Int J Civ Eng
DOI 10.1007/s40999-017-0216-5
RESEARCH PAPER
An Investigation on the Formation of Cracks at the Corner Turns
of the Modular Block Earth Walls
Murat Hamderi1   · Erol Guler2 · Ayman Raouf2 
Received: 6 October 2016 / Revised: 27 January 2017 / Accepted: 25 March 2017
© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017
Abstract  The design manuals for Geosynthetic Rein-
forced Soil Retaining Walls include the methodology for
various conditions, except the case where the wall has a
curved corner turn. Lately, some problems were report-
edly associated with these types of walls. One of the typi-
cal problems is cracking/separation of the modular blocks.
The most common method for analysing the behaviour of
reinforced soil walls is a 2-D plane-strain analysis, which
is insufficient for the current problem. Therefore, in this
study, a 3-D finite-element (FE) model, that is capable of
modelling corner turns, has been established. The main
elements of the model are modular blocks, interface ele-
ments, soil, and reinforcements. As a first step, the perfor-
mance of the FE model was evaluated by comparing the
stress–strain response of a laboratory-scale wall with its
counterpart in the FE program. Later, a large-size modular
block wall model was created and run with various input
parameters. The modelling results revealed that the rein-
forcement stiffness and the soil modulus are effective in the
separation and cracking of blocks. It is considered that the
cracking of blocks is related to an excessive stress build-up.
Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s40999-017-0216-5) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Murat Hamderi
hamderi@tau.edu.tr
Erol Guler
eguler@boun.edu.tr
Ayman Raouf
aymanraouf12@gmail.com
1
Faculty of Engineering, Turkish-German University,
Istanbul, Turkey
2
Faculty of Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
These stresses reduced when the reinforcement stiffness
increased. It is foreseen that the crack occurrence is less
likely to happen under reduced stress.
Keywords  Segmental modular block walls · TNO
DIANA · Cracks · Corner turns · Separation
1 Introduction
In the last 3 decades, Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS)
walls have become more common due to their advantages
such as cost-effectiveness, high performance, aesthetic
appearance, and durability. In practice, such walls are rou-
tinely designed using limit-equilibrium analysis [1–3].
Limit-equilibrium analysis methods are very practical in
determining the required reinforcement geometry, strength,
and all the other properties of GRS walls. For external
stability calculations, the Coulomb earth pressure theory,
whereas for internal stability calculations, the Rankine fail-
ure surface is considered in Federal Highway Administra-
tion [2] and National Concrete Masonry Association design
recommendations [4].
In general, the deformation behaviour of walls is evalu-
ated using a two-dimensional (2-D) plane-strain analy-
sis. In most cases, it is considered to be valid when a 3-D
stress–strain state problem is simplified into a 2-D one,
especially in the case where the length of the wall is quite
long compared to its width. For such walls, it is quite com-
mon to implement a finite-element (FE) analysis.
Many research studies are available about the design and
behaviour of GRS retaining walls. In the FHWA design
manual, some specific sections have been devoted to the
design of GRS walls with complex geometries. These
include cases like bridge abutments, superimposed (tiered)
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Int J Civ Eng

GRS walls, walls with uneven reinforcement lengths, back-
to-back walls, GRS walls constructed in front of shored
walls, and stable rock features for steep terrains.
Some FE and shaking table-based analysis regarding the
design and behaviour of GRS walls under static and earth-
quake loading conditions have been reported in the litera-
ture. In these studies, generally, the effect of different rein-
forcement types and reinforcement configurations and the
effect of backfill and external loading conditions have been
investigated [5–22]. In addition, 3-D FE analysis of GRS
walls has also been reported in the literature by some other
researchers [23, 24]. These studies generally discuss the
performance of the certain type of GRS walls or the effect
of wall properties such as reinforcement, facing type, soil,
and loading conditions. Surprisingly, none of these studies
address the problems regarding the corner turns of GRS
walls.
Knowing that, there is still some research gap in this
field, it would be a proper action to devote this study to the
investigation of cracks observed in the GRS walls with cor-
ner turns. The next section includes a case study of a corner
wall, which suffered from cracks forming on blocks.
58  m, respectively. The wall is reinforced with geotextile
reinforcements, which have tensile strengths of 40 and
80 kN/m in the upper and lower sections, respectively. At
the top and bottom portions of the wall, the reinforcement
spacing is 0.2 m, whereas, in the central, the spacing alter-
nates between 0.2 and 0.4 m (Fig. 2). The wall experienced
some cracks in the lower and upper parts of its corner
within the first year of its service life. The cracks located in
the upper and lower sections of the wall are slightly differ-
ent in nature (Fig. 3). It appears that blocks tend to separate
in the upper sections, whereas blocks predominantly tend
to break in the lower sections (Fig. 3). The wall is founded
on a non-uniform relatively weak clay (CL) layer. The
reported undrained strength of the soil for the first 10  m
depth is in the range of 68–224 kPa. On the other hand, the

1.1 A Case Study on a GRS Wall With Corner Turn

In some cases, due to topographical restrictions, it may

be necessary to include corner turns in geosynthetic rein-
forced retaining walls. These corner turns can be induced
at a right angle or greater/smaller angles based on the space
requirements. In Fig. 1, a wall corner with a 90° sharp turn
is illustrated. The height of the wall is about 13 m and the
average reinforcement length of the wall is between 8 and
9.5  m. The length and the width of the wall are 127 and

Fig. 2  Cross section of the wall

Fig. 1  Segmental geosynthetic reinforced wall with a 90° corner turn Fig. 3  Types of block movement: a separation, b cracking

13
Int J Civ Eng
exact strength of the soil below the corner section of the
wall is unknown.
2 The Finite‑Element Analysis Procedure
for Crack Investigation
In the previous section, a case study of a 13 m-high GRS
wall, which suffered from cracks, was summarized. From
the engineering point of view, the formation of cracks may
be attributed to the local accumulation of excessive stresses
on blocks. It is considered that the most efficient way to
find out the excessive stress accumulation is to perform a
finite-element analysis. With this in mind, an FE model for
the 13  m-high wall was created using 467 221 elements.
To reduce the number of elements, only the corner sec-
tion of wall was modelled (Fig.  4). The time for meshing
was about 48 h using a high-performance ­Windows®-based
computer equipped with 128  gigabytes of random access
memory (RAM). In the analysis phase, the FE run was
interrupted in the calculation phase due to insufficient
memory, even though the computer had a considerably
high memory size. As a result, the simulation program for
the 13 × 13 × 13  m wall was abandoned. Instead, a small
size wall with 3 × 3 × 3  m side dimensions was modelled.
Reducing the number of elements not only made it possi-
ble to finish the analysis, but also helped to reduce the run
time. It is assumed that reducing the wall height reduced
the stresses on blocks; however, it did not have a significant
Fig. 4  FE mesh of the wall in the case study
effect on the stress distribution. It is considered that the
model with a reduced wall height still produced meaningful
results, by which we can investigate the reasons behind the
crack formation.
2.1 The Finite‑Element Program
The modular block walls in this study were modelled using
the FE program, “TNO DIANA”. The program offers
advanced non-linear interface elements to model the inter-
action between modular units [25]. The performance of the
FE program on simulating modular block walls was inves-
tigated by comparing the strain response of a laboratory-
manufactured modular wall model with its counterpart in
TNO DIANA. It should be mentioned here that our expec-
tation on the fact that the strains would accurately match
was quite low, because we were dealing with very low
strain values, which were in the order of ­10−6  m/m. Even
the finding of which blocks are under tension or pressure
would be a great success. In addition, one can easily see
that estimating the strains of a system composed of sand,
paper reinforcement, and blocks would not be as easy
as estimating the strains of a bar composed of uniform
material.
During the test, the laboratory-manufactured modu-
lar wall was subjected to a uniform surface load and sub-
sequently, the strain response of the four modular blocks
on the wall was monitored. The comparison of the results
from two different sources revealed to what extent the FE
program could simulate modular block wall behaviour. It
should also be mentioned here that the laboratory-manufac-
tured modular wall model cannot be regarded as a tool rep-
resenting the field-test behaviour, it is rather a utility dem-
onstrating the performance of the FE program.
2.2 The Setup of the Modular Block Laboratory Model
The performance evaluation test was performed in a 0.22
× 0.22 × 0.22  m plywood half-box filled with dry sand
in Bogazici University (Fig.  5a). The wall facing was
constructed from wooden blocks, which were 0.012  m
(H) × 0.024 (W)  m × 0.072 (L)  m in size. The wooden
blocks were stacked on top of each other in a staggered
order ( ) at 16 layers (Fig.  5a). The construction of the
facings started by lining up two layers of wooden blocks
along the edges of the base plate. Subsequently, a layer of
sand behind the blocks was laid and levelled. Finally, as a
reinforcement, a sheet of paper was placed on every other
block layer starting from the top of the second lowest block
layer. This procedure was repeated until the full box height
was reached.
The vertical load (21  kPa) was provided by prismatic
metal weights stacked on the top of the modular block
13

Fig.  5  a Prototype; b FE model
of the prototype
wall (Fig. 5a). The influence area of these weights is dem-
onstrated in Fig.  5b. In addition, some concrete blocks
were positioned on the top facing the blocks to prevent
the top blocks from falling down (Fig.  5a). To simulate
this situation, a uniform pressure of 0.8 kPa was included
in the FE model (Fig.  5b). The strain development was
measured on 4 blocks equipped with Tokyo S ­ okki® brand
(120 Ohm) strain gauges (Fig. 5a).
The average density of sand in the modular block
was 1.55  g/cm3. The minimum and maximum densities
of the sand were 1.39 and 1.71  g/cm3, respectively. The
uniformity coefficient, cu = d60/d10 and d50 (diameter for
which 50% of the sample passes), for the sand was 1.27
and 0.27 mm, respectively.
Fig. 6  Members of the FE
model for the prototype: a
physical elements; b interface
elements
13
Int J Civ Eng
2.3 The Setup of the FE Model for the Modular Block
Laboratory Model
The physical elements of finite-element model created
for performance evaluation included facing blocks, sand,
reinforcement, and a half-box. The blocks, sand, and the
half-box were modelled using 3-D solid elements. The
reinforcement (paper) was modelled using 2-D shell ele-
ments (Fig.  6a). The boundaries between components
strictly included a plate interface (Fig.  6b). These mem-
bers especially provided the ability to accurately model
the discontinuities between elements. The basic proper-
ties that can be assigned to an interface are coefficients of
normal and shear stiffness (Kn, Kt). These coefficients are
analogous to a spring coefficient, where force is divided by
Int J Civ Eng

displacement. In our case, pressure is divided by displace-
ment (kPa/m = kN/m3). The magnitude of these coefficients
is in the order of 1 to 100 times of the elastic modulus of
the materials that they are connecting [25]. The ratio of
normal and shear stiffness coefficient is usually given as 10
[25]. In our prototype, our target was to see the blocks move
or rotate at a certain degree when the system was loaded.
By trials, we found out the appropriate stiffness coefficients
that would satisfy this condition. In these trials, assign-
ing high coefficient values caused the blocks behave like a
monolithic body, whereas, assigning low values ended up
with stability issues. In addition, friction angle and cohe-
sion could be assigned to the interfaces of sand (sand–rein-
forcement, sand–block, and sand–half-box interface). The
friction angles between sand–reinforcement, sand–block,
and sand–half-box interface between were determined by
interface shear tests (ASTM D5321). The block–block,
block–half-box, and block–reinforcement interfaces were
linear-elastic and did not include parameters such as fric-
tion angle or cohesion. The properties of the interface ele-
ments are given in Table 1.
Besides these, the sand layer was modelled with the
hyperbolic sand model [26]. The friction angle of the sand
was determined by a direct shear test (ASTM D3080). The
parameters of this model are given in Table 2. The proce-
dure followed in determining the soil modulus of the sand
is included in the Supplementary Information section.
2.4 The Execution and the Results of the FE Modular
Block Model
During the laboratory work, a uniform load of 21 kPa was
gradually applied on the modular block wall prototype,
and subsequently, the strain responses of 4 different blocks
were recorded. The same procedure was also followed in
the FE model of the modular block prototype. The com-
parison of strain responses of blocks 1–4 is presented in
Fig.  7a–d, respectively. The locations of these blocks are
given in Fig. 5b.
According to Fig.  7, the signs and the order of magni-
tudes of the measured and calculated strains are in agree-
ment. On the other hand, although the signs (extension+ or
contraction−) of the strain values match, the magnitudes of
the estimated values are a bit off from the measured ones.
However, it is considered that such a proximity is sufficient
for the estimation of strains of a system, which is composed
of three different materials which are namely, sand, paper,
and wood. As a conclusion, we can say that the FE program
can simulate the strain trend of modular blocks with some
mismatch in strain magnitudes.
3 Crack Investigation with 3‑D Modular Block
Wall Analyses
As it was mentioned earlier, the crack investigation will be
based on a 3 × 3 × 3 m wall model created in TNO DIANA
FE program. Before going into the results of the FE analy-
sis, in this section, the physical details of the wall model
are explained.
3.1 Geometry
The model dimensions of the 3-D modular block retain-
ing wall are 3 × 3 × 3 m. A general view of the 3-D mesh
is illustrated in Fig.  8a. The 0.2 × 0.2 × 0.4  m modu-
lar blocks are lined up, staggered over the top of each
other, as illustrated in Fig. 8b. As in the laboratory-size

Table 1  Properties of the Material Elem. type Material model Kn normal Kt shear Friction Cohesion (kPa)
interface elements stiffness (kN/ stiffness (kN/ angle (o)
m3) m 3)

Sand–block Plate Mohr–Coulomb 770,000 77,000 28 0.1

Sand–rein Plate Mohr–Coulomb 540,000 54,000 29 0.1
Sand–half-box Plate Mohr–Coulomb 770,000 77,000 26 0.1
Block–half-box Plate Linear-elastic 14,000,000 1,400,000 – –
Block–paper Plate Linear-elastic 14,000,000 1,400,000 – –
Block–block Plate Linear-elastic 22,000,000 2,200,000 – –

Table 2  Parameters of the hyperbolic sand model

Case Material Elem. type Mat. model Friction angle Ф (o) Cohesion (kN/m2) K modulus number Pa (kN/m2) Ei (kN/m2)

Modular block wall Sand Solid Hyperbolic 32 0.1 9032 1.55 14,000
model

13
 Int J Civ Eng

Fig. 7  Measured and simulated

strains of the modular block
wall prototype in a block 1, b
block 2, c block 3, and d block
4

Fig.  8  a Mesh of the modular

block retaining wall; b align-
ment of blocks

FE model, the boundaries between components strictly 3.2 Material Properties

included a plate interface (Fig. 8b).
The geosynthetic reinforcements were laid on the sand
at 0.2  m intervals (Fig.  9). The sides of the reinforce-
ments were inserted between block rows. The contact
surfaces of the reinforcement included plate interfaces.
The 3-D mesh consisted of sand, interface, block, and
geosynthetic reinforcement materials. The non-linear
Mohr–Coulomb soil model was used as a constitutive
model for sand. Linear-elastic properties were assigned

13
Int J Civ Eng

plane-strain characteristics. The stiffness values assigned to

the geosynthetic reinforcement elements were able to rep-
resent a wide range of geosynthetic types including woven
geotextiles, polypropylene geogrids, and high-strength pol-
yester geogrids. The properties of the elements are given in
Tables 3 and 4.

3.3 Loading

In the numerical solving phase, the self-weight of the

model was applied in ten incremental steps. The model did
not include any surcharge or any additional external force
other than its self-weight.

3.4 Boundary Conditions

The bottom and sides of the Modular Block Wall were

Fig. 9  Geosynthetic reinforcement layout and details
to the block and geosynthetic reinforcement elements. In
the same way as in the FE model of the prototype, prop-
erties such as friction angle and cohesion were assigned
to the particular interfaces, which had direct contact with
sand (sand–block, sand–reinforcement, and sand–wall
interfaces). The block–block, block–wall, and block–geo-
synthetic interfaces were linear-elastic; therefore, they did
not include parameters such as friction angle or cohesion.
The granular material and block elements were meshed
with 3-D solid elements. The geosynthetic reinforcement
element was created from a 2-D curved shell element with
bounded by a linear-elastic soil layer, which was fixed
to horizontal and vertical supports. The linear-elastic
boundary layer provided a smooth transition of stresses
and strains induced by the modular block to the supports
(Fig. 8a).
3.5 Model Combinations
The 3-D model was run for 7 different reinforcement elas-
tic modules (Egeo = 100, 125, 150, 250, 500, 1000, and
2000  kN/m) and 6 different granular backfill modules
(Esoil = 5, 10, 20, 40, 70, and 90 MPa). It is considered that
the given soil modulus magnitudes correspond to the soil
compaction levels ranging from poor to good.

Table 3  Parameters of the large 3-D FE model

Member Constitutive model Modulus or stiffness Poisson’s ratio Friction Cohesion Unit
angle Φ (kN/m2) weight
(o) (kN/
m3)

Granular material Non-linear Mohr–Coulomb 20–40–60–80 × 103 kN/m2 0.3 34 0.1 18

Block Linear-elastic 2000 × 103 kN/m2 0.15 – – 20
Interface Non-linear Mohr–Coulomb Table 4 0.25 26–29 0.1
Geosynthetic reinforcement Linear-elastic 0.10–0.25–0.50–1.00– 0.15 – – 1.2
2.00 × 103 kN/m

Table 4  Properties of interface Material Elem. type Mat. model Kn normal stiff- Kt shear stiff- Friction Cohesion (kPa)
elements ness ­(103 × kN/ ness ­(103 × kN/ angle
m 3) m 3) (o)

Sand–block Plate Mohr–Coulomb 3000 300 28 0.1

sand–reinf Plate Mohr–Coulomb 600 60 29 0.1
Sand–soil Plate Mohr–Coulomb 540 54 26 0.1
Block–block Plate Linear-elastic 6000 600 – –

13
 Int J Civ Eng

4 Results wall displacements with various soil modules are also

plotted in Fig. 11. According to the figure, the soil modu-
4.1 The Effect of Soil Modulus on Cracking lus has a considerable effect on wall displacement at soil

Many different scenarios may be put forward to explain

Max. Hor. Displacement (mm)

the formation of cracks on modular blocks. Among 5
these scenarios, the one with high-priority would be the
4.5
crack formation due to poor compaction of the backfill.
Since poor compaction may cause excessive deforma- 4
tion, it may result in the cracking of modular blocks as
well. To simulate this condition, the soil modulus of 3.5
the granular backfill was changed in the model accord- 3
ing to the compaction levels mentioned in the previous
section. Figure  10a–d illustrates the evolution of the 2.5
resultant displacements with increasing soil modulus [(a) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
Esoil = 5  MPa, (b) Esoil = 20  MPa, (c) Esoil = 40  MPa, and Modulus of Sand (MPa)
(d) Esoil = 90  MPa]. According to the figures, the maxi-
mum outward movement on sides occurs at about 1/3 Fig. 11  Plot of maximum horizontal displacements on walls versus
wall height from the bottom. The maximum horizontal soil modulus

Fig. 10  Illustration of resultant displacements in walls with varying soil modulus: a Esoil = 5, b 20, c 40, and d 90 MPa

13
Int J Civ Eng
modulus magnitudes below 20  MPa, whereas this effect
seems to diminish for greater soil modulus magnitudes.
It should be stated here that this plot is only specific to
a 3 m-high wall. The shape of the plot may change with
increasing wall height (=increasing stress).
In addition to the above evaluation based on dis-
placement, also a stress-based investigation was per-
formed. In Fig.  12, the distribution of stresses (σxx) in
the x-direction is demonstrated. According to the figure,
the blocks located at the corner of the wall experience
at least twice as much stress than the rest of the blocks.
The outer portion of the corner blocks is under compres-
sion, whereas the inner side is under tension. To quantify
the stress difference between inner and outer portions,
we defined the term “the maximum differential stress”,
which is basically the difference between the maximum
and the minimum stresses (σxxmax−σxxmin) on the blocks.
In this case, for the modular wall with a soil modulus
of 20  MPa, the maximum differential stress becomes
(σxxmax−σxxmin) = 210−(−160) = 370  kPa (see the legend
of Fig.  12). In Fig.  13, the maximum differential stress
is plotted versus soil modulus. According to Fig.  13, an
increase in the soil modulus (from 5 to 20 MPa) resulted
in a reduced a differential stress (from 490 to 372  kPa).
This corresponds to a 25% reduction in stress. A further
increase in soil modulus produces a limited reduction in
differential stress, considering that increasing the soil
modulus from 20 to 70 MPa results with only a 6% differ-
ence in differential stress.
In addition to above stress demonstrations based on
stresses along the x-direction, we can also present the
stresses on blocks in terms of principal minor stresses.
This gives us a symmetrical distribution, in which we can
see the stress concentrations accumulated in the corner
Fig. 12  Illustration of stresses in the blocks (Esoil = 20 MPa, Egeo = 100 kN/m)
500
σxxmax-σxxmax (kPa)
450
400
350
300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
Modulus of Sand (MPa)
Fig. 13  Plot of differential stresses on blocks versus reinforcement
stiffness
(Fig. 14). According to Fig. 14, the location of the actual
cracks and the location of the minor principal stress con-
centration coincide fairly well.
4.2 The Effect of Reinforcement Modulus on Cracking
The second scenario that would be helpful to explain the
crack formation is to investigate the effect of reinforce-
ment modulus. To do this, the modular block wall model
having a soil modulus of 20  MPa was run for 5 rein-
forcement modulus levels of 0.1, 0.125, 0.15, 0.25, 0.5,
1, and 2 MN/m. To filter out the effect of reinforcement
vertical spacing, these values were divided by the verti-
cal spacing value of 0.2 m. These values are now called
“Reinforcement Stiffness” and they are given as follows:
0.5, 0.625, 0.75, 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10 MN/m/m. Later, the
maximum resultant displacement of the wall was plotted
against reinforcement stiffness (Fig. 15). In Fig. 15, one
13
 Int J Civ Eng

Fig. 14  Illustration of minor principal stresses on blocks (Esoil = 40 MPa, Egeo = 100 kN/m)

400

σxxmax-σxxmin (kPa)
4 300
Max. Hor. Displacement (mm)

3 200

2
100
1
0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Reinforcement Stiffness (MN/m/m)
Reinforcement Stiffness (MN/m/m)
Fig. 16  Plot of maximum differential stress on blocks versus rein-
Fig. 15  Plot of maximum horizontal displacements on walls versus forcement stiffness
reinforcement stiffness

4.3 The Evaluation of the Separation Observed

in Modular Block Walls

can see that there is about 100% reduction in maximum
horizontal displacement when the reinforcement stiffness
increases from 0.5 to 2.5  MN/m/m. Such a trend is an
indicator of a strong relationship between reinforcement
stiffness and wall displacement. From Fig. 15, it is also
noticeable that the reinforcement stiffness does not have
a considerable effect on horizontal displacement after
the reinforcement stiffness magnitude of 5 MN/m/m.
In Fig. 16, the relationship between the maximum dif-
ferential stress (σxxmax−σxxmin) and the modulus of rein-
forcement is demonstrated. According to the figure, one
can see that there is a strong relationship between rein-
forcement stiffness and the maximum differential stress
developed on the blocks. The maximum differential
stress seems to decrease when more stiff reinforcements
are used. As a result, increasing reinforcement stiffness
on certain locations can be effective in crack mitigation,
assuming that cracking occurs due to excessive differen-
tial stress in a block.
As mentioned earlier, in modular walls with corner turns,
addition to cracking of blocks, some block separations were
observed (Figs. 1, 3). The separation of modular block fac-
ings is analogous to tearing of a paper sheet, in which the
tearing initiates from the sides. The hypothesized behav-
iour, once again, was simulated in the 3 × 3 × 3 m FE model
wall. During the simulation, the soil modulus of the sand
was constant (20  MPa). The model was run for 6 differ-
ent reinforcement stiffness of 0.5, 0.625, 0.75, 1.25, 2.5, 5,
and 10 MN/m/m. The FE model was loaded under its own
weight. The total deformation plot of the modular wall after
the loading phase is demonstrated in Fig.  17. According
to the plot, the greatest displacements occur at the lower
1/3 portion of the wall faces. In contrast, the corner of the
wall has the least amount of displacement. If the locus
of the upper sides of the wall is observed, it can be seen
that there is a change in curvature within the proximity of
the wall corner (Fig.  17). The points of change of curva-
ture are marked with the numbers 1, 2, and 3 in Fig.  17.

13
Int J Civ Eng

Fig. 17  Deformation shape of
the large modular block wall
(displacements exaggerated)

2 slope ratios and tearing (separation), we can say that using

0 a reinforcement with low stiffness is more likely to result in
-2
a block separation than one with high stiffness.
Ratio of Slopes

-4
-6 5 Conclusion
-8
-10 • In this study, an investigation was performed on block
-12 separation and cracks occurring in the corner turns of
-14 modular block earth walls. The investigation is mainly
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 based on an FE modular block wall model with the
Reinforcement Stiffness (MN/m/m) dimensions of 3 × 3 × 3 m. The simulation performance
of the FE program was evaluated in terms of comparing
Fig. 18  Plot of ratio of curve slopes versus reinforcement stiffness the strain response of a laboratory-manufactured modu-
lar wall with its counterpart in the FE program.
• It was found out that soil modulus and reinforcement
For tearing (=separation), the wall has to deform unevenly stiffness both play important roles in cracking. How-
along y-direction in this region. To systematically compare ever, the reinforcement stiffness had somewhat a greater
the curvature change, we can calculate the slope ratio of effect. In general, we can say that insufficient soil modu-
curve 1 and 2 by the following formula: lus or reinforcement stiffness may cause cracking of
( ) corner blocks.
Slope1 y2 − y1 ∕L • The cracking occurrence was explained in terms of
Ratio of slopes = = ( ) (1) excessive stress accumulation on the corner blocks. For
Slope2 y3 − y2 ∕L
instance, an increase in the reinforcement stiffness from
where y1, y2, and y3 are the displacements along y-direction
0.5 to 5 MN/m/m resulted in 3 times less stress on cor-
and L = 1.5× block length (two L’s cancel out).
ner blocks.
In Fig.  18, the ratio of the slopes is plotted against
• For the separation investigation, it was hypothesized that
reinforcement stiffness. According to Fig.  18, the effect
the separation of blocks in the wall corner was mainly
of reinforcement stiffness on the ratio of the slopes is
due to a tearing process, occurring on the upper side of
comparatively high between the magnitudes of 0.5 and
the wall facing. At the location where tearing occurs,
1.25 MN/m/m. Further increase of the reinforcement stiff-
it was observed that there was an abrupt change in the
ness does not have a considerable effect on slope ratios. The
slope of the wall edge curve. This change was quantified
ratio seems to stay around one. Using an analogy between
by the slope ratio of two adjacent curves. To explain

13

this mechanism, the modular block wall FE model was
run for 7 different reinforcement modules. The results
demonstrated that the abrupt change in the slope occurs
only when the reinforcement stiffness is relatively low
(0.5  MN/m/m). When the stiffness was increased to
1.25 MN/m/m, the abrupt change in the slope ratio sud-
denly diminished. This indicates that there should be a
minimum reinforcement stiffness that is required for the
integrity of the blocks on the wall corner.
• In the 3-D FE models, the location of the maximum
wall displacement was in agreement with the ones usu-
ally observed in a 2-D FE analysis.
6 Recommendations and Future Work
In this study, it is recommended that stiffer reinforcement
should be used around the modular block wall corners to
mitigate cracking and separation of modular blocks. On the
other hand, the current study does not offer a detailed quan-
titative procedure to determine the reinforcement stiffness
required for the corners of the walls. As a future work, an
additional study could be established to accurately deter-
mine the extent of required reinforcement stiffness based
on the dimensions of the modular block earth wall.
Compliance with ethical standards  17. Walters DL, Allen TM, Bathurst RJ (2002) “Conversion of geo-
Funding  There is no special funding source for this study. The fund-
ing came from the first author. However, the experiments were con-
ducted in Bogazici University, Istanbul.
References
1. AASHTO (2002) Standard specifications for highway bridges,
17th edn., pp 111–174
2. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2010) Design and
construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and rein-
forced soil slopes. Federal Highway Administration Demonstra-
tion Project 82, Washington, DC, USA, 2010
3. Adams M, Nicks J, Stabile T, Wu J, Schlatter W, Hartmann J
(2011) Geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system
interim implementation guide, Federal Highway Administration,
Mclean, VA, 2011
4. National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) (2010) Seis-
mic design of segmental retaining walls, TEK 15-9A, 2010,
http://www.ncma.org. Accessed 2014
5. El-Emam MM, Bathurst RJ (2005) “Facing contribution to seis-
mic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil walls”. Geosynth
Int 12(3):215–238
6. Guler E, Hamderi M, Demirkan MM (2007) “Numerical analy-
sis of reinforced soil-retaining wall structure with cohesive and
granular backfills”. Geosynth Int 14(6):330–345
7. Guler E, Enunlu AK (2009) “Investigation of dynamic behaviour
of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining structures under earth-
quake loads”. Bull Earthq Eng 7(3):737–777 (R2-1)
13
Int J Civ Eng
8. Guler E, Cicek E, Demirkan MM, Hamderi M (2012) “Numeri-
cal analysis of reinforced soil walls with granular and cohesive
backfills under cyclic loads”. Bull Earthq Eng 10(3):793–811
(R2-1)
9. Guler E, Alexiew D, Basbug E (2012) “Behaviour of geogrid
reinforced segmental block walls under earthquake loads”,
Geoeuro 5, 5th European Geosynthetics Congress, Valencia
Spain, 2012, pp 793–811
10. Guler E, Selek O (2014) “Reduced-scale shaking table tests on
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls with modular facing”. J Geo-
tech Geoenviron Eng 140(6):0414015
11. Koseki J, Bathurst RJ, Guler E, Kuwano J, Maugeri M (2006)
Keynote lecture: Seismic stability of reinforced soil walls, 8th
Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics, Yokohama, Japan, Millpress, Rot-
terdam, Netherlands, vol. 1, pp 51–77
12. Ling HI, Liu H, Mohri Y (2005) “Parametric studies on the
behaviour of reinforced soil retaining walls under earthquake
loading”. J Eng Mech 131:1056–1065
13. Ling HI, Mohri Y, Leshchinsky D (2005) “Large-scale shaking
table tests on modular block reinforced Soil retaining walls”. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:465–476
14. Ling HI, Yang S, Leshchinsky D, Liu H, Burke C (2010) “Finite
element simulations of full-scale modular-block reinforced
soil retaining walls under earthquake loading”. J Eng Mech
10(106):653–661
15. Ling HI, Leshchinsky D, Mohri Y, Wang JP (2012) “Earthquake
response of reinforced segmental retaining walls backfilled with
substantial percentage of fines”. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
1061(10):934–944
16. Nova-Roessig L, Sitar N (2006) “Centrifuge model studies of the
seismic response of reinforced soil slopes”. J Geotech Geoenvi-
ron Eng 132(3):388–400
synthetic strain to load using reinforcement stiffness”. Geosynth
Int 9(5–6):483–523
18. Watanbe K, Munaf Y, Koseki J, Tateyama M, Kojima K (2003)
Behaviours of several types of model retaining walls subjected to
irregular excitation”. Soils Found 43(5):13–27
19. Yu Y, Bathurst RJ, Miyata Y (2015) “Numerical analysis of a
mechanically stabilized earth wall reinforced with steel strips”.
Soils Found 55(3):536–547
20. Aldeeky H, Al Hattamleh O, Abu Alfoul B (2016) “Effect of
sand placement method on the interface friction of sand and geo-
textile”. Int J Civil Eng 14(2):133–138
21. Keshavarz A, Ebrahimi M (2016) “The effects of the soil-wall
adhesion and friction angle on the active lateral earth pressure of
circular retaining walls”. Int J Civil Eng 14(2):97–105
22. Soltani-Jigheh H (2016) “Compressibility and shearing behav-
iour of clayey soil reinforced by plastic waste”. Int J Civil Eng
14(7):479–489
23. Fan CC (2006) “Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic rein-
forced segmental retaining wall under a surcharge load: Full-
scale load test and 3-D finite element analysis”. Comput Geotech
33:69–85
24. Yoo C, Kim SB (2008) “Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic
reinforced segmental retaining wall under a surcharge load:
full-scale load test and 3-D finite element analysis”. Geotext
Geomembr 26:460–472
25. Diana User’s Manual (2014) Release 9.5, TNO DIANA BV,
Netherlands
26. Duncan JM, Chang CY (1970) “Nonlinear analysis of stress and
strains in soils”. J Soil Mech Found Divi ASCE 96 5:1629–1653