assistance provided by Li Zhang, BaoShuang Jin, and
Guanhao Shen when discussing the analytical methods.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yoo, C.; Jung, H.Y. Case history of geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining wall failure. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 2006, 132,
1538–1548. [CrossRef]
2. Allen, T.M.; Bathurst, R.J. Design and performance of 6.3m high, block-faced geogrid wall designed using k-stiffness method. J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. 2013, 140, 13–16.
3. Allen, T.M.; Bathurst, R.J. Performance of an 11m high block-faced geogrid wall designed using k-stiffness method. Can. Geotech.
J. 2013, 51, 16–29. [CrossRef]
4. Riccio, M.; Ehrlich, M.; Dias, D. Field monitoring and analyses of the response of a block-faced geogrid wall using Dine-grained
tropical soils. Geotext. Geomembr. 2014, 42, 127–138. [CrossRef]
5. Wu, L.; Yang, G.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, H.; Zhang, L.; Jiao, R.; Qian, S. In-situ test on dynamic responses of reinforced soil retaining
walls for high-speed railways. J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2017, 52, 546–553.
6. Koerner, R.M.; Koerner, G.R. An extended data base and recommendations regarding 320 failed geosynthetic reinforced
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. Geotext. Geomembr. 2018, 46, 904–912. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8681 15 of 15

7. Zhang, B.; Shi, M.; Bai, S. Research on failure of xinzhuang clay-reinforced soil wall. Rock Soil Mech. 2007, 28, 2348–2352.
8. Hoe, I.L.; Dov, L.; Nelson, N.S.C. Post-earthquake investigation on several geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes
during the Ji-Ji Earthquake of Taiwan. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2001, 21, 297–313.
9. FHWA-NHI-10-024. Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes–Volume I; U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
10. Industrial Standard of the People’s Republic of China TB10025-2006. Code for Design of Railway Subgrade Retaining Structures;
China Railway Press: Beijing, China, 2006.
11. Wang, L.; Chen, G.; Jing Lai, S. Pseudo-static method for horizontal deformation of geo-grid reinforced soil retaining wall under
earthquake. China J. Highw. Transp. 2015, 28, 28–34.
12. Khosrojerdi, M.; Xiao, M.; Qiu, T.; Nicks, J. Evaluation of prediction methods for lateral deformation of GRS walls and abutments.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2017, 143, 06016022. [CrossRef]
13. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, K. Deformations of reinforced-soil retaining walls. In Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Geosynthetics, Seoul, Korea, 16–21 September 2018.
14. He, W. Study on Deformation of Reinforced Retaining Wall; Chongqing Jiaotong University: Chongqing, China, 2016.
15. Cai, Z.; Bathurst, R.J. Deterministic sliding block methods for estimating seismic displacements of earth structures. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 1996, 15, 255–268. [CrossRef]
16. Ramakrishnan, S.; Budhu, M.; Britto, A. Laboratory seismic tests of geotextile wrap-faced and geotextile-reinforced segmental
retaining walls. Geosynth. Int. 1998, 15, 255–268. [CrossRef]
17. Younan, A.H.; Veletsos, A.S. Dynamic response of flexible retaining walls. Earthq. Eng. Struct. D. 2000, 29, 1815–1844. [CrossRef]
18. Xu, G.; Yao, L.; Li, C.; Wang, X. Predictive models for permanent displacement of slope based on recored strong-motion data of
wenchuan earthquake. China J. Geotech. Eng. 2012, 34, 1131–1136.
19. Pantelidis, L. The Generalized Coefficients of Earth Pressure: A Unified Approach. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5291. [CrossRef]
20. Dunnicliff, J. Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1993; ISBN
0471005460.
21. Bathurst, R.J.; Simac, M.R.; Christopher, B.R.; onczkiewicz, C.B. A database of results from a geosynthetic reinforced modular
block soil retaining wall. In Proceedings of the Full Scale Experiments of the 80’s, ISSMEE/ENPC, Paris, France, 18–19 November
1993; pp. 341–365.
22. Abu-Hejleh, N.; Zornberg, J.G.; Wang, T.; Watcharamonthein, J. Monitored Displacements of unique geosynthetic-reinforced soil
bridge abutments. Geosynth. Int. 2002, 9, 71–95. [CrossRef]
23. Hatami, K.; Bathurst, R.J. Development and verification of a numerical model for the analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
segmental walls under working stress conditions. Can. Geotech. J. 2005, 42, 1066–1085. [CrossRef]
24. Hatami, K.; Bathurst, R.J. Numerical model for reinforced soil segmental walls under surcharge loading. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
2006, 132, 673–684. [CrossRef]
25. Bathurst, R.J.; Vlachopoulos, N.; Walters, D.L.; Burgrss, P.G.; Allen, T.M. The Influence of facing stiffness on the performance of
two geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls. Can. Geotech. J. 2006, 43, 1225–1237. [CrossRef]
26. Bathurst, R.J.; Nernheim, A.; Walters, D.L.; Allen, T.M.; Burgess, P.; Saunders, D.D. Influence of reinforcement stiffness and
compaction on the performance of four geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geosynth. Int. 2009, 16, 43–56. [CrossRef]
27. Nicks, J.E.; Esmaili, D.; Adams, M.T. Deformations of geosynthetic reinforced soil under bridge service loads. Geotext. Geomembr.
2016, 44, 641–653. [CrossRef]
28. Xiao, C.; Chen, Q.; Han, J.; Chen, P. Experimental study of performance of geogrid-reinfoeced retaining wall subjected to load
from strip foundtaion at top surface of wall. Rock Soil Mech. 2013, 34, 1586–1592.
29. Li, S.; Cai, X.; Jing, L.; Xu, H.; Zhu, C. Reinforcement strain and potential failure surface of geogrid reinforced soil-retaining wall
under horizontal seismic loading. Shock. Vib. 2020, 2020, 1–17. [CrossRef]
30. Ausilio, E.; Conte, E.; Dente, G. Seismic stability analysis of reinforced slopes. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2000, 19, 159–172. [CrossRef]
31. Richards, R.; Dlms, D.G. Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 1979, 105, 449–464.
32. Whitman, R.V.; Liao, S. Seismic Design of Gravity Retaining Walls; WCEE: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1985; pp. 533–540.
33. Newmark, N.M. Effect of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 1965, 15, 139–159. [CrossRef]
34. Huang, C.C.; Chou, L.H.; Tatsuoka, F. Seismic displacements of geosynthetic-reinforced soil modular block walls. Geosynth. Int.
2003, 10, 2–23. [CrossRef]