Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Regular Paper

Centrifuge modeling on the effect of mechanical connection on the dynamic

performance of narrow geosynthetic reinforced soil wall
Wen-Yi Hung a, Ida Agustin Nomleni a, *, Dicky Pratama Soegianto b, Atika Praptawati a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Jhongli, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Mass Rapid Transit, Sinotech Engineering Consultant, Ltd, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As people migrate to densely populated cities, the importance of establishing a new transportation infrastructure
Narrow geosynthetic reinforced soil wall to meet their needs becomes increasingly critical. The limited space available for construction makes a narrow
Mechanical connection geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) wall a cost-effective alternative. Prior research has primarily examined the
Dynamic performance
performance of narrow GRS walls under static loads, revealing that these structures are highly vulnerable to
significant crest displacements. Consequently, multiple studies have recommended incorporating mechanical
connections in the upper layer during the construction of narrow GRS walls. However, some places are more
susceptible to earthquakes; hence, this research was conducted to investigate the dynamic response of narrow
GRS walls and quantify the effect of mechanical connections on increasing the stability of narrow GRS walls. Two
sets of narrow GRS wall models were constructed, with and without mechanical connections to a stable wall, and
subjected to a similar series of earthquakes. The test results indicate that the mechanical connection can reduce
the accumulated normalized horizontal displacement of narrow GRS walls by 30–80% after being subjected to
the same dynamic input motion excitation.

1. Introduction railways in Japan. Although they are widely applied in transportation

Increase in population and urbanization has led to an increase in the
demand for transportation. This increase in the number of vehicles ne­
cessitates that the existing road system is upgraded to handle the
increased traffic flow. To address the current demand for increase in
route capability, the construction of more lanes in the available space
has been considered. However, due to the expensive nature of adding
roads, the construction of new highways is not recommended. Hence, it
is necessary to think of new techniques to overcome this situation.
Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) structure is a low cost would be an
alternative to expanding existing roads. Further, if the materials, design,
and construction are carried out correctly, the GRS structure will show
excellent performance and be cost-effective compared to conventional
structures.
GRS structures have been widely utilized in transportation projects
such as bridges, roads, railway embankments, and retaining walls
(Tatsuoka et al., 1997, 2016; Lee and Wu, 2004; Tatsuoka, 2008;
Saghebfar et al., 2017; Bizjak and Lenart, 2018; Xiao et al., 2021; Zhang
et al., 2022). Tatsuoka pioneered the use of GRS structures in roads and
projects, the performance of GRS structures, particularly in constrained
spaces during earthquakes, is still limited. Nevertheless, seismic activity
is the leading cause of GRS structural failure in hilly or mountainous
regions in several instances. (Huang, 2000; Ling et al., 2001; Huang
et al., 2003; Wu and Chou, 2013; Chou et al., 2020). Hence, an in-depth
study is required to increase the stability and reduce the adverse effects
of earthquakes on GRS structures, enabling their application in various
civil projects in the future.
The increasing need for transportation has prompted the government
to provide more roads. However, this cannot be done due to limited land
in some densely populated areas. Consequently, finding a method to
expand the current roads is necessary. Engineers consider that a narrow
GRS wall, which is a modified conventional mechanically stabilized
earth (MSE) wall, can solve space constraints since it can be constructed
on the outboard or fill side of the roadway. Several studies have inves­
tigated the failure behavior of narrow GRS walls and shored mechani­
cally stabilized earth (MSE) walls under different conditions using
physical and numerical modeling (Morrison et al., 2006; Woodruff,
2003; Yang et al., 2011a). Narrow GRS walls have a different behavior

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wyhung@ncu.edu.tw (W.-Y. Hung), idaagustin@g.ncu.edu.tw (I.A. Nomleni), dickyps25@mail.sinotech.com.tw (D.P. Soegianto),
atikapraptawati@gmail.com (A. Praptawati).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2023.04.002
Received 19 December 2022; Received in revised form 4 March 2023; Accepted 4 April 2023
Available online 13 April 2023
0266-1144/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W.-Y. Hung et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172

when compared to conventional GRS walls because the narrow GRS wall dynamic response of the narrow GRS walls, there are barely any studies
has constrained space, and there exist interactions with the adjacent that mention the effect of the difference in wall direction after being
stable wall, which cause differences in the critical failure plane and subjected to dynamic input motion. Hence, a series of centrifuge
external failure mechanism. (Yang et al., 2011a). modeling tests were conducted to investigate the dynamic response of
Based on several prior tests, the reinforcement length is the dominant narrow GRS walls and quantify the effect of the mechanical connections
factor that has the highest impact on the performance of narrow MSE to improve the stability of narrow GRS walls. It is expected that the
walls. Under a static condition, the failure surface of the narrow MSE mechanical connection application would prevent significant displace­
wall is bilinear, wherein the inclined plane has a slope of less than ments of the narrow GRS wall’s structure.
( ◦ )
45 + φ2 , which is the theoretical Rankine’s linear failure plane.
Further, if the MSE wall’s aspect ratio (L/H) is less than 0.25, it fails to 2. Testing material and apparatus
meet the stability requirements of the narrow MSE wall (Morrison et al.,
2006). An aspect ratio of less than 0.25 can cause the failure surface to 2.1. Testing material
change from a compound failure to an external failure (Woodruff, 2003).
Hence, the previous study suggested that the aspect ratio’s minimum The materials required for the centrifuge modeling test are silica
value should be 0.3 and the minimum reinforcement length not be more sand, non-woven geosynthetic with polyester-rayon geotextile type, and
than 1.5 m. On the other hand, to meet the narrow MSE wall standard, mechanical connection. Silica sand is used as a backfill and foundation
the aspect ratio must be less than 0.7. If the aspect ratio of the narrow layer in the construction of narrow GRS walls. This soil has a minimum
MSE wall design exceeds 0.6, it will cause internal or breaking failure and maximum dry unit weight of 14.10 and 16.30 kN/m3, respectively.
(Morrison et al., 2006). Additionally, the narrow MSE wall has a smaller Moreover, the grading curve of this soil, as shown in Fig. 1, indicates
aspect ratio (L/H) than the MSE wall, which is smaller than 0.7. that the mean particle size (D50) of this soil is 0.19 mm. Based on the
Previous studies have demonstrated that geosynthetic-reinforced soil Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), this soil can be classified as
walls have larger horizontal and vertical displacements at the wall’s poorly graded sand. This sandy soil has a sub-angular structure and good
crest (Ling et al., 2005, 2009; Latha and Santhanakumar, 2015; Xu et al., interlocking which can be used as a backfill material. The air pluviation
2016; Pham, 2019). If the displacement exceeds the load-bearing ca­ technique was required to reconstruct the sand specimen used for the
pacity, the reinforcement located at the crest of the structure will foundation and backfill. The target relative density of the foundation
collapse entirely. Hence, a connection between the reinforcement layer is 80%. This value was chosen to achieve dense soil with the aim of
component and stable wall is required to minimize the displacement in reducing bearing capacity failure. For the backfill, soil with a relative
the wall crest (Jiang et al., 2016, 2019, 2020; Awad and Tanyu, 2014; Xu density of 70% was chosen to avoid excessive settlement during the
et al., 2016; Gebremariam et al., 2020; Ren et al., 2022). Both numerical construction and testing of narrow GRS wall structures.
modeling and experimental data suggest that the active horizontal earth Determining the appropriate scaling factor for geosynthetics is very
pressure decreases as the gap between the wall and a rigid boundary important in centrifuge modeling studies. Based on previous studies, the
narrows (Frydman and Keissar, 1987; Leshchinsky et al., 2004). reinforcement is scaled down N times (Zornberg et al., 1997, 1998). It is
Although the design horizontal earth pressure is smaller than that sug­ considered that the laboratory-scaled model and prototype have iden­
gested by Rankine, providing sufficient reinforcement area in con­ tical failure and safety factors. A non-woven geosynthetic made of
strained places still remains challenging; therefore, anchors or polyester and rayon with a thickness of 0.15 mm was used in this study.
mechanical connections should be installed at the back of geosynthetics The ultimate tensile strength, axial stiffness, initial tangent modulus,
to the rigid boundary (Leshchinsky et al., 2004). and mass per unit area of this geosynthetic are 0.263 kN/m, 2.74 kN/m,
According to the FHWA-CFL/TD-06-001 design guidelines (Morrison 2.53 kN/m2, and 0.036 kN/m2, respectively. The design guidelines
et al., 2006), a positive mechanical connection of the two upper or more recommend a maximum reinforcement distance of 0.6 m in a prototype.
geosynthetic reinforcements can be applied if extension of the upper The reinforcement spacing in the model is 10 mm under the acceleration
reinforcement is impossible. Field testing of
shored-geosynthetic-reinforced soil wall showed a slight difference be­
tween the walls with and without an interface connection. However, the
interface connection on the shored-geosynthetic-reinforced soil wall still
performed better than that on the unconnected wall. Incorporating an
interface connection can limit the differential movement between the
buttress wall component and the geosynthetic-reinforced soil, conse­
quently limiting the development of tension cracks. Interface connec­
tions can be divided into two types: frictional and mechanical
connections. A frictional connection can be established by wrapping the
reinforcement layer around the geosynthetic-reinforced soil re­
inforcements or bending it upward. A mechanical connection can be
created by connecting the reinforcement layer and shoring wall using
Bodkin joints or nails.
Several studies have focused on narrow GRS walls under static
conditions by investigating their mechanism, failure behavior, and wall
deformation (Leshchinsky et al., 2004; Yang and Liu., 2007; Yang et al.,
2011a; 2011b). However, studies on narrow GRS walls under dynamic
conditions are still in their early stages. Several factors have not been
addressed in prior research, such as the impact of mechanical connec­
tions on the stability of a wall under dynamic conditions, including
deformation and seismic response. Further, only a few comprehensive
records have been reported about narrow GRS walls stability, mainly
when constructed in active seismic zones. In addition, although it is
known that the acceleration amplitude of the input motion affects the
Fig. 1. Grading curve of silica sand.

157
W.-Y. Hung et al.
of gravity of 60 g based on the scaling law governing centrifuge
modeling. The 10 mm spacing at 60 g artificial gravitational accelera­
tion represents the 0.6 m spacing and backfill earth pressure. To prevent
the failure mechanism and test results from being influenced by particle
size effects, it is necessary to maintain a sufficiently large ratio between
the reinforcement spacing on model scale (Sv) and the mean particle size
of the sand used in the test (d50) (Hung et al., 2020). This calculation can
be performed using Eq. (1).
Sv / d50 ≥ 50 (1)
To overcome the substantial displacements that occur in the crest of
a narrow GRS wall, a connection between the reinforcement and stable
wall is required. Several studies have been conducted to understand the
strength of the mechanical connections (Jiang et al., 2020; Xiao et al.,
2016; Xu et al., 2016). These studies showed that a higher strength or
stiffness of the mechanical connection can reduce the facing deflection
in the middle and upper parts of the wall. Hence, this study used the
higher strength of the bolt and bar to avoid the failure caused by the
mechanical connection during the dynamic test. The mechanical con­
nections used in this study are shown in Fig. 2. Each mechanical
connection comprised a retaining bar and four bolts. The retaining bar
had a length of 197 mm and each bolt had a length of 17 mm. The
retaining bar is located at the end of the geosynthetic reinforcement,
while the bolt locks the position of the retaining bar and the geo­
synthetic reinforcement. In addition to the mechanical connection, the
selected geosynthetic material, as a frictional connection, has a rela­
tively high strength, enabling the evaluation of the deformation
behavior and performance of this narrow GRS wall from a plane strain
perspective.
2.2. Test apparatuses
Physical modeling was carried out at the Experimental Center of
Civil Engineering, National Central University using a geotechnical
centrifuge machine and an integrated shaking table. The rigid container
with dimensions of 736 mm × 200 mm × 350 mm (Length × Width ×
Height) was made up of aluminum with acrylic glass attached to one side
to observe the performance of narrow GRS walls during the test. Several
accelerometers were installed in the narrow GRS walls model to measure
the response of the narrow GRS wall after being subjected to input
motion excitation. The configuration of the lateral support system was
quite simple and comprised two cylinders arranged reversely and con­
nected fixedly. The function of the lateral support system was to create
an unchangingly horizontal force during the test. Further, narrow GRS
wall structures undergo self-weight consolidation by its self-weight.
Following the spinning procedure, after the artificial gravitational ac­
celeration level was kept stable at 60 g, compressed air was further
actuated into the bottom of two cylinders, lateral support system
completely, narrow GRS wall could deform unrestrainedly under the
effect of high artificial gravitational acceleration level. At the two-stroke
heads of the cylinders, two aluminum plates with dimensions of 195
Fig. 2. Retaining bar and bolt for mechanical connection.
158
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172
mm × 195 mm × 6 mm (height × length × thickness) were attached.
The left and right cylinders were connected to their plates in the posi­
tions shown in the schematic figure, where it can confine the entire
narrow GRS structure with ±5 mm difference in their height. The
aluminum plates were required to be sufficiently stiff to avoid flexural
displacement during confining loading. The schematic showing the
narrow GRS walls and instrumentation of the centrifuge modeling test is
shown in Fig. 3.
The fish-eye lens camera and two action cameras shown in Fig. 4
were installed on the centrifuge platform and assembled on one side of
the container. It was located in the middle of the centrifuge platform and
faces the acrylic side. The function of this camera was to observe the
whole testing process and record the displacement of the narrow GRS
wall model. Further, the two action cameras were installed on the right
and left of the fish-eye camera. These action cameras faced the acrylic
side to record the displacement of each narrow GRS wall structure.
Action cameras can record pictures at a speed of 30 frame per second. A
grid of 1 cm × 1 cm was built on the acrylic window to facilitate the
displacement analysis of the narrow GRS wall. The reference point was
established at the wall toe to simplify the analysis process.
2.3. Testing methodology
Preparation of the narrow GRS wall model begins with preparing
containers, geosynthetics reinforcement, mechanical connections, and
silica sand. Before air pluviation for the foundation layer, the container
is placed on a trolley that can be adjusted so that the drop height is
constant. During the pluviation progress, a 0.5-m-long tube was
controlled according to the U-shape path. Each layer must be controlled
every 10 mm to ensure that the relative density is always constant. The
foundation layer was constructed with a thickness of 30 mm and a
relative density of 80% using the air pluviation technique. After the
foundation layer construction was completed, the GRS wall model was
built with a thickness of 10 mm for each layer.
For each narrow GRS walls construction stage, geosynthetic rein­
forcement was initially placed, and sandy soil was carefully moistened
to ensure equal reinforcement spacing between the layers. The rein­
forcing layer was wrapped to form the front face and wrapped back into
the embankment with a thin layer of sand to eliminate pullout failure.
Sand with a relative density of 70% was used as a backfill for each GRS
layer. Accelerometers were mounted on the bottom, middle, and top of
walls. Each 10 mm thick wooden board was accumulated vertically
above the foundation to support the lateral confining force for the nar­
row GRS wall model during the construction stage. The configuration of
the narrow GRS wall for the centrifuge modeling study is shown in
Fig. 5, where Fig. 5(a) shows the structures with mechanical connec­
tions, and Fig. 5(b) shows the structures without mechanical connec­
tions. Mechanical connections were used to confine the L12, L14, L16,
R12, R14, and R16 layers to a stable wall.
In this study, two models were prepared to determine the effect of the
mechanical connection on a narrow GRS wall under dynamic conditions.
One of the test models used a mechanical connection (NGRSW_C), while
the other did not on the stable wall (NGRSW_U). NGRSW_U test had a
frictional connection that came from geosynthetic reinforcement. The
frictional connection was applied by bending the reinforcements up­
ward at the stable wall interface. This procedure was replicated until the
wall height reached its designed height. As regards the NGRSW_C test,
the reinforcement was bent upward and connected using a bolt and
retaining bar for mechanical connection at the top of the narrow GRS
walls. When the construction of the narrow GRS walls was completed, a
10 mm thick surcharge which created overburden pressure was placed
on the top of each narrow GRS wall. The wood boards were carefully
removed to install the lateral support system fixedly to the base of the
cylinders. The lateral support system was used to support the narrow
GRS wall during the centrifuge test to avoid any displacements before
reaching the specified artificial gravitational acceleration target.
W.-Y. Hung et al.
Fig. 3. Schematic showing the narrow GRS walls and instrumentation.
Fig. 4. Camera system arrangement.
However, the artificial gravitational acceleration increased gradu­
ally after every 10 g. This aims to stabilize the settlement that occurs on
the wall and reduce the pores between the reinforcement layer and
backfill. During the second stage, at a 60 g artificial gravitational ac­
celeration level, the lateral support system applied air pressure to
release the lateral support plate. When the acceleration reached 60 g,
shaking events were inputted into the narrow GRS wall model. The
displacement of the walls was observed using the cameras placed on the
acrylic side view and their responses under the shaking events were
recorded using the accelerometer placed in the wall model. The overall
process of the narrow GRS walls preparation and centrifuge modeling
test can be seen in Fig. 6.
In this study, centrifuge tests for narrow GRS walls were conducted
with and without any mechanical connections. Each test was conducted
simultaneously with two walls on the right and left sides. The right and
left walls had a similar arrangement but different facing directions
which represented in- and out-phase input motion conditions. The
purpose of this study is to investigate the dynamic response of narrow
GRS walls and quantify the effect of mechanical connections on
increasing the stability of narrow GRS walls. The selected material was
intended to prevent internal structural failure. Consequently, this study
focuses on the impact of mechanical connections in minimizing defor­
mation in narrow GRS wall structures. Furthermore, this study does not
consider the additional external loading that causes external stability
failures, such as sliding, overturning, and global stability. Hence, a
stable, rigid wall was designed behind the narrow GRS wall to prevent
additional loading. A summary of the experimental program is presented
in Table 1.
The shaking events were selected to tackle the energy problem of the
159
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172
actual earthquake. This study subjected the narrow GRS walls to four
main shaking events, as shown in Table 2. The main shaking events were
inputted from small to large peak base acceleration (PBA) measured
using accelerometers that were installed on the shaking table. Each main
shaking event subjected to the models had a 1 Hz frequency and 15
cycles of the uniform sine wave. A uniform sine wave was selected as a
preliminary study for a narrow GRS wall structure because it simplifies
the actual earthquake motion and enables comparison with structural
behavior. The target PBA of this study represents the Modified Mercalli
Intensity (MMI) standard proposed by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS). The target PBA of 0.08 g is classified under intensity V
on the MMI system, which represents very light potential damage. The
target PBA of 0.13 g is classified under intensity VI, which represents
light potential damage. Meanwhile, a PBA of 0.19 and 0.30 g are clas­
sified under intensity VII, which represents moderate potential damage.
In this study, three dynamic input motions with smaller intensities
(foreshocks) were inputted before the larger dynamic input motion
(main shock) because the largest earthquake was preceded by a pre­
liminary earthquake.
3. Test results and discussion
3.1. Narrow GRS wall without mechanical connection to the stable face
3.1.1. Wall all displacement and accumulated horizontal displacement
Based on recorded images, the critical state of the model wall was
predicted to understand the failure behaviors of the wall. The
displacement of the narrow GRS walls without any mechanical
connection (NGRSW_U) to the stable face can be seen in Fig. 7, where (a)
W.-Y. Hung et al.
Fig. 5. Narrow GRS wall model preparation.
is the left wall and (b) is the right wall. In this test, the shaking is
inputted gradually from small (MS-1_0.08 g) to large amplitudes (MS-
4_0.30 g) of dynamic input motion. The displacement of the wall facing
is observed from the end of the wall to the top. The result of the previous
horizontal displacement is the initial value of the following main
shaking, known as accumulated horizontal displacement. Additionally,
the normalized horizontal displacement is the ratio between the hori­
zontal displacement and wall height.
Four design guidelines are available that provide specific or tolerable
values for evaluating the maximum horizontal wall facing displacement
of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. The criteria examined in this study
160
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172
were those proposed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The
first criteria in this study is FHWA (Berg et al., 2009; Elias et al., 2001),
and the second is the criteria from WSDOT46-03. (2020). The maximum
horizontal displacement value suggested by the FHWA guidelines is
H/75. Resulting in a maximum normalized horizontal displacement
(x/H) of the wall of 1.3%. The WSDOT criteria recommend a maximum
horizontal displacement of 8 inches or 20.32 mm for MSE walls,
resulting in a maximum normalized horizontal displacement (x/H) of
the wall of 2.1%. The displacement of the NGRSW_U wall is shown in
Fig. 7.
W.-Y. Hung et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172

Fig. 6. The overall process of narrow GRS walls preparation and centrifuge modeling test.

161
W.-Y. Hung et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172

Table 1 motions and the amplitude of the dynamic input motion can lead to an
Experimental program. accumulation of horizontal displacement in the narrow GRS wall
Test name Description of test Gravitational Seismic structure. This can cause the structure to fail. In fact, some structures
acceleration level (g) phase have failed owing to foreshocks with small amplitudes followed by main
NGRSW_U Narrow GRS soil wall 60 In-phase (Left shocks with larger amplitudes of dynamic input motion.
without mechanical Wall) In the MS-1_0.08 g test, the top five layers on the left wall underwent
connection Out-phase displacement with a maximum accumulated normalized horizontal
(Right Wall) displacement of 2% in the crest of the wall, while the top three layers on
NGRSW_C Narrow GRS wall with 60 In-phase (Left
mechanical connection Wall)
the right wall underwent displacement of 0.7%. The accumulated
Out-phase normalized horizontal displacement on the left wall does not meet the
(Right Wall) FHWA criteria, whereas the accumulated normalized horizontal
displacement on the right wall still meets the two criteria mentioned
above. The accumulated normalized horizontal displacement increased
Table 2 after the MS-2_0.13 g test. The top 11 layers on the left wall were dis­
Summary of the shaking event. placed with a maximum accumulated normalized horizontal displace­
Shaking Type of Number of Frequency Peak Base
ment of 2.8% in the crest of the left wall, and the top five layers on the
event wave cycles (Hz) Acceleration (g) right wall were displaced with a maximum accumulated normalized
displacement of 1.2% in the crest of the left wall. The accumulated
MS-1_0.08 Sine 15 1 0.08
g wave normalized horizontal displacement that occurs on the right wall still
MS-2_0.13 Sine 15 1 0.13 meets both criteria, whereas the left wall does not meet both criteria. In
g wave MS-3_0.19 g and MS-4_0.30 g test, both the right and left walls experi­
MS-3_0.19 Sine 15 1 0.19 enced a significant accumulated normalized horizontal displacement in
g wave
MS-4_0.30 Sine 15 1 0.30
the top layers of each wall. Therefore, both the left and right walls did
g wave not meet all of the horizontal displacement criteria proposed by the
FHWA and WSDOT.
Based on the observations on the NGRSW_U test after the wall was
This wall displacement in Fig. 7 was further analyzed and plotted as subjected to input motion excitation, the bottom of the wall did not have
accumulated normalized displacement of wall facing, which can be seen a considerable displacement compared to the middle and top of the
in Fig. 8. A colored straight line was obtained using a regression line walls. This is due to the friction in the first layer of reinforcement with
based on the position of each reinforcement layer. Before inputting the the foundation soil, where the foundation soil was the sand which has a
dynamic input motion, the narrow GRS walls were still held by lateral greater friction angle than the reinforcement layer. Meanwhile, both
confining pressure of approximately 60 g and later released for dynamic reinforcement layers had smaller friction. Thus, the resistance to
input motion excitation. It can be seen both in Figs. 7 and 8 that the wall displacement was not large. This caused the middle and top of the wall
was in a stable initial condition (60 g), with no horizontal deformation. to experience a large displacement. Furthermore, when the input motion
Hence, dynamic input motion can be performed to understand the was continuously performed with amplitude increments, it caused
behavior of the narrow GRS wall without any mechanical connection to pullout failures because the material of the reinforcement layer was
the stable face (NGRSW_U). Increasing the number of dynamic input

Fig. 7. Wall displacement of NGRSW_U.

162
W.-Y. Hung et al.
Fig. 8. Accumulated normalized displacement of wall facing in NGRSW_U test.
flexible. Nevertheless, the NGRSW_U did not have enough pullout ca­
pacity, which resulted in more considerable displacements which were
prone to collapse.
3.1.2. Seismic response
Each test comprised two walls (left and right walls) with a similar
arrangement but rather opposite wall-facing directions representing in-
and out-phase input motion conditions. Each wall was an independent
structure. In both the left and right walls, positive (+) acceleration
meant the wall moved outward and negative (− ) acceleration meant the
wall moved inward. However, the inertia force for the left wall was
negative (− ), while the right wall was positive (+). This means the first
half of the cycle caused the left wall to move inward and the right to
move outward due to the inertia force. The acceleration response from
the NGRSW_U due to wall displacement is shown in Appendix 1 (see
163
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172
Figs. 14-17).
In the MS-1_0.08 g test, the left and right walls had a symmetric
acceleration response at the bottom, middle, and crest of the acceler­
ometer. This is supported by a wall displacement figure proving that
there was a slight horizontal displacement in the NGRSW_U structure.
The crest on the left wall had a slightly different response during the MS-
2_0.13 g test which showed that movement had occurred. The crest of
the left wall was deformed, leading to a permanent displacement at the
MS-1_0.08 g test. After MS-2_0.13 g test, the accumulated horizontal
displacement increased along with increasing input motion amplitude.
However, the accelerometer in the middle and bottom positions still had
a symmetric acceleration response. If this acceleration response is
compared to the wall displacement figure, it will show that the middle
and bottom of the structure did not experience horizontal displacement
was the case in the crest. As regards the MS-2_0.13 g test, the negative
acceleration response at the crest of right wall was slightly different
compared to the positive acceleration. This shows that the structure
experienced displacement which increased the accumulated horizontal
displacement value. However, the acceleration response of the acceler­
ometer in the middle and at the bottom of the structure was still sym­
metric, which shows that no displacement had occurred.
Along with the increase in input motion amplitudes (MS-3_0.19 g
test), this also caused an increase in the accumulated horizontal
displacement in the structure both on the left and right walls. The ac­
celeration response in the crest and middle of the walls had some
axisymmetric responses, which means that there was an increase in the
horizontal displacement in the structure and the accumulated horizontal
displacement on both walls. However, the accelerometer at the bottom
of the NGRSW_U structures on both walls still had a symmetric accel­
eration response. When compared to the wall displacement figure, there
was no horizontal displacement at the bottom of the NGRSW_U struc­
tures. With increased input motion excitation (MS-4_0.30 g test), both
the left and right walls experienced axisymmetric acceleration responses
which shows a significant displacement of the structures and an increase
in the accumulated horizontal displacement in the crest and middle of
the NGRSW_U structures. Further, both the left and right walls
completely collapsed after dynamic input motion excitation.
The ratio of observed acceleration to input acceleration along the
wall height is referred to as acceleration amplification. Acceleration
amplification factor calculation is generally carried out to assess the
response of the NGRSW_U to dynamic conditions. The acceleration
amplification factor of NGRSW_U on the left and right walls is shown in
Fig. 9. The acceleration amplification factor plot corresponded to the
movement of the narrow GRS wall, which can be seen in the accumu­
lated normalized horizontal displacement plot in Fig. 8. At the bottom
layer of NGRSW_U for both walls, the acceleration amplification factor
between positive and negative directions had a minimal difference. This
happened because the bottom layer did not experience permanent
displacement. Furthermore, the bottom layer had no considerable
movement because this layer was relatively closer to the foundation
layer. Further, there was friction on the foundation soil and lower
geosynthetic reinforcement layer on both walls in the NGRSW_U test.
In the middle and top layers of left wall, the acceleration amplifi­
cation factor in the negative acceleration direction was smaller than the
positive acceleration direction. However, the acceleration amplification
factor in the negative acceleration direction of right wall was larger than
the positive acceleration direction. This is because the narrow GRS wall
had flexible properties. If there was a dynamic input motion that made
the shaking table to move to the right, then the entire wall would move
in that direction, but a wall that has moved cannot return to its initial
position, hence a permanent displacement after shaking. In the MS-
4_0.30 g test, the acceleration amplification factor for left wall in the
NGRSW_U test in the negative acceleration direction had a value of less
than one, because when the wall returned to the negative direction, the
left wall could not return to its original position, thereby causing a
permanent displacement. Further, the permanent deformation of each
W.-Y. Hung et al.
Fig. 9. Acceleration amplification factor of NGRSW_U.
dynamic input motion excitation caused a reduction in the acceleration
amplification factor in the negative acceleration direction for the left
wall and positive acceleration direction for right wall.
3.2. Narrow GRS wall with a mechanical connection to the stable face
3.2.1. Wall displacement and accumulated horizontal displacement
A considerable horizontal displacement occurred at the top five
reinforcement layers on the left wall and top three reinforcement layers
on the right wall from NGRSW_U using MS-1_0.08 g test. The wall
displacement became more significant as the number of dynamic input
motions was inputted, thereby increasing the input motion amplitude.
Further, the walls experienced a negative movement first. Thus, the left
wall had a greater displacement than the right wall when subjected to
dynamic input motion. Consequently, a mechanical connection was
applied to the top reinforcement layer (layers 16, 14, and 12) on the left
and right narrow GRS walls to reduce horizontal displacement. Con­
necting mechanical reinforcement to a stable wall is intended to increase
the stability of the wall (Xu et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2020).
The displacement of the narrow GRS wall with a mechanical
connection to the stable face can be seen in Fig. 10, where (a) is the left
wall and (b) is the right. The wall displacement in Fig. 10 was further
analyzed and plotted as an accumulated normalized displacement of
wall facing, which can be seen in Fig. 11. In the MS-1_0.08 g test,
displacement occurred in six reinforcement layers on the top of the left
164
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172
wall, whereas displacement occurred in three reinforcement layers on
the top of the right wall with an accumulated normalized horizontal
displacement of 0.7%. The accumulated normalized horizontal
displacement on both walls satisfied the criteria mentioned in Section
3.1.1. The accumulated normalized horizontal displacement increased
in the MS-2_0.13 g and MS-3_0.19 g tests. The top six reinforcement
layers on the left wall were displaced, with a maximum accumulated
normalized horizontal displacement of 1.7%. Three reinforcement
layers on the right wall experienced displacement, with a maximum
accumulated normalized horizontal displacement of 0.8%. The
displacement on the left exceeded the FHWA standard; however, the
right walls still met both the FHWA and WSDOT criteria.
In the MS-4_0.30 g test, the left wall experienced a significant
accumulated normalized horizontal displacement in the 12 reinforce­
ment layers calculated from the crest of the wall. The maximum accu­
mulated normalized horizontal displacement at MS-4 was 2.5%. Hence,
the deformation exceeded the aforementioned criteria. The accumulated
normalized horizontal displacement of the right wall at MS-4_0.30 g was
1.2%. Although the input motion used in the MS-4_0.30 g test was large,
the right wall still appeared to be more stable than the left wall with the
same input motion amplitude. The accumulated normalized horizontal
deformation on the right wall in MS-4_0.30 g still meets both criteria for
assessing the performance of narrow GRS walls.
The results of the small accumulated normalized horizontal
displacement obtained from the wall with a mechanical connection
W.-Y. Hung et al.
Fig. 10. Wall displacement of NGRSW_C.
show that the presence of a mechanical connection had considerable
effects. The horizontal displacement of the wall was minimal since the
displacement was accumulated and mobilized by the reinforcement
layers that were anchored directly to the stable wall. Connecting a
narrow GRS wall to a stable wall can be an efficient measure to help
control the considerable accumulation of normalized horizontal
displacement of walls under dynamic input motion excitation.
The tears pattern of geosynthetic reinforcement layer numbers 16,
14, and 12 from both the left and right walls of NGRSW_C can be seen in
Fig. 12. The orange circle represents the location of the mechanical
connection, and the yellow line represents the tear of the geosynthetic
reinforcement layer. This shows that the left wall had a considerable tear
line compared to the right wall. Further, the tear line was more signif­
icant at the top layer of the geosynthetic reinforcement layer, which
confirms that the presence of a mechanical connection can overcome the
pullout that can occur on a narrow GRS wall.
3.2.2. Seismic response
NGRSW_C has a similar arrangement and input motion excitation
that is similar to NGRSW_U. Each wall is an independent structure with
opposite wall directions. The left and right walls have their definitions of
acceleration and inertial forces as described in Section 3.1.2. Four main
shakings with sine wave types comprising 15 cycles and 1 Hz frequency
with different amplitudes of input motion were described at the begin­
ning as the input motion for dynamic conditions. The acceleration
response from the NGRSW_C owing to wall displacement is shown in
Appendix 1. The acceleration response was obtained from the acceler­
ometer located inside both walls of the NGRSW_C. The bottom and
middle accelerometers have a symmetrical response to the both left and
right wall at MS-1_0.08 g test. However, the top accelerometer has a
slightly different acceleration and higher frequency response. In terms of
wall displacement, both walls had a slight permanent displacement at
the crest. As the dynamic input motion amplitude increased, the top of
both walls experienced an increase in the accumulated horizontal
displacement after the MS-2_0.13 g test. The accelerometer response
became axisymmetric at the top of both walls. However, the
165
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172
accelerometer at the bottom and middle of both walls still had sym­
metric responses. Hence, this revealed that there was no horizontal
displacement that occurred at that location.
In the MS-3_0.19 g test, the top accelerometers in the left wall
experienced an axisymmetric acceleration response while the bottom
and middle positions of the accelerometers still had a symmetric ac­
celeration response. When the results of the acceleration response were
compared to the wall displacement, it showed that accumulated hori­
zontal displacement at the top structure had increased. On the right
wall, the top accelerometer had an axisymmetric acceleration response,
showing that there is movement at the top of the wall. However, the
middle and bottom accelerometers on the right wall still had a sym­
metric acceleration response. This shows that the bottom and middle
sections did not have a horizontal displacement movement. This is also
proven by the wall displacement figure that shows that there was no
movement at the bottom and middle of the right wall. When the dy­
namic input motion amplitudes increased (MS-4_0.30 g test), the top and
middle of the left wall experienced a significant difference in acceler­
ometer response, which means that there was a considerable accumu­
lated horizontal displacement at this position. However, the
accelerometer at the bottom of the left wall position still had a sym­
metric response, which shows that no horizontal displacement occurred
at the bottom. At the top of the right wall, the accelerometer had an
axisymmetric acceleration response, showing a significant horizontal
displacement. The accelerometer located at the middle and bottom po­
sition of the right wall still had a symmetric acceleration response.
The acceleration amplification factor was calculated based on the
ratio of observed acceleration to the input acceleration along the wall
height, which was further used to assess the response of the NGRSW_C to
dynamic conditions. The plot of the acceleration amplification factor for
NGRSW_C is shown in Fig. 13. The calculated acceleration amplification
factor was assessed using the accumulated normalized horizontal
displacement of NGRSW_C. In this way, the contribution of the me­
chanical connection toward increasing the external stability of the walls
is determined. Based on the assessment, the acceleration amplification
factor plot corresponded to the movement of the narrow GRS wall, as
W.-Y. Hung et al.
Fig. 11. Accumulated normalized horizontal displacement of wall facing in
NGRSW_C test.
shown in the accumulated normalized horizontal displacement plot in
Fig. 12. The bottom layer of the wall did not experience displacement
because it was located relatively close to the foundation soil. On the
foundation soil and bottom layer, friction hampered the displacement of
the reinforcement layer. The acceleration amplification factor on the
accelerometer in the bottom layer of walls, both left and right, had
symmetric acceleration responses. This is because at this location, the
reinforcement layer did not experience a significant horizontal
displacement which caused the permanent displacement of the walls
(see Fig. 14).
At the middle and top layers of NGRSW_C of the left wall, the ac­
celeration amplification in the negative acceleration direction was
smaller than in the positive acceleration direction owing to the more
flexible feature of the narrow GRS wall. Furthermore, the acceleration
amplification factor of the right wall in positive acceleration direction
166
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172
was smaller than in the negative acceleration direction. However, using
a mechanical connection made NGRSW_C more rigid than NGRSW_U.
When dynamic input motion was performed on MS-1_0.08 g, MS-2_0.13
g, and MS-3_0.19 g, the mechanical connection pulled the entire wall
towards the stable wall, thus minimizing the movement of NGRSW_C. In
the MS-4_0.30 g test, the acceleration amplification factor on the left
wall were close to one. The permanent deformation of each dynamic
input motion excitation reduced the acceleration amplification factor in
the negative acceleration direction for the left wall and positive accel­
eration direction for the right wall.
However, an additional mechanical connection caused the wall
movement to be smaller compared to NGRSW_U. The inertia force was
reduced when dynamic input motion was provided to the mechanical
connection, preventing the wall from experiencing considerable hori­
zontal displacement. The horizontal displacement of the wall was min­
imal because the displacement was accumulated and mobilized by
connecting reinforcement layers directly to the stable face. Connecting
the narrow GRS wall to a stable wall efficiently helped in controlling the
accumulated normalized horizontal displacement significantly in a peak
base acceleration of 0.30 g.
3.3. Comparison of mechanically connected and unconnected narrow
GRS walls
3.3.1. Horizontal displacement
The horizontal displacement value showed a reliable correspondence
with the input motions in each test. The input motion excitation is the
main cause of the narrow GRS wall movement. The permanent
displacement accumulated after each cycle caused the residual
displacement at the end of dynamic events. Based on the observations of
the NGRSW_U test after the wall was subjected to input motion, the
bottom of the wall did not have a significant displacement compared to
the middle and top of the walls. This is due to the friction in the first
layer of reinforcement and the foundation soil, where the foundation
soil is sand which has a greater friction angle than the reinforcement
layer. Meanwhile, the two reinforcement layers had smaller friction.
Thus, the resistance to displacement was not large. This caused the
middle and top of the wall to experience a large displacement.
Furthermore, when the input motion was continuously performed with
amplitude increments, it caused pullout failures because the reinforce­
ment layer material was flexible. Nevertheless, the NGRSW_U did not
have enough pullout capacity, thereby resulting in more considerable
displacement and being prone to collapse. Further, the presence of the
mechanical connection had a considerable contribution to the reduction
of the accumulated normalized horizontal displacement of NGRSW_C
compared to NGRSW_U under similar input motion amplitude, as shown
in Table 3. In summary, connecting the narrow GRS wall to a stable wall
efficiently helped in controlling the accumulated normalized horizontal
displacement considerably in a peak base acceleration of 0.30 g.
3.3.2. Seismic response
The seismic response was measured using accelerometers located at
different positions inside narrow GRS wall structures. The seismic wave
propagates from the bottom to the crest of the wall. A positive acceler­
ation value indicated that the narrow GRS wall structure moved or
accelerated outward, whereas a negative acceleration value indicated
that the wall moved or accelerated inward. The axisymmetric response
of the accelerometers shows that horizontal displacement occurs during
the dynamic input motion excitation. Furthermore, a narrow GRS wall
without a mechanical connection has a significantly larger axisymmetric
acceleration response due to wall deformation.
Acceleration amplification is calculated based on the ratio of the
observed acceleration along the wall depth to the acceleration of the
input motion. The maximum acceleration amplifications of the con­
nected and unconnected narrow GRS walls are summarized in Table 4.
The acceleration amplification factor increases from the bottom to the
W.-Y. Hung et al.
Fig. 12. The tear pattern of geosynthetic reinforcement layer on NGRSW_C test.
top of the wall for both the unconnected and connected narrow GRS wall
cases by a maximum factor of 2 and 2.2, respectively. The acceleration
amplification factor of the accelerometer located at the bottom, both left
and right, is identical to that of the accelerometer located at the middle
and top of the narrow GRS wall. This is because, at this location, the
reinforcement layer does not experience a significant horizontal
displacement, which causes permanent displacement of the wall.
Furthermore, in the catastrophic motion (MS-4_0.30 g), the connected
narrow GRS wall shows a difference of 0.15 between the acceleration
amplification factors in the outward and inward directions. The
167
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172
unconnected narrow GRS walls experience a significant difference be­
tween outward and inward amplification, which is 0.7 and 0.9 for the
middle and top parts, respectively. This causes a larger permanent
displacement.
4. Conclusions
The dynamic response of narrow GRS walls with and without me­
chanical connections was investigated through a series of dynamic
centrifuge modeling tests. The tests were conducted on narrow GRS
W.-Y. Hung et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172

Fig. 13. Acceleration amplification factor of NGRSW_C.

displacements and susceptibility to overturning failure mode. The

Table 3
normalized horizontal displacement of the unconnected narrow GRS
Accumulated normalized horizontal displacement of mechanically connected
wall was 0.5–4%. Contrarily, the connected narrow GRS wall had
and unconnected narrow GRS walls.
0.1–1% of normalized horizontal displacement after being subjected
Input motion amplitude (g) Unconnected narrow Connected narrow GRS to a similar dynamic input motion amplitude.
GRS wall wall
2. The mechanical connection in narrow GRS walls with a stable wall
Left wall Right wall Left wall Right wall integral system was an effective way to deal with the limited space
MS-1_0.08 g 2.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% and inadequate length of the narrow GRS wall. Further, mechanical
MS-2_0.13 g 2.8% 1.2% 1.7% 0.8% connection greatly contributed to the displacement reduction of the
MS-3_0.19 g 4.1% 2.6% 1.7% 1.0%
narrow GRS wall under dynamic conditions and improved the nar­
MS-4_0.30 g 8.1% 5.9% 2.5% 1.2%
row GRS wall system’s stability. Connecting the reinforcement layer
to the stable wall using a mechanical connection reduced 30–80% of
walls with a configuration aspect ratio of 0.5, 16 layers of geosynthetic the accumulated normalized horizontal displacement of the narrow
reinforcement, and a vertical spacing of 0.6 m. However, the study did GRS walls.
not consider the effect of external forces acting behind the narrow GRS 3. The amplification factors increased from the bottom to top for both
wall and the vertical acceleration of the input motion. Based on these unconnected and connected narrow GRS wall cases by a maximum
limitations, it can be concluded that. factor of 2 and 2.2, respectively. In catastrophic motion, the MS-
4_0.30 g, the connected narrow GRS wall had a 0.15 difference be­
1. The tensile strength of geosynthetic reinforcement contributed tween the outward and inward direction acceleration amplification
greatly to the stability of narrow GRS walls. This is proved by the factor. However, the difference between the outward and inward
unconnected narrow GRS walls that did not have sufficient pullout amplification for unconnected narrow GRS walls was very
capacity, which resulted in more considerable horizontal

168
W.-Y. Hung et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172

Table 4
Acceleration amplification of connected and unconnected narrow GRS walls.
Input motion amplitude (g) Accelerometer position Unconnected narrow GRS wall Connected narrow GRS wall

Left wall Right wall Left wall Right wall

+ – + – + – + –

MS-1_0.08 g Bottom 1.14 1.19 1.22 1.18 1.19 1.17 1.17 1.37
Middle 1.26 1.18 1.16 1.35 1.56 1.33 1.15 1.53
Top 1.98 1.73 1.78 2.06 1.85 1.89 1.81 2.20
MS-2_0.13 g Bottom 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.18 1.29 1.23 1.18 1.33
Middle 1.27 1.09 1.01 1.29 1.44 1.36 1.12 1.42
Top 1.63 1.51 1.52 1.74 1.71 1.93 1.93 1.73
MS-3_0.19 g Bottom 1.21 1.27 1.20 1.38 1.30 1.15 1.24 1.26
Middle 1.36 1.13 1.01 1.60 1.50 1.26 1.13 1.36
Top 1.52 1.37 1.39 1.72 1.35 1.58 1.70 1.33
MS-4_0.30 g Bottom 1.44 1.20 1.31 1.10 1.51 1.12 1.33 1.29
Middle 1.65 0.88 0.95 1.35 1.75 1.17 1.25 1.43
Top 1.65 0.93 0.94 1.69 1.18 1.31 1.41 1.56

significant, that is, 0.7 and 0.9 in average for the middle and top the work reported in this paper.
parts, which induced a larger permanent displacement.
4. The dynamic failure mode of the unconnected and connected narrow Data availability
GRS walls are different. The deformation evolution of unconnected
wall shown an overturning failure mode, while the connected wall Data will be made available on request.
has bulging failure mode due to the upper reinforcement is directly
connected to stable wall. Acknowledgment

Declaration of competing interest The authors are thankful for the technical support provided by the
National Central for Research on Earthquake Engineering (NCREE) and
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial National Central University, Republic of China Taiwan.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

appendix

Fig. 14. Accelerometer response of NGRSW_U and NGRSW_C after being subjected to MS-1_0.08 g.[]

169
W.-Y. Hung et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172

Fig. 15. Accelerometer response of NGRSW_U and NGRSW_C after being subjected to MS-2_0.13 g.[]

Fig. 16. Accelerometer response of NGRSW_U and NGRSW_C after being subjected to MS-3_0.19 g.[]

170
W.-Y. Hung et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172

Fig. 17. Accelerometer response of NGRSW_U and NGRSW_C after being subjected to MS-4_0.30 g.[]

References Jiang, Y., Han, J., Parsons, R.L., 2020. Numerical evaluation of secondary reinforcement
effect on geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls. Geotext. Geomembranes 48 (1),
98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103508.
Awad, M.I., Tanyu, B.F., 2014. Laboratory evaluation of governing mechanism of
Latha, G.M., Santhanakumar, P., 2015. Seismic response of reduced-scale modular block
frictionally connected MSEW face and implication on design. Geotext.
and rigid faced reinforced walls through shaking table test. Geotext. Geomembranes
Geomembranes 42 (5), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
43 (4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.008.
geotexmem.2014.07.006.
Lee, K.Z.Z., Wu, J.T.H., 2004. A synthesis of case histories on GRS bridge-supporting
Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R., Samtani, N.C., 2009. Design of Mechanically Stabilized
structures with flexible facing. Geotext. Geomembranes 22 (4), 181–204. https://
Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes–Volume I. U.S., Department of
doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.03.002.
Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Publication No.. FHWA-
Leshchinsky, D., Hu, Y., Han, J., 2004. Limited reinforced space in segmental retaining
NHI-10-024.
walls. Geotext. Geomembranes 22 (6), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Bizjak, K.F., Lenart, S., 2018. Life cycle assessment of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil
geotexmem.2004.04.002.
bridge system – a case study. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (5), 543–558. https://doi.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., Chou, N.N.S., 2001. Post-earthquake investigation on several
org/10.1016/j.geotemnem.2018.04.012.
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes during the Ji-Ji earthquake of
Chou, N.N.S., Liu, T.-Y., Chen, P.-H., Fan, C.-C., Zhang, J., 2020. Failure investigation
Taiwan. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 21 (4), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0267-
and sustainable renovation for slope at national chi nan University in Taiwan.
7261(01)00011-2.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 34 (5), 04020085 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-
Ling, H.I., Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K., Liu, H., 2005. Large-
5509.0001459.
scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls. J. Geotech.
Elias, V., Christopher, B.R., Berg, R.R., 2001. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (4), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines. U.S., Department of
(2005)131:4(465).
Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Publication No. FHWA-
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., Wang, J.-P., Mohri, Y., Rosen, A., 2009. Seismic response of
NHI-00-043. Section 9.4.
geocell retaining walls: experimental studies. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (4),
Frydman, S., Keissar, I., 1987. Earth pressure on retaining walls near rock faces.
515–524. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:4(515).
J. Geotech. Eng. 113 (6), 586–599. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410
Morrison, K.F., Harrison, F.E., Collin, J.G., Dodds, A., Amdt, B., 2006. Shored
(1987)113:6(586).
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (SMSE) Wall Systems Design Guidelines. report.
Gebremariam, F., Tanyu, B.F., Christopher, B., Leshchinsky, D., Zornberg, J.G., Han, J.,
Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division,
2020. Evaluation of required connection load in GRS-IBS structures under service
Lakewood, CO. Report No. FHWA-CFL/TD-06-001.
loads. Geosynth. Int. 27 (6), 620–634. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.20.00022.
Pham, T.N.P., 2019. Failure Mechanism and Deformation-Based-Design of Narrow
Huang, C.-C., 2000. Investigations of soil retaining structures damaged during the chi-chi
Geosynthetic Reinforced Earth Walls. National Central University, Zhongli.
(Taiwan) earthquake. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 23 (4), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Ren, F.F., Xu, H., Ji, Y.J., Huang, Q.Q., Tian, X., 2022. Experimental study on the
02533839.2000.9670562.
mechanical behavior of shored mechanically stabilized earth walls for widening
Huang, C.C., Chou, L.H., Tatsuoka, F., 2003. Seismic displacements of geosynthetic-
existing reinforced embankments. Geotext. Geomembranes 50 (4), 737–750. https://
reinforced soil modular block walls. Geosynth. Int. 10 (1), 2–23. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2022.03.013.
10.1680/gein.2003.10.1.2.
Saghebfar, M., Abu-Farsakh, M., Ardah, A., Chen, Q., Fernandez, B.A., 2017.
Hung, W.-Y., Yang, K.-H., Nguyen, T.S., Pham, T.-N.-P., 2020. Performance of
Performance monitoring of geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls at failure. J. Geo. Eng. 15 (1), 13–29. https://doi.
(GRS-IBS) in Louisiana. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (2), 34–47. https://doi.org/
org/10.6310/jog.202003_15(1).2.
10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.11.004.
Jiang, Y., Han, J., Parsons, R.L., Brennan, J.J., 2016. Field instrumentation and
Tatsuoka, F., 2008. Recent practice and research of geosynthetic-reinforced earth
evaluation of modular-block MSE walls with secondary geogrid layers. J. Geotech.
structures in Japan. J. Geo. Eng. 3 (3), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.6310/jog.2008.3
Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (12) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001573.
(3).1.
Jiang, Y., Han, J., Zornberg, J., Parsons, R.L., Leshchinsky, D., Tanyu, B., 2019.
Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Uchimura, T., Koseki, J., 1997. Geosynthetic-reinforced soil
Numerical analysis of field geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls with secondary
retaining walls as important permanent structures 1996-1997 Mercer Lecture.
reinforcement. Geotechnique 69 (2), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.17.
Geosynth. Int. 4 (2), 81–136. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.4.0090.
P.118.

171
W.-Y. Hung et al.
Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Koda, M., Kojima, K., Yonezawa, T., Shindo, Y., Tamai, S.,
2016. Research and construction of geosynthetic-reinforced soil integral bridges.
Transport. Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.03.006.
Woodruff, R., 2003. Centrifuge Modeling for MSE-Shoring Composite Walls. Master of
Science Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder.
WSDOT M.46-03, 2020. Geotechnical Design Manual, Chapter 15 Abutments, Retaining
Walls, and Reinforced Slopes. Washington State Department of Transportation,
Olympia, Washington, USA.
Wu, J.Y., Chou, N.N., 2013. Forensic studies of geosynthetic reinforced structure failures.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 27 (5), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cf.1943-
5509.0000344.
Xiao, C.Z., Han, J., Zhang, Z., 2016. Experimental study on performance of geosynthetic-
reinforced soil model walls on rigid foundations subjected to static footing loading.
Geotext. Geomembranes 44 (1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2015.06.001.
Xiao, C., Gao, S., Liu, H., Du, Y., 2021. Case history on failure of geosynthetics-reinforced
soil bridge approach retaining walls. Geotext. Geomembranes 49 (6), 1585–1599.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2021.08.001.
Xu, C., Luo, Y.S., Chen, H.S., Jia, B., 2016. Effects of interface connections on narrowed
mechanically stabilized earth walls. Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (21), 1411. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12665-016-6226-9.
172
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 51 (2023) 156–172
Yang, K.-H., Liu, C.-N., 2007. Finite element analysis of earth pressures for narrow
retaining walls. J. Geo. Eng. 2 (2), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.6310/jog.2007.2(2).1.
Yang, K.-H., Zornberg, J.G., Hung, W.-Y., Lawson, C.R., 2011a. Location of failure plane
and design considerations for narrow GRS wall systems. J. Geo. Eng. 6 (1), 27–40.
https://doi.org/10.6310/jog.2011.6(1).3.
Yang, K.-H., Ching, J., Zornberg, J.G., 2011b. Reliability-based design for external
stability of narrow mechanically stabilized soil walls: calibration from centrifuge
tests. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (3), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000423.
Zhang, J., Guo, W., Ji, M., Zhao, J., Xu, C., Zheng, Y., 2022. Field monitoring of vertical
stress distribution in GRS-IBS with full-height rigid facings. Geosynth. Int. 29 (6),
610–621. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.21.00063.
Zornberg, J.G., Mitchell, J.K., Sitar, N., 1997. Testing of reinforced slopes in a
geotechnical centrifuge. Geotech. Test J. 20 (4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1520/
GTJ10413J.
Zornberg, J.G., Sitar, N., Mitchell, J.K., 1998. Limit equilibrium as basis for design of
geosynthetic reinforced slopes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (8), 684–698.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:8(684).