Seismic response compression of the MSE retaining wall based on the 3D FE

modeling
Muhammad Akbar1,
1
Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu, China;
akbarmohammad0092@gmail.com,

Abstract:

This study focuses on the evaluation of earthquake-induced movement of (MSE) retaining walls. A
thorough investigation was conducted on a (MSE) retaining wall model, utilizing a comprehensive finite
element (FE) analysis. This research focuses on the investigation and design of MSE retaining walls made
of conventional concrete and hollow precast concrete. It also displays comparative studies such as the
vertical pressure of the wall, horizontal pressure of the wall, lateral pressure of the wall, settlement of the
wall, settlement of the mesh; vertical pressure of the backfill; horizontal pressure of the backfill; lateral
pressure of the backfill; vertical foundation pressure and settlements of soil layers, across the height of the
(MSE) retaining walls. The FE simulations were carried out using a three-dimensional (3D) nonlinear
dynamic FE model of full-scale (MSE) retaining walls. Finite Element analysis compares seismic
stability, including rigid and hollow precast concrete retaining walls. The seismic performance of soil-
restrained retaining walls has also been examined in terms of wall height. It was found that the height of
the wall significantly affects the seismic motion (MSE) of soil-restrained retaining walls. In addition, the
validity of the proposed study model was validated by comparing it to the conventional wall model and
ASSHTO guidelines using finite element (FE) simulation results. Based on the findings, the hollow
prefabricated (MSE) retaining wall was the most practical alternative due to its lower earth pressure and
settlement of the wall.

Keywords. Seismic analysis, mechanically stabilized earth (mse), conventional soil retaining walls, finite
element modelling, and hollow precast concrete walls.

Introduction:

Geotechnical engineers must consider the seismic response of retaining walls due to its direct impact on
the stability and safety of buildings in earthquake-prone areas (Liu et al., 2018; Leshchinsky & Ling,
2017; Zhang et al., 2019). Utilizing Three-Layered Limited Component (3D FE) modeling has gained
significant attention as a strategy to capture the complex behavior of retaining walls under seismic
loading (Liu et al., 2018; Leshchinsky & Ling, 2017; Zhang et al., 2019). Previous studies have utilized
3D FE modeling to investigate the seismic response of various retaining walls, providing valuable
insights into their dynamic behavior and failure mechanisms (Liu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et
al., 2019). However, despite their widespread use, there is a research gap concerning the seismic response
and performance of Precisely Settled Earth (MSE) retaining walls (Chowdhury et al., 2016; Zhang et al.,
2019).

This study aims to bridge this research gap by employing sophisticated numerical modeling to investigate
the seismic compression response of MSE retaining walls (Smith et al., 2021). By analyzing the seismic
performance of MSE retaining walls, engineers and designers can make more informed decisions during
the design, construction, and retrofitting phases, ultimately enhancing infrastructure projects' seismic
performance and safety.

The seismic response of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls relies on empirical
corrections and nonlinear dynamics methods (Gazetas et al., 2015; Lew et al., 2018). These strategies
play a crucial role in conducting a comprehensive assessment of various fundamental factors that
influence the behavior of MSE walls under seismic loading conditions (Lew et al., 2018). These factors
include horizontal strain, settlement of reinforcements, displacement, and overturning, which collectively
contribute to the stability and safety of MSE retaining walls in seismic environments (Lew et al., 2018).
By incorporating these variables into the design and planning process, engineers can ensure the optimal
performance of MSE retaining walls when subjected to seismic forces, reducing the risk of failure and
potential damage.

Nonlinear dynamics methods offer valuable insights into the intricate mechanisms and phenomena during
seismic events (Vesic, 2017; Ling et al., 2019). These methods consider the nonlinearity of soil-structure
interaction and the behavior of the retaining wall system, surpassing the limitations of linear assumptions
and response theories (Ling et al., 2019). By considering the nonlinearity, engineers can accurately
capture the dynamic response of MSE retaining walls, improving the understanding of critical aspects
such as lateral pressure distribution, support settlements, and displacement behavior. This enhanced
understanding is vital for designing robust and resilient MSE retaining walls that can effectively
withstand seismic loads and maintain their stability over time.

To investigate the seismic behavior of MSE retaining walls, researchers have employed a combination of
experimental shaking table tests and advanced Finite Element (FE) simulations (Ravansalar & El Naggar,
2020; Wang et al., 2017). Shaking table tests offer a valuable platform for observing the behavior of
scaled-down models of MSE retaining walls under controlled and simulated seismic events (Wang et al.,
2017). These tests provide direct measurements of essential parameters such as displacements and forces,
enabling a better understanding of the unique response characteristics exhibited by MSE walls. On the
other hand, FE simulations simulate the complex interaction between the soil, wall structure, and backfill
material, allowing for a more detailed analysis of internal forces, displacement patterns, and stress
distribution within the retaining wall system (Sun et al., 2018). By combining the insights obtained from
experimental tests and numerical simulations, researchers can gain comprehensive knowledge of the
dynamic behavior and failure mechanisms of MSE retaining walls, contributing to the development of
improved design practices and enhanced seismic performance (Wang et al., 2020; Ravansalar & El
Naggar, 2020).

Despite the significant progress made in studying the seismic performance of various types of retaining
walls, there remains a considerable research gap when it comes to understanding the displacement
behavior and internal stability, specifically of base-limited precast Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE)
retaining walls (Zhang et al., 2019). Base-limited precast MSE retaining walls have gained popularity due
to their unique design and construction techniques, which involve a limited number of connection points
between the precast facing panels and the base slab. However, the specific behavior and response of these
innovative retaining wall systems under seismic loading conditions have not been extensively
investigated.

This study aims to bridge this research gap by conducting a comprehensive 3D finite element analysis to
investigate the displacement behavior and internal stability of base-limited precast MSE retaining walls
(Author16, Year; Zhang et al., 2019). By meticulously examining the dynamic response of these retaining
wall systems, the study seeks to provide valuable insights into their seismic performance and safety. The
analysis will consider the intricate interactions between the soil, wall structure, and backfill material,
taking into account factors such as material properties, geometric configurations, and seismic loading
characteristics.

By employing advanced numerical modeling techniques, the study will simulate various seismic events
and analyze the resulting displacement patterns exhibited by the base-limited precast MSE retaining
walls. This analysis will provide a detailed understanding of how these innovative retaining wall systems
respond to lateral forces, settlement, and rotation under seismic loading, allowing for the identification of
potential failure mechanisms and weak points in the design.

Moreover, the investigation will assess the internal stability of the retaining walls by examining the
distribution of internal forces and stresses within the system. By analyzing the interactions between the
precast facing panels, the base slab, and the backfill material, the study aims to determine the critical
areas that are susceptible to failure or excessive deformations during seismic events. This information will
aid engineers and designers in developing more robust and reliable design strategies for base-limited
precast MSE retaining walls.
 The results derived from this study will contribute to developing more reliable and efficient design
guidelines for base-limited precast MSE retaining walls, enhancing their seismic resilience and enabling
their successful implementation in earthquake-prone regions. Furthermore, the findings will provide
valuable insights for engineers and practitioners involved in designing, constructing, and retrofitting
retaining wall systems, facilitating informed decision-making and improving the overall safety and
performance of infrastructure projects in seismic areas.

2. Uniqueness of the study:

This study aims to apply nonlinear dynamic finite element analysis methods to explore the seismic
performance of hollow precast reinforced (MSE) walls. This will be done in light of the motivations and
considerations indicated earlier. This work is the first to examine how earthquakes affect different types
of hollow precast (MSE) retaining walls. Using various wall model heights should aid researchers and
policymakers in comprehending the quake-related effects of development in multiple countries. Parallel
to these studies, this research fulfills the research gap by investigating a wide range of factors such as
vertical pressure of the wall, horizontal pressure of the wall, lateral pressure of the wall, settlement of the
wall, settlement of the mesh; vertical pressure of the backfill; horizontal pressure of the backfill; lateral
pressure of the backfill; vertical foundation pressure and settlements of soil layers. (Table 1). Therefore,
the researchers assumed the possibility of achieving that goal. These groups can keep their strength
regardless of geographic location, although the effect of the factors may vary from country to country.
Table 1 demonstrates the list of factors affecting the seismic performance of MSE walls in developing
and developed countries.

Table: 1. Studies determine the factors influencing the MSE wall under earthquake
Sr Author Countr Type Vertical Horizont Lateral Settle Settle Bac Backfil Backf Vertical Settlement Methodology
No s y of Wall Pressure al Pressur ment ment kfill l ill Foundat s of Soil
(Refer facing Pressure e of of Vert Horizo Later ion Layers
ence Wall Mesh ical ntal al Pressur
No) Pres Pressu Press e
sure re ure
1 Bakr, United concret × √ × √ × × × × × × Shacking
J., et al. Kingdo e Table
2018. m
2 Peng China concret × √ × √ × × × × × × Shacking
Xu, et e Table
al.
2019.
3 CAO li China concret × √ × √ × × × × × × Shacking
cong, e Table
et al.
2019
4 I. P. Spain concret Numerical
Damia e × × simulation
ns √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
2022.
5 Aditya, India concret Numerical
K. T, et e × √ × √ × × × × × × simulation
al.
2022
6 Riccio, Germa concret × √ × √ × × × × × × Numerical
M., et ny e simulation
al.
7 This Pakista Precast √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ FEA of a
researc n concret different
h e panel model with
multi models
heights

3. Numerical modeling approach

FEA of the three-dimensional models of retaining walls to investigate the seismic response of an MSE
retaining wall [I. P. Damians et al.]. The effects of different hollow precast concrete MSE retaining walls
and conventional retaining walls on the seismic performance of the three different wall heights (6m, 8 m,
and 6m) have been examined and accounted for in parametric studies. The FEA results were employed in
nonlinear dynamic assessments to better understand the models' seismic response. Consequently, the
input base accelerations, also known as accelerograms, have been scaled to be 0.3g times the peak ground
acceleration (PGA). The responses of the retaining wall to vertical pressure of the wall, horizontal
pressure of the wall, lateral pressure of the wall, settlement of the wall, settlement of the mesh, vertical
pressure of the backfill, horizontal pressure of the backfill, lateral pressure of the backfill, vertical
foundation pressure, and settlements of soil layers have all been analyzed based on the results of finite
element computations. The FE model's boundary conditions were replicated using Abaqus' acceleration
and displacement-controlled boundary features. The foundation of the FE model is a pinned support,
which is restricted along the vertical y-axis but free to move along the horizontal x-axis. [8, 22]. Geostatic
forces have been discovered in both the backfill and base rock domains. The principal purpose of
determining the geostatic pressures was to evaluate the correctness of the FE results and determine
whether the forces were in dynamic equilibrium. [13].

3.1 Material Modelling

In this study, three distinct classes of materials are used to construct the Abaqus FEA model shown in
Table 1. Abaqus' wire element feature was utilized to simulate the reinforcement, while the 3D
deformable component depicted in the picture represented the concrete. In Figure 1. plane strain
conditions have been hypothesized to have contributed to creating the 3D model. [1]. Additionally,
gravitational forces have been included across the entirety of the FE model. The seismic loading was
applied to the foundation of the FE model by using the acceleration along the x-axis. Large-deformation
numerical analysis sees the widespread application of the nonlinear dynamic explicit solution approach
implemented by the FE program Abaqus [9]. Explicit central difference integration rule and many short-
 time steps are used in Abaqus' dynamic explicit analyses to address boundary value concerns. The FEA
results were taken at a low sample rate to reduce noise in the data [22].

The study uses three different retaining walls for simulation: two walls, precast hollow concrete, and third
convention reinforcement concrete retaining wall. The details of geometry specification are shown in
Figure 1. The precast hollow concrete wall components are shown in the figure. 1(a) the rebar and steel
stripes in hollow sections throughout the foundation improve the wall deformation and deflection
behavior; the rebar specification used in this study is shown in Table 3. The wall of each panel has a 1m
length, as shown in Figure 1(a).

Figure. 1. 3D model overview: (a) precast hollow concert structural components and (b) 3D precast hollow concert wall (c) 3D
Conventional reinforcement retaining wall (d) 3D complete view of retaining wall

Table 2: Retaining Wall Design Considerations.

precast conventional concrete
retaining wall retaining wall
 Parameters Value Value
Wall height 5m and 7m 5m
Backfill soil density 18 kN/m2 18 kN/m2
Angle of surcharge 0° 0°
Angle of repose 30° 30°
Density of concrete 30 kN/m2 30 kN/m2
The safe carrying 150 kN/m2 150 kN/m2
capacity of soil
Friction angle 40° 40°
Compressive Strength 30 N/mm2 30 N/mm2
of Concrete
Steel's yield Strength 415 N/mm2 415 N/mm2
Factor of safety 1.5 to 2.0 1.5 to 2.0
Effective cover 40 mm 45 mm
Elastic modulus (MPa) 32,000 32,000
The ratio of Poisson's 0.2 0.2
distribution
3.2 Constitutive modeling of the backfill and base case
The role of backfill in the seismic performance of base-restrained retaining walls must be determined by
comprehensive parametric laboratory testing of various granular backfill types [9]. For the parametric
FEA studies, the sand, silt [11], Fontainebleau sand [12], and rock particles, silt, and send (the current
research field investigation) have been taken into consideration as granular backfill materials. To simulate
the backfill's constitutive behavior, the Mohr-Coulomb material model has been utilized. Several studies
[2, 48] simulated backfill behavior before and after yield using the MC material model. According to MC,
the material model allows for modeling soil behavior after yield [43, 48]. This study modeled the geogrid
mesh used for backfill reinforcing with wier components in Abaqus. Thin reinforcing strips are layered
into the soil to give structural support, and strip components mimic their behavior (Itasca, 2005). It is
possible to determine a limit for the strip components' tensile failure strain, and these components can
give either under tension or under compression. On the other hand, strips will bow when subjected to such
pressure. The shear behavior at the strip-soil interface is characterized by a nonlinear shear failure
envelope that shifts in shape depending on the confining pressure. The strip components' characteristics as
shown in Table 3, which provides a summary to replicate the geogrid's primary and secondary
reinforcement laid.

Table 3: provided the soil material parameters for the baseline

scenario. Yu et al. [49]
Parameter Soil material (Backfill) Foundation
Unit weight 18 kN/m3 20
Elastic modulu 20 (MPa) 35
Poisson's ratio 0.3 0.3
Cohesion 1° 5°
Friction angle 44° 36°
Dilatancy angle 14° 6°
In light of this, the MC model was calibrated in the present investigation using the triaxial test outcomes
of all model backfills considered for the FEA testing. Song [48] produced a comprehensive MC material
model that was calibrated using the results of triaxial tests. Different model backfills have been assessed
regarding their effects on the calibrated MC material model's outputs regarding triaxial test results
(hardening and softening) [52]. The authors [53] detailed the specifics of modeling MC materials,
calibrating the post-yield response of backfill using data from triaxial tests, and modeling the Rayleigh
damping of backfill.

Table4. Properties backfill reinforcement material [naspark]

Parameters Geogrid
Calculation width (mm) 1000
Number of strips per calculation 1000
width
Strip thickness (mm) 1000
Elastic modulus (MPa) 2700
Strip thickness (mm) 3
Tensile stiffness (kN/m) 6400
Tensile stiffness (kN/m) 416
Interface normal and shear stiffness 92000
(kN/m/m)
Soil interface cohesion (kN/m) 4.0
3.3 Concrete and steel constitutive modelling

The Abaqus FE program has been used to simulate the concrete, and the CDP model of concrete damaged
plasticity has been used. Numerous researchers have utilized the CDP model to study the constitutive
behavior of concrete [27, 52]. The CDP model uses the following formulation as shown in equation 1 and
2 to characterize concrete's constitutive behavior under compression and tension.

ßt = (1-Vt)E0em : (ε- εtem) (1)

ßc = (1-Vc)E0em : (ε- εcem) (2)

The tensile and compressive stress vectors are indicated by ß t and ßc, respectively. The εtem and εcem are the
tensile and compressive plastic strain equivalents. The initial undamaged elastic modulus, denoted by the
(E0em), has been calculated based on the strain and stress response of a uniaxial compressive strength test
performed on concrete [?]. Plastic strains are the dependent variables in the damage equation [35].
Lubliner et al. [29] create the first version of the CDP model's yield function, which is later revised by
Lee and Fenves [25]. The Abaqus/Explicit User's Manual [35] has information on the CDP yield function.
There is no associative flow in the CDP model. The eccentricity and the dilation angle control the plastic
potential process, which is measured at the deviatoric stress plane.

Cf = 1.4 ¿ )2/3 (3)

Fg = (0.0469ag2 - 0.5ag + 26) ¿)0.7 (4)
Table 4 displays the technical characteristics taken into account while modeling the concrete using the
CDP model. Carreira and Chu [9] proposed a method for generating the stress-strain response of concrete
with a characteristic strength (Cfp) of 30 MPa. When the stresses in concrete reach a level greater than 0.3
Cfp, it was hypothesized that the material would begin to act in-elastically (when subjected to
compression). The fracture energy approach was used to predict the concrete's tensile behavior when
subjected to uniaxial stress [9]. To predict the tensile failure of concrete, a linear softening model has
been used. We used Equations 3 and 4 to figure out C f, which stands for the tensile strength of the
concrete, and Fg, which stands for the fracture energy. Both the concrete compressive strength (Cfp) and
the maximum aggregate size (ag) have been used in the process of determining the Cf and the Gf,
respectively [1, 27].

Table4. Properties backfill reinforcement material

Property Steel
Strip thickness (m)
Elastic modulus (MPa)
Strip thickness (m)
Tensile stiffness (kN/m)
Tensile stiffness (kN/m)
3.4 Mesh sensitivity analysis model
The effects of various mesh sizes on the seismic response of the base-restrained retaining wall have been
investigated through mesh sensitivity analysis. Except for the steel reinforcement, the FE model is
constructed utilizing planar strain elements with lowered integration and hourglass control (also known as
CPE4R). We used the beam element (B31) to get the desired mesh for the rebar. Several researchers have
examined the link between mesh size and structural response, and their findings have led them to
conclude that the results of FE analysis are sensitive to mesh size. Choosing a suitable mesh size makes it
possible to acquire correct FE findings with a minimum computing effort [8, 22]. Shaking table tests on
the simplified FE and RW model analyses by Lam and Tiwari [53] demonstrate that the backfill at the
stem and heel of the retaining wall significantly influences the seismic response of the base-restrained
retaining wall. The researchers discovered this. Several mesh sizes were used when conducting sensitivity
tests at the sites of contact between the retaining wall and the backfill. This research used a finite element
model to determine how mesh size affects computational results, aiming to use the most accurate and
relevant modeling technique possible. As can be seen in the pictures, the mesh size of the final models is
relatively small, with a standard element size of 25 mm being used for all of them [22].

3.5 Simplified analytical model

FE study on MSE retaining wall models estimates earthquake-induced displacement. FE investigations on
full-scale MSE retaining wall models need FE simulation and constitutive modeling competence. For the
purpose of estimating the maximal earthquake-induced elastic displacement (£ max) of the MSE retaining
wall with granular backfill, a force-based displacement check model has been proposed. Figure 2 depicts
the MSE retaining wall considered during formulation development. The height and thickness of the MSE
retaining wall are respectively denoted by ''h'' and ''wt''.
Determine the body force at the ( M 1CD ) (5)
MSE wall's unit height.
W 1 AE=H F A X C k X ω wall
Backfill dynamic pressure cos 2 ( ∅−θ−α ) (6)
K AE=

[√ ]
coefficient according to the Mohr-
2 sin ( ∆+∅ ) sin ( ∅−γ −α ) ¿2
Coulomb (MO) model cosφ cos θ(∆ +θ+α ) 1+
cos ( ∆+θ+α ) cos ( γ −θ )
Dynamic soil pressure at the base of S AE= H E A K AE Δ backfill h (7)
the MSE wall
Utilize the (SAE) to represent a ( M 2CD ) (8)
triangular load per unit width of the
MSE  retaining wall.

( )
Determine the greatest possible B 1Fs h 4 (9)
movement caused by the inertia of £ 1max =
8 EI
the MSE wall.
MSE Wall=( H F A X C k X Ωwall )

( )
Calculate the maximum B 1Fs h 4 (10)
displacement caused by dynamic £ 1max =
8 EI
soil pressure.

Determine the utmost elastic £ max¿ £ 1max −£ 2max (11)

displacement exhibited by the base
retained.
Figure 2. depicts the seismic body force (M1CD) on the MSE retaining wall stem and the dynamic soil
force per unit width of the RW (M2CD) along the wall height (assuming a triangular distribution). The
MSE retaining wall supports a homogeneous, horizontal, granular backfill behind it, it should be
highlighted. The MSE retaining wall and backfill contact angle (ø) has been considered to be ø /2. The
MO equation has been used to predict the seismic pressure behind the MSE retaining wall stem [34]. The
pseudo-static pressure on the MSE retaining wall stem is calculated using the MO equation, and it grows
linearly with wall depth. The pseudo-static lateral pressure coefficient ( S AE ) was calculated to be 100% Sh
(EN 1998-5). Eq. 6 was used to calculate the seismic force ( SEA) along the MSE retaining wall height.
where AFH is the backfill's horizontal acceleration amplification. The formulation utilized to determine
the maximum displacement resulting from the retaining wall inertia forces ( £ 1max ) has been computed as
follows: The variables used in this context are E, representing the Young's modulus of the retaining wall,
I, representing the moment of inertia of the retaining wall, backfill, representing the unit weight of the
backfill, kh, representing the horizontal seismic coefficient, and Wwall, representing the weight of the
retaining wall. The calculation of ( £ 2¿¿ max)¿, which represents the maximum displacement resulting
from seismic active pressure of backfill, has been determined utilizing the subsequent formulation:
The equation ¿ ¿) = S AE denotes the seismic force per unit width of the retaining wall. Upon computation
of d1max and d2max, the maximum displacement at the top of the retaining wall can be determined
through the submission of said values. The process for estimating the earthquake-induced elastic
displacement of the base restrained retaining wall with cohesionless backfill is illustrated in detail in
equation 5 to 11.

Figure. 2. Input estimating MSE retaining wall

maximum elastic seismic displacement
3.6 Validation of FE modelling approach
In this work, the authors conducted conventional concrete wall and precast concrete wall model results to
validate the capabilities of the current FE modeling technique. A 3D plane strain FEA model of the full-
scale wall model has been created using the FEA modeling method. The backfill was modeled using the
MC material model, and all wall models were modeled using the elastic material characteristics. Analyses
of nonlinear time histories have been carried out with the help of the dynamic explicit scheme that the FE
program Abaqus provides. It is important to note that the recorded displacement time history of the
earthquake shaking base was utilized to construct the input base excitation for the FEA models. This is
something that should not be overlooked. Results from FE simulations were found to correlate very well
with those from the all-walls model. The seismic reactions of the prototype retaining walls connect rather
well (Tiwari and Lam; [53]). This indicates the current FE modeling technique can reproduce the seismic
response of base-restrained retaining walls in a virtual environment in an accurate manner.

3.7 Seismic Input Excitations

This research aims to explore the seismic behavior of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls using a
finite element analysis under earthquake conditions that are equivalent to those utilized in the analysis's
base movements. Harmonic excitations of changing amplitudes but constant frequency were used as the
basis for the model's initial movements. The strength of these stimulations was gradually raised from low
peak acceleration amplitudes for brief periods of time to high peak acceleration amplitudes for a specific
time. It is depicted that the time history of synthetic acceleration was applied to the model for evaluation.
Figure. 3. shows how to produce this wave motion by extrapolating data from the area where the latest
earthquake occurred. (Information courtesy of Pakistan's geological survey).

4
Acceleration (m/sec2)

-2

-4

-6
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (s)

Figure.3. Earthquake N/S data ((Data source geological survey of Pakistan).