Modeling the Dynamic Response of Wrap-Faced

Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls

A. Murali Krishna, Aff.M.ASCE1; and G. Madhavi Latha2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper describes the development of a numerical model for simulating the shaking table tests on wrap-faced reinforced soil
retaining walls. Some of the physical model tests carried out on reinforced soil retaining walls subjected to dynamic excitation through
uniaxial shaking tests are briefly discussed. Models of retaining walls are constructed in a perspex box with geotextile reinforcement using
the wraparound technique with dry sand backfill and instrumented with displacement sensors, accelerometers, and soil pressure sensors.
Results showed that the displacements decrease with the increase in number of reinforcement layers, whereas acceleration amplifications
were not affected significantly. Numerical modeling of these shaking table tests is carried out using the Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua
program. The numerical model is validated by comparing the results with experiments on physical models. Responses of wrap-faced walls
with varying numbers of reinforcement layers are compared. Sensitivity analysis performed on the numerical models showed that the friction
and dilation angle of backfill material and stiffness properties of the geotextile-soil interface are the most affecting parameters for the model
response. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000128. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Geosynthetics; Retaining structures; Soil structures; Shake table tests; Seismic analysis; Numerical
models; Dynamic response.
Author keywords: Geosynthetics; Retaining walls; Shake table tests; Seismic analysis; Numerical models.

Introduction
Reinforced soil technology is one of the most successful fields of
civil engineering. Reinforced soil structures have gained wide pop-
ularity because of their functional, constructional, and economical
benefits. Application of this technology to soil retaining structures
has increased tremendously for various infrastructural projects
across the globe. Because retaining walls were among the first geo-
technical structures to be considered both critical and permanent as
their service life was concerned (Koerner and Soong 2001), their
seismic stability is of the utmost importance. Investigating the per-
formance of reinforced retaining walls under cyclic ground shaking
conditions aids in understanding how these walls actually behave
during earthquakes and/or seismic conditions.
Numerical modeling techniques are powerful tools that have
been used to study the static and dynamic behavior of reinforced
soil structures (e.g., Bathurst and Hatami 1998; El-Emam et al.
2004; Fakharian and Attar 2007). Numerical models are particu-
larly advantageous because of the difficulties associated with
situations in which the prototype structures are too big to be tested;
problems related to scaling issues and instrumentations; and, espe-
cially, repetition of model construction, etc. However, the main key
point to verify the applicability of any numerical model is by its
validation with the available prototype studies and/or small scale
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Tech-
nology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India (corresponding author). E-mail:
amurali@iitg.ac.in
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore 560012, India. E-mail: madhavi@civil.iisc.ernet.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 30, 2010; approved on
March 4, 2011; published online on March 7, 2011. Discussion period open
until January 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geomechanics,
Vol. 12, No. 4, August 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/2012/4-439–
450/$25.00.
laboratory model studies. The calibrated numerical model can then
be used for extensive parametric studies.
This paper describes some of the physical model tests on geo-
textile reinforced soil retaining wall models subjected to dynamic
loading conditions through uniaxial shaking tests. Numerical
simulation of these shaking table tests is performed using a two-
dimensional, explicit dynamic finite difference program Fast
Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) (FLAC 2008). The for-
mulation of the numerical model and steps in the analyses are also
described. The results from the numerical simulations are verified
using experimental observations. The calibrated model facilitated
parametric studies of the reinforced soil retaining walls to better
understand the individual effects of various parameters governing
the behavior of reinforced soil retaining walls.
Background
Dynamic behavior of reinforced soil retaining structures has been
the subject of several researchers for the past three decades
(Richardson and Lee 1975; Cai and Bathurst 1995; Ling et al.
1997; Bathurst and Hatami 1998; Matsuo et al. 1998; Perez and
Holtz 2004; Nova-Roessig and Sitar 2006; Won and Kim 2007;
Huang et al. 2008; Krishna and Latha 2009). Bathurst et al.
(2002) summarized many studies related to seismic aspects of
geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls and reviewed the work
associated with the properties of cohesionless soil, geosynthetic
reinforcement, and facing components under cyclic loading. As dif-
ferent types of reinforced soil walls are used in practice, different
researchers worked on different types of walls. Different types of
physical model studies are reported in the literature for seismic and/
or dynamic studies, such as the tilting table test, shaking table test,
dynamic centrifuge test, and full-scale tests. Nova-Roessig and
Sitar (2006) summarized experimental studies of seismic response
of reinforced soil walls and slopes. Recent studies in this area

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012 / 439

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.

 include Perez and Holtz 2004; El Emam and Bathurst 2004; Ling
et al. 2005; Saito et al. 2006; Huang et al. 2008; Krishna and Latha
2007, 2009; Ling et al. 2009; Sabermahani et al. 2009; and Yang
et al. 2010.
Despite many problems associated with the modeling of
reinforcement structural elements and their interacting behavior
with the neighboring soil, numerical and analytical studies on re-
inforced soil walls progressed well along with their physical model
tests. Many researchers worked numerically and/or analytically on
the static performance of reinforced soil retaining walls and soil-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
structure interaction problems (Jewell et al. 1984; Schmertmann
et al. 1987; Hird and Kwok 1989; Berg et al. 1989; Karpurapu
and Bathurst 1992; Rowe and Ho 1997; Zornberg et al. 1998; Rowe
and Skinner 2001; Ling and Leshchinsky 2003; Hatami and
Bathurst 2005, 2006). However, limited studies related to the dy-
namic behavior of these structures are reported in the literature.
Yogendrakumar et al. (1992) performed dynamic finite-element
analysis of reinforced earth walls using an iterative equivalent lin-
ear elastic approach and an incremental elastic approach. The re-
sponse of the walls was compared with the tests conducted by
Richardson et al. (1977). The results were in good agreement for
actual and model responses using incremental loading. Cai and
Bathurst (1995) presented the results of finite-element analysis of
the dynamic response of a GRS retaining wall that was constructed
with dry-stacked modular concrete blocks. It was observed that the
relative displacement, dynamic tensile forces in reinforcement, and
interface shear forces between modular units increased with the du-
ration and magnitude of base excitation during simulated seismic
events. Bathurst and Cai (1995) presented pseudostatic seismic
analysis for limit equilibrium stability analysis of geosynthetic-
reinforced segmental retaining walls. Lindquist (1998) conducted
a series of parametric numerical analyses using the explicit finite
difference program FLAC to investigate the influence of various
input parameters on the seismic behavior of geosynthetic reinforced
slopes. Bathurst and Hatami (1998) investigated the influence of
reinforcement stiffness, reinforcement length, and base boundary
conditions on the seismic response of an idealized 6-m-high
GRS retaining wall constructed with a very stiff continuous facing
panel using FLAC. Hatami and Bathurst (2000) discussed the in-
fluence of a number of structural design parameters on the funda-
mental frequency of reinforced soil retaining wall models in the
light of numerical simulations carried out using FLAC. Lee et al.
(2003) examined the case histories and laboratory studies related to
the seismic performance of GRS walls and carried out numerical
simulations on the walls in FLAC. In these simulations, backfill
material was modeled using Mohr-Coulomb material coded with
a hyperbolic soil modulus model.
Paulsen and Kramer (2004) developed a practical model for the
estimation of permanent displacement of reinforced slopes sub-
jected to earthquake loading. Kramer and Paulsen (2004) discussed
the performance-based design concepts for the reinforced soil
slopes and illustrated the applicability of the developed practical
model. Ling et al. (2004) analyzed the dynamic behavior of
GRS retaining walls using an advanced generalized plasticity soil
model and bounding surface geosynthetic model in conjunction
with a dynamic finite-element procedure. El-Emam et al. (2004)
presented numerical simulation of experimental shaking table stud-
ies on full-height propped panel reinforced soil retaining wall mod-
els using FLAC. Vieira et al. (2006) also used FLAC to study the
seismic response of GRS walls. Huang et al. (2009) performed a
numerical study to investigate the response of full-scale reinforced
soil walls during construction and surcharge loading using three
different constitute models: linear elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb,
modified Duncan-Chang hyperbolic model, and Lade’s single
440 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012
Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.
hardening model, implementing all in FLAC. They concluded that
the modified Duncan-Chang model was a good compromise be-
tween prediction accuracy and availability of model parameters
from conventional laboratory testing. Lee et al. (2010) presented
numerical simulation of GRS walls under seismic shaking using
LS-DYNA, a finite-element computer code (Lee et al. 2010).
Huang et al. (2010) used a FLAC model with the Duncan-Chang
hyperbolic model to investigate the influence of toe restraining con-
ditions on the performance of segmental reinforced soil walls.
Recently, the finite difference method-based program FLAC be-
came popular for modeling the performance of reinforced soil walls
because of its excellent capability to model geotechnical engineer-
ing stability problems and its extended programming ability. Many
researchers who worked on the performance of reinforced soil
structures and other geotechnical engineering problems under both
static and dynamic conditions used FLAC and proved its caliber for
the same conditions (e.g., Bathurst and Hatami 1998; Lindquist
1998; Vieira et al. 2006; Hatami and Bathurst 2006; Zarnani and
Bathurst 2008, 2009; Huang et al. 2009, 2010). Therefore FLAC is
adopted for numerical simulations of shaking table tests.
Physical Model Tests
Physical model tests conducted in the rigid perspex container by
Krishna (2008) and Krishna and Latha (2009) were adopted as
the reference case models for developing the numerical model
and are briefly described here. A computer-controlled, hydrauli-
cally driven single degree of freedom (horizontal) shaking table
with a loading platform of 1 × 1 m size and payload capacity of
1 ton was used in the experiments. Models of retaining walls were
constructed in a perspex box (size 1;100 × 500 mm in plan and
800 mm deep) with geotextile reinforcement using the wraparound
technique with dry sand backfill. The test wall was constructed to a
size of 750 × 500 mm in plan and 600 mm height (H). The model
retaining wall was constructed in lifts, each lift (150 mm) being
reinforced with a layer of geotextile and wrapped at the facing
for a length of 150 mm using wooden plank-formwork for each
lift. Each model retaining wall was instrumented with accelerom-
eters and pressure sensors at different locations within the backfill
soil. To measure the horizontal displacements, three noncontact
ultrasonic displacement transducers (USDTs) were positioned at
different elevations along the facing. Figs. 1 and 2 show the sche-
matic diagram and picture of the wrap faced wall, respectively, as
reported by Krishna and Latha (2009). The response of the rein-
forced retaining walls with the variation in the number of reinforc-
ing layers was monitored. In all of the tests, the length of
reinforcement (Lrein ) was kept as 420 mm, which corresponds to
the Lrein ∕H ratio of 0.7. After completion of all lifts up to full height
of the wall (H, 600 mm), a nominal surcharge of 0.5 kPa in the form
of concrete slabs was applied at the top. After the support removal
and positioning of ultrasonic displacement transducers, each model
wall was subjected to 20 cycles of sinusoidal seismic excitation
corresponding to 0.2 g acceleration at 3 Hz frequency. Data from
different instrumentations were obtained through a data acquisition
system associated with the shaking table facility during the seismic
excitation.
Backfill Material
The backfill material used was locally available poorly graded dry
sand. The maximum and minimum dry unit weights for the sand
were reported as 17.66 and 14:03 kN∕m3 , respectively, and the
specific gravity of the sand was determined as 2.64. To achieve
uniform density, sand was placed in the perspex box using the
 T-shape bracket made
up of L-section
Surcharge (concrete slabs, 0.5 kPa)
P: Pressure sensors
A3 A: Accelerometer
U3 P4 Dry sand
Lrein U: USDT
back fill
800
U2 P3
Geotextile reinforcement
A2 Perspex Box
H=600
U1 P2 sv = 150
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A1
z
P1 Shaking table

A0
350 750
All dimensions are in mm

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of model wall configuration and instrumentation; USDT, ultrasonic displacement transducers (data from Krishna and
Latha 2009)

Table 2. Properties of Geotextile

Parameter Direction Value
Breaking strength Warp 55.5 kN/m
Weft 46.0 kN/m
Elongation at break Warp 38%
Weft 21.3%
Thickness 1 mm
Mass per unit area 230 g∕m2

Results

Fig. 2. Finished wrap-faced four layers model wall in perspex container
pluviation (raining) technique. The average unit weight and relative
density achieved were within the range of 16:08–16:20 kN∕m3 and
62–65%, respectively, for the same height of fall. Other index prop-
erties were reported as per Indian Standard (IS: 2720 are shown in
Table 1.
Reinforcement
Model walls with test codes WT33, WT37, and WT43 were con-
structed with 4, 3, and 6 layers of reinforcement, respectively, and
were considered for the numerical modeling. More details about the
model preparation and testing procedure are given in Krishna
(2008) and Krishna and Latha (2009), and are omitted here for
brevity. Typical results obtained from the physical model tests
are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Fig. 3 shows the variations of horizontal
displacements, at different elevations corresponding to U1, U2,
and U3 locations for the model wall (WT43) with a six-layer con-
figuration, with number of cycles. Fig. 3 shows that the
14
U1
12 U2
Horizonatal displacement, mm

U3

Woven geotextile was used as the material for reinforcing the sand 10
in the tests. This was a polypropylene multifilament woven fabric.
The individual multifilaments were woven together to provide 8
dimensional stability relative to each other. The properties of the
reported geotextiles are shown in Table 2. 6

Table 1. Index Properties of the Backfill Material 4

Parameter Value
2
emin 0.467
emax 0.846 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
D-10, mm 0.174
Number of cycles
D-50, mm 0.512
Coefficient of curvature (Cc ) 1.054 Fig. 3. Typical displacement variation with number of cycles: physical
Uniformity coefficient (Cu ) 3.553 model tests

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012 / 441

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.

 0.3 A3 Numerical Modeling
0.2
0.1
0.0 Numerical models to simulate shaking table tests were developed
Accelerations at different elevation, g

-0.1 using the computer program FLAC. FLAC is an explicit, dynamic,

-0.2
-0.3 finite difference code based on the Lagrangian calculation scheme.
0.3 A2
Various built-in constitutive models are available in FLAC and can
0.2 be modified by the user with minimal effort through FISH program-
0.1
0.0 ming code. FLAC also provides some built-in structural elements,
-0.1 which can be used as reinforcement or structural supports, and in-
-0.2 terface elements as well (FLAC 2008).
-0.3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 5 10
Number of cycles
Fig. 4. Typical accelerations variation with number of cycles: physical
model tests
displacements increase nonlinearly with an increase in the number
of cycles of seismic excitation. Further higher displacements at
higher elevations are noted. Variation of accelerations with number
of cycles at different elevations corresponding to A0, A2, and A3
locations are presented in Fig. 4 for the model wall (WT43) with six
layers of configuration. It is observed that the acceleration recorded
at 600-mm elevation (A3) is amplified to about 1.22 times of the
base acceleration, whereas the acceleration at the 300-mm elevation
(A2) is amplified to about 1.08 times to the base acceleration.
Fig. 5 presents the comparison among the responses of wrap-
faced model walls with different reinforcing layers in terms of hori-
zontal displacements, acceleration amplifications, and incremental
pressures at the end of 20 cycles of dynamic excitation. Fig. 5
shows that the displacements decrease with the increase in number
of reinforcement layers. However, acceleration amplifications are
not affected significantly. Incremental pressures also decrease with
increasing reinforcing layers; nevertheless, their variations along
the height of model wall are not consistent.
A0
Numerical Grid
A 600-mm-high and 750-mm-long grid is considered to represent
the model wall in plan strain analysis. This whole grid is discretized
into 500 small zones in x and y directions. A nonyielding region
was necessary at the right end because FLAC does not allow a free-
15 20 25
field boundary to be in contact with yielded material. Hence, a non-
yielding zone is considered at the end of the wall grid. A smooth
interface is considered to facilitate the backfill material to slide
along the nonyielding zone that simulates the actual physical
model. A rigid nonyielding zone is considered at the base of the
wall model that simulates the base of the shaking table. Fig. 6
shows the numerical grid considered to simulate the reinforced soil
retaining wall model along with the rigid container boundary and
base shaking table. The construction sequence in the numerical
model grid is followed similar to that of the physical model
(i.e., building the wall stage wise with front lateral support), apply-
ing the surcharge pressure and removal of supports after building
up to the full height. The numerical grid is solved for equilibrium in
every stage of the construction process. The typical displaced pro-
file of the wrap-faced retaining wall at the end of construction to the
full height is shown in Fig. 7.
Backfill Material
Backfill sand is modeled using Mohr-Coulomb material elements
coded with the hyperbolic soil modulus model. The properties re-
quired for a Mohr-Coulomb material are mass density, shear, and
bulk moduli (or Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio), friction an-
gle, and dilation angle. Although the modulus is supposed to be
updated as per the hyperbolic model, a representative modulus
is assigned for initialization. Friction angle and dilation angle of

600 600
(a) (b) (c) Test Code Layers
Test Code Layers 500 WT33 4
WT33 4 WT37 3
500 500
WT37 3 WT43 6
WT43 6
400
400 400
Elevation, mm

Elevation, mm
Elevation, mm

300 300 300

200 200
200
Test Code Layers
100
WT33 4 100
WT37 3
WT43 6 100

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 1 2 3 4 5
Horizontal displacement, mm Acceleration amplification Horizontal incremental pressure, kPa

Fig. 5. Response of wrap-faced walls with different reinforcing layers at the end of seismic excitation: (a) displacement profiles; (b) acceleration
amplifications; (c) incremental pressures

442 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.

 750
pressure dependent, especially for granular soils. Moduli of granu-
Surcharge
lar soils increase with the increase in confining pressure. To include
the effect of confining pressure on soil modulus during construc-
tion, the modified hyperbolic soil modulus model (Duncan et al.
1980) is introduced into the FLAC Mohr-Coulomb material model.
The stress-dependent modulus is calculated as per Eq. (1)
Very Stiff
back    n
Rf ð1
sin ϕÞðσ1
σ3 Þ 2 σ
Et ¼ 1
K:Pa 3 ð1Þ
2ðc: cos ϕ þ σ3 sin ϕÞ Pa
600
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where Et = the deformation modulus of the soil; Rf = the failure

Reinforcement ratio; K and n = Duncan model parameters; Pa = the atmospheric
Layers
pressure; ϕ = the friction angle of the soil; c = the cohesion; σ1 = the
effective vertical (overburden) pressure; and σ3 = the effective con-
Wrapped fining pressure.
Reinforcement
Eq. (1) is incorporated into a FISH subroutine that updates the
soil modulus according to the stress conditions of the soil elements.
Stiff bottom (shake table) The coefficients of the hyperbolic model (Rf , K, n) are calculated
420
from the triaxial test results as per Duncan et al. (1980). Tangent
All dimensions are in mm elastic modulus (E t ) of the backfill soil and, therefore, shear and
bulk moduli are updated after each 10 calculation steps by Eq. (1),
Fig. 6. Numerical grid considered for reinforced soil retaining wall until removal of the supports is started.
model Some studies on numerical modeling of reinforced soil retaining
walls suggested the use of plane strain soil properties for the analy-
sis of geosynthetic reinforced walls (Zornberg and Mitchell 1993;
750 Hatami and Bathurst 2005). Because the stress-strain response of
soil under plane strain loading conditions is different (higher modu-
lus) from that under triaxial conditions, Lee (2000) proposed to
increase the modulus number K obtained from the triaxial test data
by 100% to account for the large values of the plane strain soil
Very Stiff
moduli, keeping the failure ratio (Rf ) and modulus exponent (n)
back the same. This same proposal was adopted by several other re-
searchers for studies on GRS walls (Hatami and Bathurst 2005
and 2006). Also, in the present analysis, the modulus number ob-
600 tained from the triaxial tests is increased by 100% to account for the
plane strain loading. It should be noted that the constitutive model
Reinforcement adopted in the simulations do not account for the critical state con-
Layers
cepts and dynamic cycles of loading, unloading, or reloading. As
the target physical models’ behavior is reasonably within the work-
ing conditions, the use of a simple constitute model can be reason-
ably justified.
The damping ratio of 5% is used for the soil element during
Stiff bottom (shake table) dynamic analysis. This damping value is adopted in the numerical
simulations as a local damping value because it is frequency inde-
420
pendent and is an approximate way to include hysteretic damping
(FLAC 2008).
Fig. 7. Typical displaced profile of numerical grid at the end of
construction Reinforcement (Geotextile)
Geotextile layers are modeled using structural beam elements in
FLAC. Beam elements are two-dimensional elements with three
backfill material are adopted as 45° and 15°, respectively, based on
degrees of freedom (x-translation, y-translation, and rotation) at
the triaxial and direct shear tests carried out on the test sand at 63% each end node. In general, the beam is assumed to behave as a lin-
relative density. As the expected stress levels in the model walls early elastic material with both the axial tensile and compressive
(0.6 m high) were low, the confining pressures used for the triaxial failure limit. Because beam elements are attached to the subgrids
tests to determine the internal friction angle of the backfill materials via interface elements to simulate the geotextiles, interface ele-
were within the range of 10–50 kPa (10, 20, 30, and 50 kPa). Dur- ments are attached to both sides of beam elements to simulate the
ing the construction of the retaining wall, the backfill material is frictional interaction of the reinforcement with soil. By assigning a
placed and compacted layer by layer. As the height of the wall in- zero moment of inertia to the beam, it will act like a flexible
creases, the confining pressures in the finished lifts increase. At the member that takes no moments (FLAC 2008), which can simulate
end of construction, the lower part of the wall has a higher confin- the geotextile behavior.
ing pressure, and the upper part of the wall has lower confining The required input parameters for the beam elements in FLAC
pressure. This difference in confining pressures at different eleva- are (1) elastic modulus, (2) cross-sectional area, (3) second moment
tions of the wall has a very important effect on the performance of of area (commonly referred to as the moment of inertia, “0” to
the reinforced soil walls, because moduli of soil are actually model geotextiles), (4) axial peak tensile yield strength, (5) axial

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012 / 443

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.

 compressive yield strength (0 to model geotextiles), and (6) density. Table 3. Material Properties Used in Numerical Simulations
Properties of geotextile beam elements used in the numerical analy- Soil properties
ses are modulus ¼ 150;000 kN∕m2 (J ¼ 150 kN∕m as obtained
from the wide width tension test) and area ¼ 0:001 m2 , which were Mass density, kg∕m3 1.63
identical to geotextile properties used in physical model tests. Poisson’s ratio 0.3
Friction angle, degrees 45
Interface Properties Dilation angle, degrees 15
The interfaces between dissimilar materials were modeled as linear Hyperbolic properties for Duncan's model
spring-slider systems with interface shear strength defined by the Atmospheric pressure (kPa ) 101.3
Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Three types of interfaces are used Modulus number (K) 1660
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the present model: (1) interface between the backfill soil and Modulus exponent (n) 0.678
reinforcement (INT1); (2) interface between the two reinforcement Failure ratio (Rf ) 0.9
surfaces (INT2); and (3) interface between stiff back and/or bottom Reinforcement (geotextile) properties
and backfill soil (INT3). A typical interface requires the following
Mass density, kg∕m3 0.23
properties: normal stiffness (kn ) and shear stiffness (k s ) in units of
Stiffness, kN∕m 150
stress; friction angle (degrees); and tensile strength (t bond ) (op-
tional). Further, the interface can be assigned as glued to avoid slip Area, m2 0.001
or separation. Moment of inertia, m4 0
It is recommended in FLAC that the values for normal and shear Tensile yield strength, kPa 55000
stiffness of the interface should be set to ten times the equivalent Compressive yield strength, kPa 0
stiffness of the stiffest neighboring zone (FLAC 2008). The normal Interface properties
and shear stiffness values are approximated based on the apparent
stiffness (expressed in stress-per-distance units) of a zone in the Reinforcement and soil (INT1), reinforcement and
normal direction obtained from Eq. (2) (FLAC 2008) reinforcement (INT2)
  Normal stiffness (k n ), kPa 1:00E þ 07
K þ 43 G
Apparent stiffness ¼ max ð2Þ Shear stiffness (ks ), kPa 1:00E þ 05
Δzmin Interface friction, degrees 40
where K and G = the bulk and shear moduli, respectively; and Soil and nonyielding zone (INT3)
zmin = the smallest width of an adjoining zone in the normal direc- Normal stiffness (k n ), kPa 1:00E þ 07
tion. For simplicity, the same values of 1e7 and 1e5 kPa as normal Shear stiffness (ks ), kPa 1:00E þ 05
and shear stiffness values, respectively, are used for all the three Interface friction, degrees 0
interfaces. The interfaces INT1 and INT2 are declared as glued,
with a friction angle of 40°, to prevent it from sliding or opening
along. In contrast, INT3 is allowed to slide without any friction. Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. In comparison with Figs. 3 and 4, Figs. 8
Table 3 shows the typical material properties used to model the and 9 present the typical results from numerical simulations similar
backfill material and other nonyielding zones. to results from the physical model tests, confirming the ability of
the numerical model in capturing the behavior of the physical
Boundary Conditions
model tests. Further, validation of the numerical model is presented
Boundary conditions for the numerical model are assigned to re- in Fig. 10, which compares the response of the model wall in terms
present the actual experimental boundary conditions. The far- of displacements, acceleration amplifications, and incremental
end boundary of the backfill is fixed in the horizontal direction
as shown in Fig. 6, representing the rigid end of the perspex con-
tainer. The bottom boundary is completely fixed (in both horizontal 25
and vertical directions), matching the shaking table and the con-
tainer bottom (Fig. 6).
The facing of the model wall is fixed in the horizontal direction 20
during the construction of layers up to the total height and applying
Horizontal displacement, mm

surcharge load, representing the temporary supporting system dur-

ing wall construction in the laboratory experiments. After complete
15
building up of the total wall, these fixed boundary face regions are
freed stage by stage to represent the support removal in physical
model tests.
After the support removal for the total height of the wall and 10
obtaining the equilibrium state, dynamic boundary conditions
are applied to the model wall in the form of velocity in horizontal
Elevation
direction (uniaxial shaking) to both the stiff bottom and stiff back 5 240 mm
regions using a FISH function. The corresponding velocity in the 390 mm
vertical direction is assigned as null to ensure that the stiff bottom 540 mm
and back should not move in the vertical direction. 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Typical Results and Validation Time, sec
Typical results obtained from the numerical model tests in terms of
Fig. 8. Typical displacement histories obtained in numerical simulation
displacement-time and acceleration-time histories are shown in

444 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.

 0.3
A3 and physical models with three layers of reinforcement for different
0.2
0.1 reinforcement lengths. Two different reinforcement lengths,
0.0
-0.1 Lrein ∕H as 0.7 and 1.0, are considered, and the walls are subjected
-0.2 to base excitation of 0.2 g acceleration and 3 Hz frequency.
-0.3
0.3
0.2 A2 Although the results from the numerical analysis do not exactly
0.1 match the results from physical model tests, the trends are similar
0.0
Acceleration, g

-0.1 as observed from the figures.

-0.2
-0.3 Comparison between the results from physical and numerical
0.3 models showed that the numerical model is able to simulate the
0.2 A1
0.1 physical model shaking table tests on wrap-faced reinforced soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
0 1 2 3
Time, sec
Fig. 9. Typical acceleration histories obtained in numerical simulation
pressures for the model wall with 4 layers of reinforcement at the
end of 20 cycles of dynamic excitation of 0.2 g acceleration at 3 Hz
frequency. Fig. 10 provides reasonable comparison between the re-
sults from the physical and numerical models to validate the
numerical model in simulating the physical model shaking table
tests on wrap-faced reinforced soil walls.
Fig. 11 presents the response of different wrap-faced reinforced
numerical model walls with different numbers of reinforcing layers
in terms of horizontal displacements, acceleration amplification,
and incremental pressures. Fig. 11 shows the similar behavior of
decreasing displacements with an increase in reinforcement layers
and the insignificant effect of acceleration amplifications as that of
physical model walls. Fig. 11 shows that the numerical model cap-
tures the response of the walls with the variation in the number of
reinforcement layers reasonably well.
Similarly, Figs. 12 and 13 compare the displacement profiles
and acceleration amplifications, respectively, for the numerical
walls reasonably well.
A0
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is performed to understand the response of the
4 5 6 7 numerical model for the variation of different parameters. Table 4
summarizes the different material properties that varied in the
numerical simulations for the sensitivity analysis. Figs. 14–17
show the sensitivity of the numerical model to the variation of
friction angle and dilation angle of backfill soil, stiffness
(modulus) of reinforcement material, and the stiffness properties of
reinforcement-soil interface, respectively. All the numerical model
walls were subjected to 20 cycles of sinusoidal base excitation with
0.2 g acceleration at 3 Hz frequency. Fig. 14 presents the response
of the numerical model walls of identical model configuration and
parameters, except for the different backfill friction angle values of
30° and 52°, which represented very loose and very dense backfill
soils, respectively, with reference to the backfill soil having a fric-
tion angle of 45°. From the numerical simulations, it is noted that
the model wall with loose backfill soil with a friction angle of 30°
could not complete the 20 cycles of excitation and failed with ex-
cessive deformation, as shown in the Fig. 14(a). A slight decrease in
the top displacement and a little increase in the acceleration ampli-
fication factors were observed for the model wall with a 52° friction
angle (very stiff backfill). Fig. 15 presents the variation of model
response of the numerical models with different backfill dilation
angles of 15° (reference case), 20°, and 10°. Fig. 15 shows that the
acceleration amplification factors and incremental pressures are

4layer wall, 0.2g, 3Hz

Flac simulation WT33 Experiment
600
(a) 600
(b) (c)
500
500
500
400
400
Elevation, mm
Elevation, mm

Elevation, mm

400
300
300
300

200
200
200

100 100
100

0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Horizontal displacement, mm Acceleration amplification Incremental pressure, kPa

Fig. 10. Comparison of response of experimental and numerical [Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC)] models of four layer wrap-faced
reinforced soil walls: (a) displacement profiles; (b) acceleration amplifications; (c) incremental pressures

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012 / 445

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.

 600 600
(a) 4 Layers (b) (c) 4 Layers
3 500
3
500 500 6 6

400
400 400
Elevation, mm

Elevation, mm

Elevation, mm
300 300 300
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

200 200
200

100 4 Layers 100

3
100
6
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 1 2 3
Horizontal displacement, mm Acceleration amplification Horizontal incremental pressure, kPa

Fig. 11. Response of wrap-faced walls with different reinforcing layers at the end of seismic excitation from numerical models: (a) displacement
profiles; (b) acceleration amplifications; (c) incremental pressures

600
600

500
500

400
Elevation, mm

400 FLAC Experiment Lrein/H

Elevation, mm

1.0
300 0.7
300

200 200

100 FLAC Experiment Lrein /H 100

1.0
0.7
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Horizontal displacement, mm RMSA amplification factor

Fig. 12. Displacement profile for different lengths of reinforcement; Fig. 13. Acceleration amplifications for different lengths of reinforce-
FLAC, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua ment; FLAC, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua; RMSA, root mean
square acceleration

unaffected. However, the maximum horizontal displacements for

model walls with 20° and 10° dilation angles are observed to be Table 4. Material Properties Used for Sensitivity Analysis
15.5 and 33.5 mm, respectively, whereas the displacement is Parameter Values
20.6 mm for the model with 45° dilation angle. Figs. 14 and 15,
together, emphasize the role of the backfill compactness on the Friction angle, degrees 45, 35, 52
behavior of the reinforced soil retaining wall. Although the denser Dilation angle, degrees 15, 10, 20
backfill may amplify the accelerations slightly, the benefit in reduc- Reinforcement stiffness, kN∕m 75, 20, 150
ing the lateral displacements is very significant. Tensile yield strength, kPa 55,000, 20,000, 150,000
Fig. 16 exhibits the response of reinforced soil numerical model Normal stiffness (kn ), kPa 1:00E þ 07, 1:00E þ 06, 1:00E þ 05
walls with different reinforcement stiffness values: 150, 75, and Shear stiffness (kn ), kPa 1:00E
02 kn
20 kN∕m. Fig. 16 shows a little decrease in the horizontal displace-
ment from 23 to 19 mm for an increase of reinforcement stiffness
from 20 to 150 kN∕m, whereas the acceleration amplification fac- observed in Fig. 17 for the change in the interface stiffness values.
tors and incremental pressures are affected insignificantly. The ef- Reinforcement yield strength is also varied in some simulations,
fect of soil-reinforcement interaction properties was presented in and it is observed that for the range of strength values (55,000,
Fig. 17 in terms of reinforced soil wall response with different inter- 20,000, and 150,000 kPa) and the model size, the response is sim-
face stiffness values. The normal stiffness values of 1 × 107 , ilar and the effect of reinforcement yield strength is not prominent
1 × 106 , and 1 × 105 kPa were adopted in different numerical for the applied dynamic loading. From the results observed in
model walls. Very significant changes in the model response are Figs. 16 and 17, it can be noted that soil-reinforcement interaction

446 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.

 Backfill Friction angle
45o (Ref) 30o (failed) 52o
600 600
(a) 600 (b) (c)

500 500
500

400 400
Elevation, mm

Elevation, mm
Elevation, mm
400
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

300 300
300

200 200
200

100 100 100

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Horizontal displacement, mm RMSA amplification factor Incremental pressure, kPa

Fig. 14. Sensitivity of the numerical model with respect to friction angle of backfill soil material: (a) displacement profiles; (b) acceleration am-
plifications; (c) incremental pressures; RMSA, root mean square acceleration

Backfill Dilation angle

15o (Ref) 20o 10o
600 600
(a) 600 (b) (c)

500 500
500

400 400
Elevation, mm

Elevation, mm
Elevation, mm

400

300 300
300

200 200
200

100 100 100

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Horizontal displacement, mm RMSA amplification factor Incremental pressure, kPa

Fig. 15. Sensitivity of the numerical model with respect to dilation angle of backfill soil material: (a) displacement profiles; (b) acceleration am-
plifications; (c) incremental pressures; RMSA, root mean square acceleration

properties affect the model wall behavior more significantly than
the reinforcement property alone.
Figs. 14–17 show that the model is sensitive to different material
properties and efficient in capturing the behavior of the model wall
under seismic excitation. Among the different parameters consid-
ered in the sensitivity analysis, friction and dilation angle of backfill
material and stiffness properties of geotextile-soil interface (INT1)
are the most affecting parameters on the model response in terms of
displacements, accelerations, and incremental pressures. It is estab-
lished from this analysis that the numerical model is sensitive to
different material properties.
Conclusions
Modeling of shaking table tests on wrap-faced reinforced soil re-
taining walls is discussed and presented. The effect of number of
reinforcement layers is studied through different physical model
tests. Methodology adopted in the development of numerical mod-
els to simulate the physical model tests is explained along with the
validation of a numerical model with the physical model. Results
from the dynamic tests on physical and numerical models of
geotextile-reinforced wrap-around soil retaining walls are
presented and compared. The numerical model developed is

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012 / 447

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.

 Reinforcement stiffness
75 kN/m 20 kN/m 150 kN/m
600 600
(a) (b) (c)
600

500 500
500

400 400
400
Elevation, mm

Elevation, mm

Elevation, mm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

300 300
300

200 200
200

100 100 100

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Horizontal displacement, mm RMSA amplification factor I ncremental pressure, kPa

Fig. 16. Sensitivity of the numerical model with respect to stiffness of reinforcement material: (a) displacement profiles; (b) acceleration amplifica-
tions; (c) incremental pressures; RMSA, root mean square acceleration

"Soil-Reinforcement" interface normal stiffness

1e7 kPa 1e6 kPa 1e5 kPa
600 600
(a) 600 (b) (c)

500 500
500

400 400
Elevation, mm

400
Elevation, mm

Elevation, mm

300 300
300

200 200
200

100 100 100

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Horizontal displacement, mm RMSA amplification factor Incremental pressure, kPa

Fig. 17. Fig. 17. Sensitivity of the numerical model with respect to stiffness properties of reinforcement-soil interface: (a) displacement profiles;
(b) acceleration amplifications; (c) incremental pressures; RMSA, root mean square acceleration

reasonably good in simulating the dynamic response of wrap-faced
wall models. It is established from the sensitivity analysis that the
developed numerical model is sensitive to different material proper-
ties. Among the different parameters considered in the sensitivity
analysis, friction and dilation angles of backfill material and
stiffness properties of geotextile-soil interface are the most
affecting parameters on the model response in terms of displace-
ments, accelerations, and incremental pressures. Backfill soil with
higher friction angle and dilation angle (a denser backfill) results in
better seismic performance. It is also observed that the effect of
soil-reinforcement interaction parameters is more prominent than
the reinforcement parameters, like stiffness and/or modulus
alone. To conclude, the design and the construction of a reinforced
soil retaining wall should ensure a denser backfill that results
in better soil-reinforcement interaction for effective seismic
performance.
References
Bathurst, R. J., and Cai, Z. (1995). “Pseudo-static seismic analysis of geo-
synthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls.” Geosynth. Int., 2(5),
787–830.

448 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.

 Bathurst, R. J., and Hatami, K. (1998). “Seismic response analysis of a
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall.” Geosynth. Int., 5(1–2),
127–166.
Bathurst, R. J., Hatami, K., and Alfaro, M. C. (2002). “Geosynthetic-
reinforced soil walls and slopes—seismic aspects.” Geosynthetics
and their applications, S. K. Shukla, ed., Thomas Telford Ltd., London,
UK, 327–392.
Berg, R. R, Chouery-Curtis, V. E., and Watson, C. H. (1989). “Critical fail-
ure planes in analysis of reinforced slopes.” Proc., Geosynthetics ’89,
San Diego, CA, 1, 269–278.
Cai, Z., and Bathurst, R. J. (1995). “Seismic response analysis of geosyn-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
thetic reinforced soil segmental retaining walls by finite element
method.” Comput. Geotech., 17(4), 523–546.
Duncan, J. M., Byrne, P., Wong, K. S., and Mabry, P. (1980). “Strength,
stress-strain and bulk modulus parameters for finite element analyses of
stresses and movements in soil masses.” Geotechnical Engineering
Rep. No. UCB/GT/80-01, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
El-Emam., M. M., and Bathurst, R. J. (2004). “Experimental design, instru-
mentation and interpretation of reinforced soil wall response using a
shaking table.” Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech., 4(4), 13–32.
El-Emam, M. M., Bathurst, R. J., and Hatami, K. (2004). “Numerical mod-
eling of reinforced soil retaining walls subjected to base acceleration.”
Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engg., Vancouver, Canada,
Paper No. 2621 (CD-ROM).
Fakharian, K., and Attar, I. H. (2007). “Static and seismic numerical mod-
eling of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental bridge abutments.”
Geosynth. Int., 14(4), 228–243.
FLAC—Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. (2008). ver. 6.00
[Computer software]. Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, MN.
Hatami, K., and Bathurst, R. J. (2000). “Effect of structural design on fun-
damental frequency of reinforced-soil retaining walls.” Soil Dyn. Earth-
quake Eng., 19(3), 137–157.
Hatami, K., and Bathurst, R. J. (2005). “Development and verification of a
numerical model for the analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil seg-
mental walls under working stress conditions.” Can. Geotech. J.,
42(4), 1066–1085.
Hatami, K., and Bathurst, R. J. (2006). “Numerical model for reinforced
soil segmental walls under surcharge loading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 132(6), 673–684.
Hird, C. C., and Kwok, C. M. (1989). “Finite element studies of interface
behaviour in reinforced embankments on soft ground.” Comput. Geo-
tech., 8(2), 111–131.
Huang, B., Bathurst, R. J., and Hatami, K. (2009). “Numerical study of
reinforced soil segmental walls using three different constitutive soil
models.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(10), 1486–1498.
Huang, B., Bathurst, R. J., Hatami, K., and Allen, T. M. (2010). “Influence
of toe restraint on reinforced soil segmental walls.” Can. Geotech. J.,
47(8), 885–904.
Huang, C.-C., Horng, J.-C., and Charng, J.-J. (2008). “Seismic stability of
reinforced slopes: effects of reinforcement properties and facing ri-
gidity.” Geosynth. Int., 15(2), 107–118.
Jewell, R. A., Paine, N., and Wood, R. I. (1984). “Design methods for steep
reinforced embankments.” Proc., Symposium Polymer Grid Reinforce-
ment Civil Engineering, London, Paper No. 3.1.
Karpurapu, R., and Bathurst, R. J. (1992). “Numerical investigation of con-
trolled yielding of soil-retaining wall structures.” Geotext. Geomembr.,
11(2), 115–131.
Koerner, R. M., and Soong, T-Y. (2001). “Geosynthetic reinforced segmen-
tal retaining walls.” Geotext. Geomembr., 19(6), 359–386.
Kramer, S. L., and Paulsen, S. B. (2004). “Seismic performance evaluation
of reinforced slopes.” Geosynth. Int., 11(6), 429–438.
Krishna, A. M. (2008). “Seismic response of geosynthetic reinforced soil
wall models using shaking table tests.” Ph. D. thesis, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, India.
Krishna, A. M., and Latha, G. M. (2007). “Seismic response of wrap-faced
reinforced-soil retaining wall models using shaking table tests.”
Geosynth. Int., 14(6), 355–364.
Krishna, A. M., and Latha, G. M. (2009). “Container boundary effects in
shaking table tests on reinforced soil wall models.” Int. J. Phys. Model.
Geotech., 9(4), 1–14.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012 / 449
Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.
Lee, K. Z. Z., Chang, N. Y., and Ko, H. Y. (2010). “Numerical simulation of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls under seismic shaking.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 28(4), 317–334.
Lee, W. F. (2000). “Internal stability analysis of geosynthetic reinforced
retaining walls.” Ph. D. thesis, Department of Civil Environmental En-
gineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Lee, W. F., Lin, S. S., Lai, Y. J., and Chiang, C. C. (2003). “Seismic re-
sponse analysis of reinforced earth retaining structures.” Proc., 12th
Asian Regional Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, Singapore. (CD Rom).
Lindquist, D. D. (1998). “Seismic modeling of geosynthetic reinforced
slopes.” M.Sc. Engg. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Ling, H. I., and Leshchinsky, D. (2003). “Finite element parameter studies
of the behavior of segmental block reinforced soil retaining walls.”
Geosynth. Int., 10(3), 77–94.
Ling, H. I., Leshchinsky, D., and Perry, E. B. (1997). “Seismic design and
performance of geosynthetic reinforced soil structures.” Geotechnique,
47(5), 933–952.
Ling, H. I., Leshchinsky, D., Wang, J. P., Mohri, Y., and Rosen, A. (2009).
“Seismic response of geocell retaining walls: experimental studies.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(4), 515–524.
Ling, H. I., Liu, H., Kaliakin, V. N., and Leshchinsky, D. (2004). “Analyz-
ing dynamic behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls.”
J. Eng. Mech., 130(8), 911–920.
Ling, H. I., Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Christopher, B., Matsushima, K.,
and Liu, H. (2005). “Large-scale shaking table tests on modular-block
reinforced soil retaining walls.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 131(4),
465–476.
Matsuo, O., Tsutsumi, T., Yokoyama, K., and Saito, Y. (1998). “Shaking
table tests and analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls.”
Geosynth. Int., 5(1–2), 97–126.
Nova-Roessig, L., and Sitar, N. (2006). “Centrifuge model studies of the
seismic response of reinforced soil slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 132(3), 388–400.
Paulsen, S. B., and Kramer, S. L. (2004). “A predictive model for seismic
displacement of reinforced slopes.” Geosynth. Int., 11(6), 407–428.
Perez, A., and Holtz, R. D. (2004). “Seismic response of reinforced steep
soil slopes: results of a shaking table study.” Geotechnical engineering
for transportation projects (ASCE GSP No. 126), GeoTrans 2004,
M. K. Yegian and E. Kavazanjian, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Richardson, G. N., Feger, D., Fong, A., and Lee, K. L. (1977). “Seismic
testing of reinforced earth walls.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 103(1), 1–17.
Richardson, G. N., and Lee, K. L. (1975). “Seismic design of reinforced
earth walls.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 101(2), 167–188.
Rowe, R. K., and Ho, S. K. (1997). “Continuous panel reinforced soil walls
on rigid foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 123(10), 912–920.
Rowe, R. K., and Skinner, G. D. (2001). “Numerical analysis of geosyn-
thetic reinforced retaining wall constructed on a layered soil founda-
tion.” Geotext. Geomembr., 19(7), 387–412.
Sabermahani, M., Ghalandarzadeh, A., and Fakher, A. (2009). “Experi-
mental study on seismic deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 27(2), 121–136.
Saito, T., Ito, H., Izawa, J., and Kuwano, J. (2006). “Seismic stability of the
geogrid-reinforced soil wall combined with soil cement.” Proc., 8th Int.
Conf. Geosynthetics (8ICG), 1, Yokohama, Japan, 1511–1514.
Schmertmann, G. R., Bonaparte, R., Chouery, V. C., and Johnson, R. J.
(1987). “Design charts for geogrid reinforced steep slopes.” Proc.,
Geosynthetics ’87, New Orleans, LA, 108–120.
Vieira, C. F. S., Lopes, M. L., and Caldeira, L. M. M. S. (2006). “Seismic
response of a geosynthetic reinforced steep slope using FLAC.” Proc.,
4th International FLAC Symposium on Numerical Modeling in Geome-
chanics, Madrid, Spain, Paper No. 05-06.
Won, M-S., and Kim, Y-S. (2007). “Internal deformation behavior of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls.” Geotext. Geomembr., 25(1), 10–22.
Yang, G., Ding, J., Zhou, Q., and Zhang, B. (2010). “Field behavior of a
geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall with a wrap-around facing.”
Geotech. Test. J., 33(1), GTJ102410.
Yogendrakumar, M., Bathurst, R. J., and Finn, W. D. L. (1992). “Dynamic
response analysis of reinforced-soil retaining wall.” J. Geotech. Eng.,
118(8), 1158–1167.
 Zarnani, S., and Bathurst, R. J. (2008). “Numerical modeling of EPS seis-
mic buffer shaking table tests.” Geotext. Geomembr., 26(5), 371–383.
Zarnani, S., and Bathurst, R. J. (2009). “Influence of constitutive model on
numerical simulation of EPS seismic buffer shaking table tests.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 27(4), 308–312.
Zornberg, J. G., and Mitchell, J. K. (1993). “Finite element analysis of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by INDIAN INST OF SCIENCE - BANGALORE on 01/06/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
geosynthetically reinforced soil walls with sloping backfills.” Geotech-
nical Engineering Rep. No. UCB/GT/93-04, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
Zornberg, J. G., Sitar, N., and Mitchell, J. M. (1998). “Limit equilibrium as
basis for design of geosynthetic reinforced slopes.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 124(8), 684–698.

450 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2012

Int. J. Geomech. 2012.12:439-450.