Technical Note

Behavior of Connected and Unconnected Back-to-Back

Walls for Bridge Approaches
Sasanka Mouli Sravanam1; Umashankar Balunaini2; and R. Madhav Madhira3

Abstract: Back-to-back mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are commonly used in the construction of transportation infrastructure
facilities. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines discuss briefly the design of reinforced back-to-back walls. In this study, a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

numerical model was developed to study the behavior of connected and unconnected back-to-back walls under working stresses. The effect of
reinforcement stiffness on tensile force profiles, the maximum tensile force developed in the reinforcement, and lateral pressures and lateral
deformations for both unconnected and connected walls are discussed in detail. A well-defined critical slip surface was observed for the case
of the unconnected back-to-back wall with relatively extensible reinforcement. Lateral pressures at the facing in both the cases were found to
be almost equal, and the tensile forces developed in the reinforcement for the connected case were found to be uniform along the length of the
reinforcement (except at higher depths). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001692. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bridge approaches; Back-to-back walls; Numerical modeling.

Introduction excessive overlap of reinforcements from the two walls. In practice,

Back-to-back walls are retaining walls that are relatively close to
one another. Back-to-back walls are used mainly in the construc-
tion of railroad bridge embankments or two-to-four lane highway
bridge approach embankments. The behavior of back-to-back
walls is significantly different from that of a single wall. Many
studies are available in the literature on numerical modeling of
single mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, for example,
Rowe and Skinner (2001); Hatami and Bathurst (2005); and
Mirmoradi and Ehrlich (2015). Tensions mobilized in the rein-
forcement of these walls were analyzed and reported by Ho and
Rowe (1996); Ling and Leshchinsky (2003); Hatami and Bathurst
(2005); Hatami and Bathurst (2006); Yoo and Song (2006);
Fakharian and Attar (2007); Guler et al. (2007); Bathurst et al.
(2009); Yang et al. (2010); Leshchinsky (2014); Wu et al.
(2011); Allen et al. (2003); and Ehrlich and Mirmoradi (2013).
Numerical analysis of back-to-back walls was carried out by Han
and Leshchinsky (2010); Hardianto and Truong (2010); El-Sherbiny
et al. (2013); Djabri and Benmebarek (2016); Benmebarek et al.
(2016); Benmebarek and Djabri (2017); and Balunaini et al. (2017).
Anubhav and Basudhar (2011) studied the behavior of back-to-
back walls experimentally. However, that study focused on the effect
of a footing placed on the top surface of wrap around back-to-back
walls. The ultimate bearing capacity of the footing on the walls
was found to increase with the increase in overlap length of the walls.
Due to the absence of guidelines on the design of back-to-back
MSE walls, designs were typically carried out considering back-to-
back walls as two separate single reinforced walls leading to the
1
Doctoral Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi,
Telangana 502285, India. Email: sasankamouli7@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi,
Telangana 502285, India (corresponding author). Email: buma@iith.ac.in
3
Visiting Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi,
Telangana 502285, India. Email: madhavmr@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 1, 2019; approved on
November 18, 2019; published online on April 22, 2020. Discussion period
open until September 22, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the International Journal
of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
the reinforcements from the two walls overlap without connecting
them. Berg et al. (2009) indicated that the connection of reinforce-
ment might induce an unyielding condition (at rest earth pressures,
Ko condition). Therefore, they recommended using Ko as a conser-
vative estimate to obtain the lateral earth pressures for all the cases
in the absence of rational data. In reality, however, MSE walls
could not be in the at rest condition. The tensile forces in the rein-
forcement cannot be mobilized without displacement.
Han and Leshchinsky (2010) analyzed back-to-back walls at
limit state condition and studied the effects of angle of shearing
resistance of backfill, and W/H ratio of the walls on the lateral pres-
sures, tensile forces in the reinforcement, and critical slip surface
formed within the backfill. It was noted that W was the distance
between the facings of the two back-to-back walls and H was the
height of the walls. El-Sherbiny et al. (2013) and Benmebarek
et al. (2016) analyzed back-to-back walls at working stresses and
studied the effect of W/H ratio on the lateral pressures at the end
of the reinforcement zone the maximum tensile force mobilized in
the reinforcement, and lateral deformations of the wall. The lateral
pressures at end of the reinforcement zone for walls with a low W/
H ratio (e.g., W/H = 1.4) were much lower than those of high W/H
ratio (e.g., W/H = 2.0). Their study concluded that as the W/H ratio
increased, the maximum tensile force in the reinforcement increased
slightly. Balunaini et al. (2017) studied the effect of compaction and
surcharge loading in back-to-back walls. Lateral pressures under
compaction and surcharge loading cases were discussed.
The maximum tensile forces in connected and unconnected
walls were discussed by Han and Leshchinsky (2010) and Benme-
barek et al. (2016) at the limit state and working stress conditions,
respectively. In limit state conditions, connected walls developed
lesser tensile force than that of the unconnected case. However,
under working stresses, the connection of reinforcement had no sig-
nificant effect on the maximum tensile force. When the compaction
and surcharge loads were considered, lesser lateral pressures at the
facing were mobilized in the connected walls than those in the un-
connected walls (Balunaini et al. 2017). Benmebarek and Djabri
(2017) analyzed the effect of overlapping length of reinforcement
on the factor of safety and lateral displacements of back-to-back
walls. An increase in the overlapping length of reinforcement led

© ASCE 06020013-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013

 to an increase in the factor of safety of the walls and a reduction in
the lateral displacements. The study concluded that in the case of
the overlapping condition, the length of reinforcement could be re-
duced to 0.6 H. However, the connection of reinforcement was not
discussed in this paper.
Available studies in the literature did not consider the effect
of reinforcement stiffness on the behavior of a connected wall.
The mechanism leading to the behavior was not discussed in any
of the previously mentioned studies. Therefore, a detailed study
on the connection of reinforcement in the back-to-back walls was
required to fully understand the behavior of back-to-back walls
used for transportation infrastructure facilities. In this study, the ef-
fect of stiffness of reinforcement in back-to-back walls for both
connected and unconnected MSE walls was analyzed. An attempt
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
developed in the reinforcements along the depth of the wall in all
the cases considered.
The walls where the reinforcements extended from one facing to
another facing were referred to as connected walls, whereas the
walls where the reinforcements were not connected in the middle
of the wall were referred to as unconnected walls. Fig. 1 represents
a Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) model of uncon-
nected and connected back-to-back MSE walls.
Numerical Modeling
A two-dimensional finite difference method based FLAC software

was made to identify the behavior of such walls under working
stresses in terms of mobilized maximum shear strains, tensile forces
along with reinforcement, the maximum tensile force developed in
the reinforcement, and lateral pressures and lateral deformations of
the wall.
Problem Definition
The objective of this work was to study the effects of reinforcement
stiffness (J ) and the connection of reinforcement in the middle on
the design parameters, for example, tensile forces mobilized in the
reinforcement, and lateral pressures and lateral deformations at the
facing under working stresses. The mechanism leading to the mo-
bilized tensile profiles in unconnected and connected back-to-back
MSE walls was also analyzed. This study analyzed the tensile force
profiles along the reinforcement and the maximum tensile force
(version 7.00) was used to model the MSE walls. The plane-strain
model was considered for the study. Foundation soil, backfill, and
segmental panels were modeled as continuum zones and reinforce-
ment was modeled as a structural element. The stage wise construc-
tion of the wall was modeled to simulate the exact field conditions.
In this study, the height of the wall (H ) considered was 6 m.
Segmental panels of dimensions 0.3 m height and 0.2 m thickness
were modeled as facing elements. Material properties of the seg-
mental panels were assumed to be equal to that of concrete material
(Table 1). The length of reinforcements for both the walls was fixed
as 4.2 m (e.g., equal to 0.7 times the height of the wall). The distance
between the walls was 8.4 m and was exactly equal to the lengths of
the reinforcements. In the unconnected walls, the ends of reinforce-
ment of both the walls nearly touched each other. Reinforcements in
the connected back-to-back MSE walls case extend from one wall
facing to the other wall facing.
The foundation soil was assumed to be rigid. Reinforced backfill
was simulated as elastic perfectly plastic and followed the
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion. Table 1 provides the properties
of reinforced and retained backfill, and facing panel. In the absence

Table 1. Properties of the reinforced and retained backfills and segmental

facing panels
Reinforced and retained Segmental facing
Properties backfills panels
Material type Mohr-Coulomb Elastic
Cohesion (kPa) 0 —
Angle of shearing 34 —
resistance (ϕ) (degrees)
Dilation angle (degrees) 10 —
Shear modulus (kPa) 3.846 × 104 8.70 × 106
Bulk modulus (kPa) 8.333 × 104 9.52 × 106
(a) Density (kg/m3) 1,800 2,400

Table 2. Constants used in the equation for stress-dependent modulus of

backfill
Properties Backfill
Elastic modulus number (Ke) 1,150
Bulk modulus number (Kb) 575
Elastic modulus exponent (n) 0.5
Bulk modulus exponent (m) 0.5
Failure ratio (Rf) 0.86

Table 3. Reinforcement properties

(b)
Properties Cable element
Fig. 1. FLAC model of back-to-back MSE walls: (a) connected; and Stiffness (J ) (kN/m) 500, 50,000
(b) unconnected walls. Poisson’s ratio (υ) 0.3

© ASCE 06020013-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013

 of data, FHWA (Berg et al. 2009) specified that the maximum in- The elastic modulus of the backfill was dependent on the confin-
ternal angle of shearing resistance of backfill (ϕ) value that could be ing stress (Duncan et al. 1980). Both elastic modulus and bulk mod-
considered was 34°. For a ϕ value of 34°, the initial deformation ulus were updated at every stage using the procedure mentioned by
modulus of the backfill was assumed to be equal to 30 kPa accord- Hatami and Bathurst (2005). The equation given by Duncan et al.
ingly. However, the constants used for updated deformation mod- (1980) was used
ulus were assumed from Hatami and Bathurst (2005) which were
  
derived from the experimental data. The properties of the facing Rf (1 − sin ϕ)(σ 1 − σ 3 ) 2 σ3 n
Et = 1 − ·Ke · Patm · (1)
panel were assumed to be the same as that of concrete material 2c · cos ϕ + 2σ 3 · sin ϕ Patm
(e.g., elastic modulus = 200 GPa, and Poisson’s ratio = 0.15).
where Et = tangent elastic modulus; Rf = failure ratio; Ke = elastic
modulus number; n = elastic modulus exponent; Patm = atmospheric
pressure; ϕ = angle of shearing resistance of backfill; c = cohesion
intercept of backfill, σ1 = effective vertical pressure (overburden);
and σ3 = effective lateral confining pressure. The bulk modulus, B,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of the backfill was updated using

 
σ3 m
B = Kb · Patm · (2)
Patm

where Kb and m = bulk modulus number and bulk modulus

exponent, respectively. The values of Ke and Kb were calculated
for the plane-strain condition. Rf = ratio of stress difference at
failure (σ1–σ3)f to the asymptotic value of the stress difference
(σ1–σ3)ult. Values of Ke and Kb for different soil types and various
relative densities were given by Duncan et al. (1980). The reported
values were proposed from extensive triaxial testing. However,
backfill behaved much stiffer under plain-strain conditions com-
pared with that under triaxial conditions. Therefore, the value of
K was increased by a factor of 2.25 to simulate the plain-strain con-
dition. Here Ke and Kb ranged from 500 to 2,500 and 300 to 1,000,
respectively. Table 2 provides the values of the previously mentioned
constants used in this study. An extensive parametric study was car-
ried out for different values covering the entire range of Ke and Kb. In
this study, only charts that corresponded to critical values that could
be used in design as a conservative estimate were reported.
Reinforcement was simulated as a cable element. The cable
element in FLAC was a two-noded, one-dimensional element
with high tensile stiffness. Reinforcement was assumed to be rig-
idly fixed at the end of the cable element to nodes of the wall facing
Fig. 2. Schematic of instrumented wall used for validation. (Modified
to simulate the rigid connection that existed in the field. The stiff-
from Ling et al. 2000.)
ness values considered covered a wide range of reinforcement types

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Validation of numerical model (FLAC) used in the study by Ling et al. (2000): (a) lateral displacements at the facing; and (b) lateral pressures
at the facing.

© ASCE 06020013-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Validation of the model developed in the study by Benmebarek et al. (2016): (a) lateral pressures at the end of reinforcement zone; and (b) the
maximum tensile force profile in the reinforcements along the depth of the walls.

(polypropylene to polyester to metal grid products). Table 3 pro-

vides reinforcement properties.
Interfaces were introduced to simulate the interaction between
the backfill and facing panel and between the facing panels. Inter-
face properties were assumed by Holtz and Lee (2002). The inter-
face between the segmental facing panels was modeled as a
structural interface (taking into consideration of shear key present
between the panels in the field). The backfill-reinforcement inter-
face was modeled as cable-grout material in FLAC. However, in
this study, the structural nodes of the cable elements were rigidly
attached to the nodes of the grid generated within the backfill.
This implied that reinforcement layers were not allowed to slide
over backfill. Under working stress conditions, perfect adherence
was a reasonable assumption for a backfill-reinforcement inter-
face (Jewell 1980; Dyer and Milligan 1984). Many other studies
have reported that this assumption was in good agreement with
experimental results (Ehrlich and Mitchell 1994; Huang et al.
2010).
Stage wise construction was adopted when modeling the walls.
In each lift, 0.3 m height of wall was first placed, and the model
solved for equilibrium. The elastic modulus and bulk modulus
were then updated using Eqs. (1) and (2) (using the constants
shown in Table 2), and then solved for equilibrium. The next
layer of backfill was then placed on the deformed grid of the previ-
ous layer. The mesh size and the maximum unbalanced force ratio
were optimized for both accuracy and computational time. The
model was solved for an unbalanced force ratio of 1 × 10−3. The un-
balanced force ratio was defined as the ratio of maximum unbal-
anced force to the representative internal force. This defined the
accuracy of the numerical model in FLAC. The large-strain mode
was activated in the study so that the coordinates of the grid points Fig. 5. Tensile force profiles along the reinforcement length at different
were updated at the end of every step. heights in J = 500 kN/m.

Results spacing, unit weight, and height of the wall (Sv*γ*H )

σ hf
The effects of various parameters on connected back-to-back walls σ *hf = (3)
were analyzed. The lateral pressures were normalized with the prod- γH
uct of unit weight and the total height of the wall (γ*H ), and lateral
deformations and depth were normalized to the height of the wall. δh
δ* = (4)
Maximum tensile forces were normalized with the product of vertical H

© ASCE 06020013-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013

 Z of the wall from the top; δ* = lateral deformations(expressed in per-
Z* = (5) centage); Z* = normalized depth of the wall; T* = normalized tensile
H
force value in each reinforcement per unit length; T = tensile force in
T each reinforcement per unit length, and Sv = vertical spacing between
T* = (6) the reinforcement layers. The parametric study was conducted for
Sv γH
the two extreme values of reinforcement stiffness, J = 500 and
where σhf = lateral pressures at the facing; H = total depth of the 50,000 kN/m.
wall; γ = unit weight of the backfill; δh = lateral deformations at the Experimental studies on the behavior of back-to-back walls under
facing; σ *hf = normalized lateral pressures at the facing; Z = depth working stresses were not available in the literature. Therefore, a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6. Maximum shear strain increment contours for J = 500 kN/m in: (a) unconnected walls; and (b) connected walls.

© ASCE 06020013-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013

 single MSE wall was considered to validate the numerical model of
this study. The full-scale instrumented MSE wall, built at the Public
Works Research Institute, Japan, was used to validate the model pro-
posed by this study (Ling et al. 2000). Fig. 2 shows the schematic of
a 6 m high single reinforced retaining wall. Lateral displacements of
the wall were measured using linear variable differential transformers
attached at the facing panels, and the strains in the reinforcement
were measured using strain gauges. Lateral pressures at the facing
and vertical stresses at the base of the wall were also measured
using load cells (Fig. 2).
A FLAC model of similar geometry to that of the paper was
simulated, and the results were compared with measured data.
Figs. 3(a and b) compare the lateral displacements and lateral
pressures at the facing from the present model and the field
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the bottom reinforcements, not in the top reinforcements. This im-
plied that the slip surface in the connected walls was not fully
formed.
Fig. 6 plots the maximum shear strain increment contours for the
case when J = 500 kN/m for unconnected and connected walls.
Lines were plotted along the maximum of shear strain increments
in the unconnected walls. This line intersected the top and bottom
reinforcements of the wall at points A and B, respectively. The hor-
izontal distances from the facing to points A and B were approxi-
mately 0.6H and 0.15H which coincided with those of A′ and B′
(Fig. 5). In the middle of the wall, the location of the slip surface
was just at the end of the reinforcement. Therefore, no peak
value in the tensile force was observed in the reinforcement placed
at this level. The shear strain contours were found to be results of

study. Lateral displacement of each segmental panel was measured interference of the slip surfaces of both the walls. The extent of
with respect to its placement position because the construction was influence was observed up to a depth of 0.5H from the top. This in-
carried out in stages. The results of this study compared well with fluence depth was dependent on the angle of shearing resistance
those by Ling et al. (2000). Lateral pressures at the bottom of the of the backfill (Han and Leshchinsky 2010). In the connected
wall deviated by approximately 20% and could be attributed to
walls, the maximum shear strain contours did not extend to the
the different boundary conditions available in the experimental
top of the wall unlike the trend reflected in the tensile profiles.
studies and that considered in the numerical model.
Lateral displacements were not enough to form the slip surface
The back-to-back walls model (FLAC model) was validated with
fully. In other words, connecting the reinforcement alters the slip
the model presented by Benmebarek et al. (2016). In Benmebarek
mechanism in the reinforced backfill.
et al. (2016), the height of the wall was 6 m with concrete facing pan-
In the case when J = 50,000 kN/m (Fig. 7), a clear peak value in
els of 1.5 m height. Back-to-back walls were modeled using PLAXIS
the tensile force was not observed in any of the reinforcements for
(finite element program). The ratio between the distance between
the facings to a height of the wall (W/H) was considered as 1.4 for the entire depth of the wall. Because the analysis was carried out
validation (e.g., the distance between the walls was taken as under working stresses, displacements due to gravity loads (lateral
8.4 m). Lateral pressures at the end of the reinforcement zone, displacements are much lesser in case of stiffer reinforcement) were
maximum tensile loads, and factor of safety were analyzed for
the W/H ratio of 1.4, 2.0, and 3.0. However, the study was carried
out for a single reinforcement stiffness value. Reinforcement of
axial stiffness 1,100 kN/m was adopted with a vertical spacing
of 0.75 m. Lateral pressures at the end of the reinforcement zone
and the maximum tension profile along the wall height were com-
pared with the present study (Fig. 4). It was observed that the lateral
displacements and the lateral pressures at the facing of back-to-back
walls from the present model compared well with Benmebarek et al.
(2016) with a maximum deviation of approximately 5%.
In this study, connected and unconnected back-to-back walls with
various reinforcement stiffness values were analyzed. The model was
robust in terms of updating the deformation modulus and considering
staged construction. The tensile force profiles along the length of the
reinforcement at various heights of the walls were also studied. The
tensile force profiles were related to the maximum shear strain incre-
ment contours of the backfill.

Tensile Profiles at Different Depths of Wall

Tensile forces along the length of reinforcements were analyzed in
unconnected and connected walls when J = 500 kN/m at various
depths of the wall (Fig. 5). Tensile forces were plotted for half
the width of the walls as they follow symmetry. It was observed
that when J = 500 kN/m (Fig. 5), the location of peak tensile force
in the reinforcement at 0.05H depth (near the top of the wall) and,
in the reinforcement near the bottom of the wall (Z = 0.85H ) were
at a horizontal distance of approximately 0.6H (A′ ) and 0.15H (B′ )
from the facing, respectively. There was no clear peak value ob-
served in the reinforcement near the mid depth (Z = 0.45H ). In the
reinforcement near the bottom of the wall, the position of maximum
tensile force had shifted toward the facing of the wall. The location of
peak tensile force was justified from Fig. 6. The tensile forces in both
Fig. 7. Tensile force profiles along the reinforcement length at different
connected and unconnected walls were almost equal. However, in
heights in J = 50,000 kN/m.
connected walls, a clear peak was observed at the facing only in

© ASCE 06020013-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013

 not sufficient enough to mobilize the critical slip surface (Fig. 8).
The tensile forces when J = 50,000 kN/m case was much higher, as
expected than those when J = 500 kN/m. When J = 50,000 kN/m,
except in the reinforcement near the bottom of the wall, the tensile
forces in connected walls were uniform and slightly higher than
those for the unconnected walls due to the tie-back effect of the
other wall.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8 shows the shear strain increment contours in the case
when J = 50,000 kN/m. In both the connected and unconnected
walls, slip surfaces were not defined. In the unconnected walls,
slightly higher shear strains were observed at the junction of the
ends of reinforcement. This was due to the relative vertical settle-
ment of the small unreinforced zone between the two walls. How-
ever, in the connected walls, higher shear strains were observed

(a)

(b)

Fig. 8. Maximum shear strain increment contours for J = 50,000 kN/m in: (a) unconnected walls; and (b) connected walls.

© ASCE 06020013-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013

 only at the facing possibly due to the relative settlement of the re-
inforced backfill to the facing. Shear strains when J = 50,000 kN/m
were less than those when J = 500 kN/m case due to lesser defor-
mations. In most of the cases, the tensile forces in the unconnected
walls tend to zero value at the end of the reinforcement. However,
there were significant tensile forces in the cases of connected walls
reinforcement at that location as the reinforcement extends from
one wall to the other.
Maximum Tensile Forces Along the Depth of the Wall
Fig. 9 shows the distribution of the maximum tensile force along
the depth of the wall. It was observed that the differences in tensile
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
forces for the connected and unconnected walls were insignificant
when J = 500 kN/m. However, when the stiffness of reinforcement
(J ) increased to 50,000 kN/m, the unconnected reinforcement case
had a slightly lesser tension value than that for the connected case.
In the top half of the wall, the maximum tensile forces in the con-
nected wall when J = 50,000 kN/m exceeded by a maximum of
Fig. 9. Maximum tensile force profiles for connected and unconnected
reinforcement cases.
(a)
Fig. 10. Behavior of unconnected and connected back-to-back walls showing: (a) lateral pressures; and (b) lateral deformations at the facing.
© ASCE 06020013-8
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013
approximately 14% compared with that for unconnected walls.
However, the maximum tensile forces tend to be the same in
both the walls. The maximum of maximum tensile forces in the re-
inforcements remained the same for both the connected and uncon-
nected walls. Benmebarek et al. (2016) showed a similar trend for
the unconnected and connected walls. The maximum tensile forces
decreased by approximately 45% when the stiffness of the rein-
forcement had decreased from 50,000 to 500 kN/m.
Lateral Pressures at the Facings of the Walls
Fig. 10(a) shows the lateral pressures at the facing in both con-
nected and unconnected walls for two reinforcement stiffness val-
ues. Lateral pressures and lateral deformations were obtained at a
vertical section located at 0.1 m from the facing. The lateral pres-
sures at the facing in unconnected walls were almost equal to
those of active earth pressures. The lateral pressures in the uncon-
nected walls when J = 500 kN/m were slightly less than those when
J = 50,000 kN/m case because the arching effect was significantly
more for the case when J = 500 kN/m due to relatively high vertical
settlement at the facing.
The lateral pressures in both unconnected and connected walls
were almost equal. The lateral deformations in the case when
J = 500 kN/m were much higher than those when J = 50,000 kN/m.
Lateral deformations in the connected walls were slightly less than
those of the unconnected walls for both the stiffness values. The
effect of tie-backing in the connected walls had little significance
under working stresses. Lateral deformations in the connected
walls decreased by approximately 10% and 50% when J = 500
and J = 50,000 kN/m respectively from that of unconnected walls
[Fig. 10(b)].
However, connected walls were expected to perform more effi-
ciently when compaction and surcharge loads were considered
(Sravanam et al. 2019). In all of these cases, the lateral pressures
in the connected condition did not exceed the active condition val-
ues for the working stresses. However, lateral deformations in walls
with stiffer reinforcement were approximately 0.05% of the height
of the wall which may not lead to the mobilization of the active
condition (Lambe and Whitman 1969). However, the friction be-
tween the wall facing and backfill material led to a reduction in ver-
tical stresses at the facing. This, in turn, reflected in the lateral
pressures at the wall. Therefore, even in the connected walls, the
(b)
Int. J. Geomech.
 assumption of the at rest condition was strictly not valid. Hence, the
assumption of FHWA (Berg et al. 2009) for using Ko value in the
case of connected walls was conservative. Therefore, the lateral
pressure coefficient equal to Ka can be safely adopted while design-
ing connected back-to-back walls for working stress.
Conclusions
Back-to-back walls with unconnected and connected reinforcement
conditions were modeled and analyzed to quantify the contribu-
tions of various parameters. The mechanism of tensile profiles
along the length of reinforcement and maximum tensile forces of
the connected and unconnected back-to-back walls was well under-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
stood using maximum shear strain increments. The following con-
clusions were drawn from the study:
• In the connected walls, reinforcement was found to be utilized
effectively as the tensile force profile was found to be uniform
along the length of the reinforcement. The values were slightly
higher in the connected walls than in the unconnected walls for a
given stiffness of the reinforcement.
• The connection of reinforcement had a negligible effect on the
maximum tensile forces mobilized in the reinforcement at vari-
ous levels. The maximum tensile forces in J = 50,000 kN/m and
connected walls were approximatley14% higher than those in
unconnected walls in the upper half of the wall. However, in
the lower half of the wall, the maximum tensile forces tend to
be the same for both connected and unconnected walls.
• FHWA’s assumption of using at rest conditions for the con-
nected case could lead to a highly conservative design. Lateral
pressures for both connected and unconnected walls were al-
most equal in both extensible and inextensible cases.
• Lateral deformations in the connected walls were less than those
of unconnected walls. The maximum lateral deformations for
connected walls were 50% and 10% less than those for uncon-
nected walls corresponding to J = 50,000 and J = 500 kN/m.
• Connected walls can be designed in the same way as unconnected
walls without any other modifications in the design parameters.
Connected walls can be designed with the lateral pressures pro-
posed in the study. It may be noted that the connected walls
were advantageous concerning the lateral deformations.
The present study did not consider the effects of compaction and
surcharge stresses on the properties of the backfill. In addition, the
study was stipulated to static loading on both unconnected and con-
nected walls.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
c = cohesion intercept of backfill;
Et = tangent elastic modulus;
H = total depth of the wall;
J = reinforcement stiffness;
Kb = bulk modulus number;
Ke = elastic modulus number;
m = bulk modulus exponent;
n = elastic modulus exponent;
Patm = atmospheric pressure;
Rf = failure ratio;
Rf = ratio of stress difference at failure (σ1–σ3)f to the
asymptotic value of stress difference (σ1–σ3)ult;
Sv = vertical spacing between the reinforcement layers.
T = tensile force in each reinforcement;
© ASCE 06020013-9
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013
T* = normalized tensile force in each reinforcement;
Z= depth of the wall from the top;
Z* = normalized depth of the wall;
δh = lateral deformations at the wall facing;
δ* = lateral deformations (expressed in percentage);
γ= unit weight of the backfill;
ϕ= angle of shearing resistance of backfill;
σhf = lateral pressures at the wall facing;
σ *hf = normalized lateral pressures at the wall facing;
σ1 = effective vertical pressure (overburden); and
σ3 = effective lateral confining pressure.
References
Allen, T. M., R. J. Bathurst, R. D. Holtz, D. Walters, and W. F. Lee. 2003.
“A new working stress method for prediction of reinforcement loads in
geosynthetic walls.” Can. Geotech. J. 40 (5): 976–994. https://doi.org
/10.1139/t03-051.
Anubhav, S., and P. K. Basudhar. 2011. “Numerical modelling of surface
strip footings resting on double-faced wrap-around vertical reinforced
soil walls.” Geosynth. Int. 18 (1): 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein
.2011.18.1.21.
Balunaini, U., S. M. Sravanam, and M. R. Madhav. 2017. “Effect of com-
paction stresses on performance of back-to-back retaining walls.” In
Proc., 19th Int. Conf. Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
Seoul, South Korea, edited by W. Lee, J.-S. Lee, H.-K. Kim, and
D.-S. Kim, 1951–1954.
Bathurst, R. J., A. Nernheim, D. L. Walters, T. M. Allen, P. Burgess, and
D. D. Saunders. 2009. “Influence of reinforcement stiffness and com-
paction on the performance of four geosynthetic-reinforced soil
walls.” Geosynth. Int. 16 (1): 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein
.2009.16.1.43.
Benmebarek, S., S. Attallaoui, and N. Benmebarek. 2016. “Interaction
analysis of back-to-back mechanically stabilized earth walls.” J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Eng. 8: 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016
.05.005.
Benmebarek, S., and M. Djabri. 2017. “FEM to investigate the effect of
overlapping-reinforcement on the performance of back-to-back em-
bankment bridge approaches under self-weight.” Transp. Geotech.
11: 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.03.002.
Berg, R. R., B. R. Christopher, and N. C. Samtani. 2009. Vol. I of
Design and construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and
reinforced soil slopes. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 011,
FHWA-NHI-10-024. Washington, DC: FHWA.
Djabri, M., and S. Benmebarek. 2016. “FEM analysis of back-to-back
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls.” Int. J. Geosynth.
Ground Eng. 2 (3): 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0067-1.
Duncan, J. M., P. Byrne, K. S. Wong, and P. Mabry. 1980. Strength, stress-
strain and bulk modulus parameters for finite element analyses of
stresses and movements in soil masses. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of
California.
Dyer, N. R. and G. W. E. Milligan. 1984. A photoelastic investigation of
the interaction of a cohesionless soil with reinforcement placed at differ-
ent orientations. In Int. Conf. on In situ Soil and Rock Reinforcement,
Paris, 257–262.
Ehrlich, M., and J. K. Mitchell. 1994. “Working stress design method for
reinforced soil walls.” J Geotech. Eng. 120 (4): 625645.
Ehrlich, M., and S. H. Mirmoradi. 2013. “Evaluation of the effects of facing
stiffness and toe resistance on the behavior of GRS walls.” Geotext.
Geomembr. 40: 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.07
.012.
El-Sherbiny, R., E. Ibrahim, and A. Salem. 2013. “Stability of back-to-back
mechanically stabilized earth walls.” In Geo-Congress 2013: Stability
and Performance of Slopes and Embankments III, Geotechnical
Special Publication 231, edited by C. Meehan, D. Pradel, M. A.
Pando, and J. F. Labuz, 555–565. San Diego, CA: ASCE.
Fakharian, K., and I. H. Attar. 2007. “Static and seismic numerical model-
ing of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental bridge abutments.”
Int. J. Geomech.
 Geosynth. Int. 14 (4): 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2007.14.4
.228.
Guler, E., M. Hamderi, and M. M. Demirkan. 2007. “Numerical analysis of
reinforced soil-retaining wall structures with cohesive and granular
backfills.” Geosynth. Int. 14 (6): 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1680
/gein.2007.14.6.330.
Han, J., and D. Leshchinsky. 2010. “Analysis of back-to-back mechani-
cally stabilized earth walls.” Geotext. Geomembr. 28 (3): 262–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.09.012.
Hardianto, F. S., and K. M. Truong. 2010. “Seismic deformation of
back-to-back mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls.” In Earth
Retent. Conf. 3, Geotechnical Special Publication 208, edited by
R. Finno, Y. M. A. Hashash, and P. Arduino, 704–711. Bellevue,
WA: ASCE.
Hatami, K., and R. J. Bathurst. 2005. “Development and verification of a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 05/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
numerical model for the analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
segmental walls under working stress conditions.” Can. Geotech. J.
42 (4): 1066–1085. https://doi.org/10.1139/t05-040.
Hatami, K., and R. J. Bathurst. 2006. “Numerical model for reinforced soil
segmental walls under surcharge loading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 132 (6): 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(2006)132:6(673).
Ho, S. K., and R. K. Rowe. 1996. “Effect of wall geometry on the behav-
iour of reinforced soil walls.” Geotext. Geomembr. 14 (10): 521–541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(97)83183-4.
Holtz, R. D., and W. F. Lee. 2002. Internal stability analyses of geosyn-
thetic reinforced retaining walls. Rep. No. WA-RD 532.1. Seattle:
Washington State Transportation Center, Univ. of Washington.
Huang, B., Bathurst, R. J., Hatami, K., and T. M. Allen. 2010. “Influence of
toe restraint on reinforced soil segmental walls.” Canadian Geotechn. J.
47 (8): 885904.
Jewell, R. A. 1980. Some effects of reinforcement on the mechanical
behavior of soils. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Lambe, T. W., and R. V. Whitman. 1969. Soil mechanics. New York:
Wiley.
© ASCE 06020013-10
Int. J. Geomech., 2020, 20(7): 06020013
Leshchinsky, B. 2014. “Limit analysis optimization of design factors for
mechanically stabilized earth wall-supported footings.” Transp.
Infrastruct. Geotechnol. 1 (2): 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s40515-014-0005-4.
Ling, H. I., C. P. Cardany, L.-X. Sun, and H. Hashimoto. 2000. “Finite el-
ement study of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall with con-
crete block facing.” Geosynth. Int. 7 (2): 137–162. https://doi.org/10
.1680/gein.7.0170.
Ling, H. I., and D. Leshchinsky. 2003. “Finite element parametric study of
the behavior of segmental block reinforced-soil retaining walls.”
Geosynth. Int. 10 (3): 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2003.10.3.77.
Mirmoradi, S. H., and M. Ehrlich. 2015. “Numerical evaluation of the be-
havior of GRS walls with segmental block facing under working stress
conditions.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (3): 04014109. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001235.
Rowe, R. K., and G. D. Skinner. 2001. “Numerical analysis of geosynthetic
reinforced retaining wall constructed on a layered soil foundation.”
Geotext. Geomembr. 19 (7): 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266
-1144(01)00014-0.
Sravanam, S. M., U. Balunaini, and M. R. Madhav. 2019. “Behavior and
design of back-to-back walls considering compaction and surcharge
loads.” Int J Geosyn Ground Eng. 5 (4): 117.
Wu, J. T. H., C. Y. Ma, T. Q. Pham, and M. T. Adams. 2011. “Required
minimum reinforcement stiffness and strength in geosynthetic-
reinforced soil (GRS) walls and abutments.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng.
5 (4): 395–404. https://doi.org/10.3328/IJGE.2011.05.04.395-404.
Yang, K.-H., J. G. Zornberg, and R. J. Bathurst. 2010. “Mobilization of re-
inforcement tension within geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures.” In
Earth Retent. Conf. 3, Geotechnical Special Publication 208, edited
by R. Finno, Y. M. A. Hashash, and P. Arduino, 494–501. Bellevue,
WA: ASCE.
Yoo, C., and A. R. Song. 2006. “Effect of foundation yielding on perfor-
mance of two-tier geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls:
A numerical investigation.” Geosynth. Int. 13 (5): 181–194. https://
doi.org/10.1680/gein.2006.13.5.181.
Int. J. Geomech.