GeotextilesandGeomembranes14 (1996) 277-287

© 1996 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Ireland. All rights reserved
0266-1144/96 $15.00
ELSEVIER PII:S0266-1 144(96)00020-9

Application of Mechanically Stabilized Earth and

Segmental Block Walls

Mark H. Wayne & Bob Miller

Tensar Earth Technologies, 5775-B Glenridge Drive, Suite 450, Atlanta, G A 30328, U S A

ABSTRACT

Thousands of people commute to and from Boston every day, many of them
using the 'T' subway and commuter rail system, owned and operated by the
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA). To provide better service
to a greater number of people, the MBTA decided to re-open two old rail-
way commuter lines, the Plymouth and Middleboro, that have not carried
passengers since the late 1930s (Tensar, 1995). This paper focuses on the
unique manner in which geosynthetic reinforced earth systems were utilized
to eliminate a grade crossing located at the line's intersection with Pearl
Street. This project is unique in that it is the first project to utilize
mechanically stabilized earth ( MSE) slopes and unitized segmental block
walls to support heavy rail traffic (E-80 loading). Copyright © 1996 Else-
vier Science Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

A key element in the reopening of the Plymouth and Middleboro commuter

lines was the elimination of the Pearl Street grade crossing. A map of the area
is included as Fig. 1. To perform this task, MBTA engineers determined that
a bridge would be needed to provide the grade separation between rail and
street traffic. Sverdrup Corporation, as a consultant to the MBTA, was
commissioned to redesign the area. The existing embankment needed to be
raised to carry the track over the road, and six precast panel retaining walls
and one tieback structure were originally specified to keep the embankments
within the existing right-of-way. The project scope involved retaining the

277
278 Mark H. Wayne, Bob Miller

BOSTON
PROJECT SITEI
LINE ] Ht
J PEAR, STREETJ
...."'*"
"""Y'" ..'Y"
Ouln,
Milton \

/ Hlngham - "%....-'"' .........

.~eymouth ...:" Scltuat

Nor well ....,.....

•--.% ........-:'J
Din@6
~p~m \
• ...... "i" ......
./' . ........ ~i~ockla/n!"":"d
3ughton\ Hanover " )i

..........~; \
. ...'" :.
...... "Br Whitma]~ r
! Pembroke ,/
f

yY'""'-.....
,..............
!; " /
Hanson /
ston \ West Ea,t !
Brldgewate?

Fig. I. General project location map.

earth around both the bridge abutments and the area under the rail lines
after crossing the bridge. Beyond the bridge, the tracks split into a 'Y' head-
ing in the directions of Plymouth and Middleboro. In addition to the six
walls specified by Sverdrup for the rail line, an additional three cast-in-place
walls were required to accommodate vehicular traffic on a realigned Pearl
Street.
Under the bid alternate for the contractor, Tensar Earth Technologies,
Inc. designed the retaining wall section of the project, redesigned the
specified precast panel walls and the tieback structure. These were replaced
by three Sierra ~m MSE slopes, one Mesa ;~ unitized segmental retaining
 An application of mechanically stabilized earth 279

wall, and three combination slope/wall MSE structures. The three cast-in-
place walls along Pearl Street were also replaced with Mesa walls.

ADVANTAGES OVER T R A D I T I O N A L SYSTEMS

There are many advantages to using a reinforced embankment system.

Based purely on aesthetics, the system surpasses the appearance of cast-in-
place or panel wall systems. An oversteepened geogrid reinforced slope
can be used in place of, or in combination with, a segmental retaining wall
to reduce costs and increase right-of-way. The concrete face is either fully
or partially eliminated, creating either a 'green' wall, or an architectural
block face wall/green wall combination. The oversteepened slope concept
can easily accommodate rapid changes in grade which can result from
unexpected field conditions. In addition, the ability to utilize readily
available site soils as a construction fill material over select soils furthers
the cost advantage.
In areas where space restrictions require the use of vertical wall systems,
a segmental block retaining wall system is again an aesthetic alternative to
cast-in-place or panel wall systems. Unlike traditional segmental block
walls, this new system is the only geogrid reinforced MSE segmental block
wall system which combines polymeric reinforcement, high compression
block, and a patented mechanical connector, to create a fully integrated
system. A typical detail of the block and FS2.0 T M connector is shown as
Fig. 2. The high compression block is specified at a 27,580 kPa (4000 PSI)
minimum. As such, it is more resistant to the effects of differential settle-
ment and freeze/thaw action than the more commonly used 13,790-
20,690kPa (2500 to 3000 PSI) landscape blocks. The FS2.0 mechanical
connector locks the structural geogrid to the block and provides the only
positive mechanical connection between segmental concrete facing units
and structural geogrid reinforcement in the industry today. Table 1
presents connection strength test results for the block and various
geogrids. These tests were conducted at very low confining pressures,
6-9 kPa (1 psi) and 13.8 kPa (2 psi), which are equivalent to approximately
0.5m (1.5f) and l m (3f) of overburden, respectively. The ultimate
strength of the connection for UX1400 was over 2.5 times greater than the
long term design strength of the geogrid for both confining pressures. The
connection strength at 19mm (0.75in) displacement was also over 2.5
times the long term design of the geogrid for both confining pressures. The
results for the UX1500, UX1600, and UX1700 were similar to that of the
UX1400. The ultimate strength was achieved at approximately 19mm
(0.75 in) of displacement and was approximately equal to, or greater than,
280 Mark H. Wayne, Bob Miller

MESA COMB
NOT TO SCALE
4OOmm

I I
I I
I I fCOi4B 275mm
ESA ST~'4DARDU N I T S / I I
WAIL BATTER)

TYPICAL MESA BLOCK CROSS-SECTION

NOT TO SCALE MESA BLOCK
NOT TO SCALE

Fig. 2. Typicalblock and connector detail.

twice the long term design strength of the geogrid. This information is
important when considering the use of segmental block wall systems in the
design of railway transit systems. This is mainly due to the fact that E-80
train loading results in high lateral loads at the top of the wall where
confining pressures are low. Table 1 confirms the fact that the block/
geogrid connector provides adequate connection strength even at low
confining pressures.

DESIGN P R O G R A M S

This project was designed through the use of the Tenswal (Tensar) and
Tenslo (Tensar) computer programs. The Tenswal program uses the tie-
back wedge method of analysis (which is the standard practice in the
United States) to determine the geogrid type, location, and lengths
required to satisfy both internal and external stability. The slope stability
program, Tenslol, uses a modified Bishop method of analysis. The
geometry, soil boundaries and strengths, phreatic surface, seismic coeffi-
cients, geogrid strengths, and geogrid layout are input into the program.
The program then uses a predetermined pattern of failure circle centers
 TABLE 1
Mesa/Tensar Structural Geogrid Connection Test Results
5
a
Geogrid Long-term Confining Ultimate F.S. on Connection F.S. on
5
design strength pressure connection ultimate strength at connection n.
kN/m kN/m2 strength connection 19 mm (314 in) strength at f?
6’
(Lbsflttl (psi) kN/m strength displacement 19mm (3/4in) z
(Lbslft) kN/m (lbslft) displacement 2

ux1400 14.8 6.9 45.5 3.1 36.9 2.5 2

as
(1016) (1) (3120) (2528) 3.
ux1400 14.8 13.8 38.8 2.6 38.5 2.6 6
(1016) (2659) (2638) t:z
(2) ti
ux1500 24.6 13.8 69.4 2,8 59.4 2.4 6o-
(1683) (2) (4756) (4071) z
R’
UX1600 13.8 78.9 2.5 64.1 2.4 %
(Z90) (5404) (5340) m
(2) $
ux1700 38.9 13.8 85.3 2.2 85.3 2.2 s
(2666) (2) (5845) (5845)
282 Mark H. Wayne, Bob Miller

as specified by the user to calculate driving and resisting moments of the

section. The increased resistance against failure due to geogrids inter-
sected by a circular slip plane is modeled as a resisting m o m e n t based on
the depth of overburden, geogrid strength and length of reinforcement
behind the failure surface. The program determines the critical radius for
each circle center analyzed. After all circle centers have been analyzed the
program then determines the lowest factor of safety and summarizes the
information for this circle center. Based on a railroad train loading
equation provided by MBTA, a railroad train spreadsheet calculation
was used to analyze train loading conditions and a reinforcement
requirement.

SURCHARGE LOADING

Several different surcharge loads were used in the design of the walls and
slopes for the Pearl Street project. A 28-7kN/m 2 (600psf) surcharge was
applied to take into account construction loads. A 55.8 k N / m 2 (1165 psf)
railroad train surcharge was determined in accordance with equations
supplied by the MBTA. The equation supplied by the MBTA stated that
the surcharge of an E-80 train is equivalent to approximately 2-9 m (9-5 f)
of soil with a unit weight of 18-9kN/m 3 (120pcf). In addition, a 1.2kN/
m 2 (25 psf) surcharge was included to account for the track. The summa-
tion of these two surcharge loads was used in design. For those track
sections where 1.5m (5 ft) or more of open space existed between the
tracks and edge of a wall or slope, a 12kN/m 2 (250psf) surcharge was
added to account for possible truck traffic. For the temporary wall
system, an additional analysis considered a 12kN/m (250psf) traffic
surcharge, along with 500ram (20in) of ballast at 18.9kN/m 3 (120pcf).
This equated to a dead load surcharge of 21.5kN/m 2 (450psf). Typical
cross-sections for the steep slopes, unitized segmental block retaining wall,
and slope/wall combinations are depicted as Figs 3--5, respectively.

G E O G R I D DESIGN S T R E N G T H S

Since this project involved phased construction, the design analysis inclu-
ded phased, temporary, and permanent walls. Phased and temporary walls
were designed on the basis of a six month service life. Due to the visco-
elastic nature of geosynthetic materials, the tensile strength is dependent
upon the rate of loading of the material. Based on this fact, along with
supporting documentation from external studies, geogrid strengths were
~ - - / OUTIDA~I,ILJI3.'IOILII~IP+I,I~ R I D ~ W I ~ ~" ~'SlL , / • ~ / . / , It
IllllmOIII I ~ IIImt~l"I~lmllml. -,~

~P'~"-
+ " " " sul IUPIIm°tpxs ~ ~ ~ . S
M~2tN O~..lqt A i ~ SILL
L,..,?II~ n E m a ~ m pltDO M l n l $ ~ ~ e~
I
Fig. 3. Typical slope detail.
 ~ ' " I I I I /
~ " ~ .

~~'M~'~
~,...
-'~
---4.
~' ,,
~
,,
~ ,
.I~
, X
""
t
""

-: :1 I,'---,C,~ .......... ~---/

-: ~1 It '~-,,.,

• :
- l

" - - 7 r
., ~

, : j.j.a ~ .... ~ ........

' [

. . . . . . . • k ---~" ~ " - " ,..,~ I

Fig. 4. Typical segmental block wall detail.

 m l ~ W !

] II .~t. X
I ~-H ~ , I , ~ /

,,\~1 5..'~.~.~1
-'-t'm~' ~ .t

~ w

~" * " - N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f .................

~N~I~UHDAI~

Fig. 5. Typical wall/slope detail.

286 Mark H. Wayne, Bob Miller

increased (from their long-term, 100 year design strength) for all short-
term loading conditions.

GENERALIZED DESIGN PROCEDURE

(l) The Tenswal (Tensar) design program was used to evaluate the
internal stability of the reinforced wall system. A 28.7kN/m 2
(600psf) construction surcharge and a factor of safety for uncer-
tainties of 1-5 or greater was considered in the analysis. For the
temporary wall system, an additional analysis considered a 12 kN/
m 2 (250psf) traffic surcharge and 500mm (20in) of ballast at
18.9kN/m 3 (120pcf). This equated to a dead load surcharge of
21.5 k N / m 2 (450 psf). Since ballast would not be added in the case
of the phased construction wall only a traffic surcharge of 12 kN/
m 2 (250 psf) was considered in this analysis.
(2) The Tenslol (Tensar) design program was used to perform global
stability analysis. Two cases were considered in this analysis.
Global stability analysis took into consideration a 55.8kN/m 2
(l165psf) railroad train surcharge and a 12kN/m 2 (250psf)
surcharge for truck traffic adjacent to the track. In addition, a
28-7 k N / m 2 (600 psf) construction surcharge was considered sepa-
rately. For both cases, a global factor of safety of 1-5 or greater
was used in the analysis.
(3) The Tenslo program was also used to perform seismic stability
analysis on the various cross-sections. Based on a short duration
loading of less than 1 h, the strength of the structural geogrid was
increased. Per MBTA, a peak horizontal acceleration of 0-17 g was
considered along with an acceleration coefficient of 0.10g as per
A A S H T O guidelines (AASHTO, 1991). An overall factor of safety
equal to or greater than 1-13 was used in this analysis.
(4) Railroad train loads were analyzed with the train spreadsheet
calculation. Distances from the appropriate cross-sections devel-
oped by MBTA were used to establish: (a) distance from the wall
face to the first railroad tie; (b) width of the railroad ties; and (c)
distances between the two railroad ties.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper focuses on the unique manner in which geosynthetic reinforced

earth systems were utilized to eliminate a grade crossing located at the
 An application of mechanically stabilized earth 287

line's intersection with Pearl Street. This project was unique in respect to
the fact that it is the first project to utilize mechanically stabilized earth
(MSE) slopes and unitized segmental block walls to support heavy rail-
road traffic (E-80 loading). This project also demonstrated the unique
manner in which a mechanically stabilized earth slope and unitized
segmental block wall were easily combined into a single MSE structure.
The wall and slope work for the Pearl Street project is expected to be
completed in October of 1995, and the entire project is scheduled for
completion by September 1996. With its completion, the Plymouth and
Middleboro commuter lines will carry passengers once again.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Sean Wokasien, Joe Emberson and Dolly
Cockroft of the TET design group for their assistance with the prepara-
tion of this paper. Special thanks to Francis Clark and Kathy Frederick
for their invaluable article on this topic. The authors would also like to
express their gratitude to the Sverdrup Corporation and the general
contractor, DeMatteo Construction, for considering the use of the Tensar
MSE systems.

REFERENCES

Tensar (1995). GEOTALK, MBTA Brings Old Rails Back "On Line", Issue 5-1,
Fall 1995.
Tensar. TENSWAL: wall stability program, The Tensar Corporation, Atlanta,
Georgia.
Tensar (1994). TENSLOI: slope stability program, The Tensar Corporation,
Atlanta, Georgia.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1991).
Standard specifications for highway bridges, 14th Edn with interim specifi-
cations-- bridges. AASHTO, Washington, DC.