Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

Experimental investigation on the performance of multi-tiered geogrid

mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls with wrap-around facing
subjected to earthquake loading
Amir Mohsen Safaee, Ahmad Mahboubi *, Ali Noorzad
Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

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

Keywords: Construction of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls in multi-tiered configurations is a promising solution
Physical modeling for increasing the height of such walls. The good performance of this type of walls after recent major earthquakes
Shaking table test was reported in a number of technical studies. In the present study, an experimental approach was adopted to
Multi-tiered MSE walls
compare the seismic performance of single-tiered and multi-tiered MSE walls using physical modeling and
Geogrid wrap-around facing
Earthquake loading
through conducting a series of uniaxial shaking table tests. To do so, several geogrid-reinforced soil walls with
Seismic performance wrap-around facing (i.e., three-, two-, and single-tiered) with a total height of 10 m were designed in the form of
prototypes of 1-m-height wall models. The step-wise intensified sinusoidal waves were applied to the models in
14 typical forms. Comparing the shaking table test results confirmed the post-earthquake advantages of multi-
tiered MSE walls. The results revealed that tiered walls exhibited better behaviors under earthquake loading
in terms of the seismic stability of the wall, displacement of the wall crest, horizontal displacement of the wall
facing, deformation mode and failure mechanism of the wall, settlement of backfill surface, and seismic accel­
eration responses.

1. Introduction
The mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are one of the most
popular geotechnical structures due to the flexibility in design, drainage
through wall facing, cost-effective and convenient construction, lower
manufacturing costs, durability and long lifespan, and environmental
compatibility. These advantages have led to the expansion of their
application in different civil infrastructures. The design and construction
of walls in multi-tiered configurations constitute practical techniques for
increasing the wall height (Stuedlein et al., 2012).
The design procedure and behavior of multi-tiered MSE walls at the
end of construction have been investigated experimentally (Leshchinsky
and Han, 2004; Yoo and Jung, 2004; Yoo and Kim, 2008; Stuedlein et al.,
2010; Yoo et al., 2011). Moreover, numerical methods have been
implemented to model the response of tiered walls (Yoo and Song, 2007;
Mohamed et al., 2013, 2014; Yang et al., 2014; Yoo, 2018; Seyedi
Hosseininia and Ashjaee, 2018; Bhattacharjee and Amin, 2019; Jav­
ankhoshdel et al., 2019).
The superior performance of reinforced soil walls in one-tiered
configurations during recent major earthquakes has been reported in
previous studies (Ling and Leshchinsky, 2001; Pamuk et al., 2005;
Koseki, 2012; Kuwano et al., 2014). Moreover, a number of studies have
been carried out on the dynamic response of single-tiered MSE walls
using shaking table tests (e.g., Huang et al., 2010, 2011; Guler and Selek,
2014; Wang et al., 2015; Li-Cong et al., 2018; Huang, 2019; Xu et al.,
2020b; Ren et al., 2020). Huang (2019) evaluated the seismic behavior
of vertical-faced wrap-around reinforced soil walls with a height of 0.6
m by performing a series of shaking table tests. The results indicated that
the maximum tensile forces induced by shaking increase as the depth of
the reinforcement increases. The good seismic performance of walls
even subjected to the combined forces of rainfall and earthquake was
reported by Ren et al. (2020).
However, few studies have been conducted on the seismic behavior
of multi-tiered walls, and only the dynamic performance of such walls
has been investigated through numerical analysis. The tiered geogrid-
reinforced walls with a height of 9-m were investigated using a cali­
brated finite element procedure under dynamic loading by Liu (2011). It
was found that the seismic performance of multi-tiered walls was better
than that of the single-tiered walls. Moreover, the performance
improvement was boosted by a decrease in reinforcement spacing. Liu

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a_safaee@sbu.ac.ir (A.M. Safaee), a_mahboubi@sbu.ac.ir (A. Mahboubi), a_noorzad@sbu.ac.ir (A. Noorzad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.08.008
Received 8 December 2019; Received in revised form 9 August 2020; Accepted 27 August 2020
Available online 7 October 2020
0266-1144/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.M. Safaee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145

et al. (2014) compared seismic performances between single-tiered and

three-tiered walls with a total height of 9 m through a validated finite
element simulation. They showed that an increase in the tier-offset
might amplify the resonant frequency of tiered walls. It is worth
noting that most of the above-mentioned studies have only assessed the
static performance of multi-tiered walls or their seismic response using
numerical methods.
The present study aims to examine the seismic behavior of multi-
tiered MSE walls by performing a series of shaking table tests on the
reduced-scale physical models. The single-tiered and multi-tiered walls
are designed using conventional design guidelines. The wall models are
compared in terms of the measured values of the most critical dynamic
parameters after the application of different seismic loadings.

2. Equipment and materials

2.1. Shaking table test set-up

Shaking table tests can be used for simulating the response of rela­
Fig. 1. The details of physical wall models and shaking table equipment. tively tall structures subjected to strong ground motions. The main
equipment in shaking table tests, consisting of a uniaxial hydraulic
motor, a container box made up of transparent Plexiglas sheets, instru­
Table 1
mentation, and two acquisition units (20- and 10-channels), can be seen
Scaling factors and corresponding values in this study (λ = 0.5 and N = 10).
in Fig. 1. The dimensions of the container box are 182 cm (length) × 123
Variable Parameter Scale Factor Calculated values cm (height) × 80 cm (width), and the 10 cm × 10 cm meshes have been
Acceleration a 1 1.000 drawn on the sidewall for better observation of the model
Density ρ 1 1.000 displacements.
Length L 1/N 10.000
Stress σ 1/N 10.000
Strain ε 1/N1− λ 3.162 2.2. Similitude rules
Stiffness G 1/N λ 3.162
Bending capacity M (EI) 1/N4 10000.000 Dimensional analysis is an essential step in experimental studies to
Displacement d 1/N 2− λ 31.645 satisfy the simulation requirements of the physical model and the pro­
Frequency f 0.178
totype. In the physical modeling of MSE walls, the proper scaling of
N1− α/λ
reinforcement and soil characteristics plays a crucial role in the accuracy
Force F 1/N3 1000.000
of the tests. Yazdandoust (2017) considered a governing parameter (λ)
Force/L F/L 1/N2 100.000
to calculate the scale factor of steel-strip reinforced soil walls. In the
Shear wave velocity Vs 1/Nλ/2 1.778
present study, λ was set to 0.5, and the scale factor between prototype
Time t 1/N1− λ/2 5.624 and physical model (N) was set to 10. The results of dimensional analysis
are listed in Table 1.

Table 2 2.3. Characteristics of the backfill soil

The properties of mixture used as backfill and foundation.
Gs Φ D10 D30 D50 Cu Cc ɤd max ɤd min Firuzkooh 161 sand is silica sand with fine and regular gradation
(Degree) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/ (kN/ similar to Toyora sand (Sabermahani et al., 2009). FHWA (2009) design
m3) m3) guidelines have proposed a relative density equal to 85% as the mini­
2.66 42 0.15 0.24 0.29 2.28 1.18 17.5 14.6 mum density required for backfill. Due to the grain size distribution of
the sand, and its limited range of dry unit weight (14.6 ​ kN/m3 −
16.5 ​ kN/m3 ), and the practical limitations (e.g., the available equip­
ment for soil compaction), a mixture of Firouzkooh 161 sand and Fir­
ouzkooh silt with moisture of 6% (the optimum moisture of soil mixture)
is used for the wall backfill (Dr = 85% and γd = 17.01 ​ kN/m3 ) (Yaz­
dandoust, 2017).
A series of undrained triaxial tests were conducted on the specimens
prepared with the same density as the backfill in the test (Dr = 85%),
using six different confining pressures of 10, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 kPa
to specify the shear strength characteristics of the used silty sand.
Table 2 lists the properties of the soil mixture, while Fig. 2 depicts the
curve of grain size distributions.

2.4. Geogrid reinforcement

Fig. 2. The grain size distribution of the sand-silt mixture used for the con­
A wide range of reduced-scale reinforcements, with specifications
struction of physical models.
and behavior identical to the actual high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
geogrids, were examined. Mahajan and Viswanadham (2007) intro­
duced the tensile strength-strain behavior and soil-reinforcement

131
A.M. Safaee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145

Fig. 3. The results of uniaxial tensile test on low-strength geogrid.

Fig. 4. The geogrid wrap-around facing in wall models.

as the reinforcement in the modeling (see Fig. 3).

Table 3
The ultimate tensile strength and stiffness for this low-strength
Values of the critical offset distance.
geogrid were 1.2 kN/m and 98.22 kN/m, respectively. Given the scale
Reference Method Dcr factor of the modeling, N = 10, and the scale factor ratio obtained for
Equation Value tensile strength and stiffness of reinforcements equal to N2, (Table 1),
FHWA (2009) Experimental (tan 90◦ − φ) 5.96
the values were obtained of 120 kN/m as tensile strength and 9820 kN/
HL m as tensile stiffness for the prototype. Bathurst and Hatami (1998)
Leshchinsky and Han (2004) Limit equilibrium 0.8 HL 4.00 suggested that a tensile stiffness beyond 2000 kN/m can be classified as
Yoo et al. (2011) Finite element 0.8 HL 4.00 relatively stiff geosynthetic reinforcement. It was ensured that the me­
method chanical characteristics of the reinforcements were consistent between
Mohamed et al. (2013) Limit equilibrium 0.7 HL 3.50
the reduced-scale and real geogrids.
Mohamed et al. (2014) Finite element 0.73 HL 3.65
method
Seyedi Hosseininia and Ashjaee Discrete model 0.8 HL 4.00
(2018)
2.5. Facing
Seyedi Hosseininia and Ashjaee Two-phase model 0.77 HL 3.85
(2018) The wrap-around facing was selected to accurately determine the
wall deformation and observe the wall failure mode. Fig. 4 presents a
view of the geogrid wrap-around facing.
interaction as two critical factors to model the reinforcement in
The rigidity of the facing and the interaction between the facing and
reduced-scale tests. Sabermahani et al. (2009) showed that the stiffness
the reinforced soil mass had a negligible influence on the seismic
of reinforcement has a higher level of influence on the seismic perfor­
response of the wall due to the flexibility of the wrap-around geogrid
mance of the walls than the tensile strength. Therefore, a series of uni­
facing, compared to more rigid facings such as modular concrete panels
axial tensile strength tests were performed on the selected reduced-scale
or full-faced concrete facing. The performance of the geogrid MSE walls
reinforcements to measure their tensile resistance and stiffness. After
with wrap-around facing has been studied by many authors (e.g.,
evaluation of the test results, the low-strength HDPE geogrid was chosen
Krishna and Latha, 2007; Sabermahani et al., 2009; Bhattacharjee and

132
A.M. Safaee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145

field walls (Yu et al., 2016). Therefore, an attempt has been made to
make the process of wall model construction similar to the proper
method of wall prototype building.
The thickness of the model foundation was set at 10 cm based on the
limitations of the height of the container box. At first, a foundation with
a relative density of 85% was constructed on the shaking table deck. It
was indicated that for the geosynthetic reinforced soil wall, the stiffness
and strength of the foundation could have a significant effect on the
wall’s behavior (Rowe and Skinner, 2001). In the next step, the first
layer of the reduced-scale geogrid was placed on the model foundation
and was wrapped at the facing. In the third step, the first layer of the
reinforced and retained soil zone was built. As already noted, a relative
density of 85% was achieved in the tests at the moisture of 6%, wherein
the dry unit weight of the sand-silt mixture was equal to 17.01 kN/m3.
A volume-controlled method was implemented to achieve an iden­
tical target relative density for all layers. In this method, the mass of the
backfill soil to be placed in each 25 mm backfill lift (each 75 mm-thick
backfill layer was divided into three 25 mm-thick soil lifts) was calcu­
lated using volumetric relations based on the maximum and minimum
dry unit weight of the soil mixture. Then, a rigid steel plate was used to
compact the soil to its target elevation marked on the box container.
The second and third steps were repeated until reaching the total
height of the models. In addition, the tier-offset was accounted for in the
specified elevation for the multi-tiered models.
Other details of the modeling can be expressed as follows:

1 Using a thick reduced-scale geotextile layer in the reinforcement

section to form the wrap-around facing and to prevent the soil from
leaking out;
2 Placing colored sand in the horizontal and vertical layers close to the
container box side to better observe wall deformations and the fail­
ure mechanisms of the models;
3 Using paraffin to reduce the friction between the body of the box and
the backfill soil; and

4- Using a layer of 5 cm-thick polystyrene foam attached to the inner

side of the container box at the end of the models, as suggested by
El-Emam and Buthurst (2007), and Ren et al. (2020), to reduce the
reflection of waves from the rigid boundaries;

The design of MSE walls arrangement

Fig. 5. A typical sketch of the test setup: (a) single-tiered (GRS1); (b) two-tiered
(GRS2); (c) three-tiered (GRS3) wall models (all dimensions are cm). FHWA (2009) and FHWA (2005) design guidelines were used to
design the single-tiered and multi-tiered walls, respectively. The various
parameters (e.g., wall height) were considered to control the scale ef­
Table 4 fects for comparing the responses between the models and the pro­
Factors of safety values obtained for designed walls under static and dynamic totypes. Several researchers tested the physical models of 1 m-high
conditions.
reinforced soil walls (Bathurst et al., 2002; El-Emam and Bathurst, 2007;
Wall model Analysis method Static conditions Dynamic conditions Sabermahani et al., 2009; Komak Panah et al., 2015; Yazdandoust,
GRS1 FHWA 2.142 1.855 2017, 2018, 2019a, 2019b). In this study, all of the models were con­
LE 2.053 1.379 structed with a height of 1 m. A number of equations were presented in
FE 1.568 1.411 previous studies for calculating the critical value of the tier-offset (Dcr),
GRS2 FHWA 2.250 1.883
as presented in Table 3.
LE 2.200 1.387
FE 1.536 1.454 The value provided by the FHWA (2005) was assumed as the upper
GRS3 FHWA 2.197 2.020 bound for the tier-offset. Besides, this guideline suggested an equation to
LE 2.153 1.491 determine the minimum value of the offset distance (Dmin ), as described
FE 1.895 1.611
by Eq. (1).
HL + HU
Krishna, 2012; Balakrishnan and Viswanadham, 2015; Santos et al., Dmin = (1)
20
2014; Yu et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2020b).
where HL and HU are the heights of the lower and upper tier, respec­
tively. If the length of the tier-offset (D) ranges from Dmin to Dcr, then the
2.6. Model construction procedure wall system would be treated as a tiered wall. Accordingly, D was
assumed to be the average of Dmin and Dcr. Finally, the tier-offset lengths
It has been shown that the construction method of the wall has a of 3 m and 1.5 m were considered for two-tiered and three-tiered walls,
significant influence on wall displacements and reinforcement loads in

133
A.M. Safaee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145

Fig. 6. Free vibration Fourier spectrum obtained from the impact pulse test.

Table 5 Table 6
Characteristics of dynamic input waves in the first typical category. Brief descriptions of seismic loading in the second typical category.
Name amax - Duration Frequency α β ξ CAV Name amax - PGA Duration Frequency Number of
PGA (s) (Hz) (g) (s) (Hz) cycles
(g)
Wave No. 0.5 2.5 4 10
Wave 0.30 5 6 9.6 74630 13 598 13
No. Wave No. 0.9 6.6 3 20
01 14
Wave 0.40 5 6 9.6 132650 13 785
No.
02 methods, including manual calculations (using the recommendations of
Wave 0.50 5 6 9.6 206950 13 960
the FHWA, the limit equilibrium (LE), and the finite elements (FE)
No.
03
methods under both static and seismic conditions. According to the
Wave 0.50 7 6 6.5 627.5 14 1419 obtained safety factors (see Table 4), the walls were had at the same
No. level of safety factors.
04
Wave 0.50 9 6 3.8 126.1 8.5 1888
4. Shaking table tests
No.
05
Wave 0.50 11 6 3 20.8 8.3 2373 Three physical models were constructed and tested, including single-
No. tiered (GRS1), two-tiered (GRS2), and three-tiered (GRS3) walls for
06
evaluating the seismic behavior.
Wave 0.50 13 6 2.7 1.09 10 2861
No.
07 4.1. Instrumentation
Wave 0.50 15 6 1.95 3.45 7 3366
No.
The displacements of the wall face and the settlements of the backfill
08
Wave 0.60 15 6 1.95 4.96 7 3961 surfaces were measured using nine linear variable displacement trans­
No. ducers (LVDT) with a capacity of ±50 mm and accuracy of ±0.5%,
09 spaced regularly across the wall height.
Wave 0.70 15 6 1.95 6.75 7 4464
A total of 13 accelerometers (of two types) were installed in different
No.
10
positions, including (1) near the facing, (2) in the reinforced soil zone,
Wave 0.80 15 6 1.95 8.82 7 4869 and (3) in the retained soil zone of the models, to measure the seismic
No. accelerations. The first type of accelerometers included small-sized
11 waterproof acceleration transducers, which were used to measure the
Wave 0.90 15 6 1.95 11.16 7 5233
one-dimensional horizontal accelerations with the measurement ca­
No.
12 pacity of ±2 g and accuracy of ±4%. The second type involved the
waterproof acceleration transducers, which recorded the accelerations
in three directions with the measurement capacity of ±2 g and accuracy
respectively. The schematics of the test models and the instruments are of ±1%. Another accelerometer, called ACC0, was installed on the deck
plotted in Fig. 5 for the single-, two-, and three-tiered models of soil of the shaking table to control the base input acceleration. The config­
retaining wall. uration of the instruments is illustrated in Fig. 5.
The values of other design parameters, such as length, resistance, and
stiffness of reinforcements were set in an appropriate range to satisfy the 4.2. Seismic input motions
internal and external stability of the walls.
The stability of the designed MSE walls was evaluated using several The step-wise intensified sinusoidal waves were applied to the

134
A.M. Safaee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145

Fig. 7. A typical acceleration time history of input seismic wave (wave No. 12).

Fig. 8. Seismic lateral displacements of the wall facing under waves No. 08 to No. 12 pertinent to the model of: (a) one-tiered; (b) two-tiered; (c) three-tiered wall.

135
A.M. Safaee et al.
Fig. 9. The maximum horizontal displacements measured at the wall facing after application of waves No. 08 to No. 14 on: (a) GRS1; (b) GRS2; (c) GRS3 models.
models as the input seismic motions. This form of dynamic loading has
successfully used in previous studies (El-Emam and Bathurst, 2007;
Krishna and Latha, 2007; Sabermahani et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2011;
Huang, 2019; Komak Panah et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Yazdan­
doust, 2017, 2018; 2019a, 2019b). The results revealed that this type of
wave was more aggressive than a typical earthquake record with the
same predominant frequency and amplitude. The loading function can
be expressed as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
u¨​ (t) = β.e− αt .tξ .Sin ​ (2π.f.t) (2)
136
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145
where u¨ ​ (t) is the acceleration, f is the loading frequency, t is the time
duration of the dynamic loading, and α, β, ξ are constant values speci­
fying the shape of the loading and the number of cycles.
The fundamental frequency of the wall models was calculated based
on the impact tests performed before the first shaking using two typical
approaches proposed by Sabermahani et al. (2009).
The first approach employs the cross-correlation technique using the
one-dimensional wave propagation in the horizontal soil layers. The
fundamental frequency of the wall model is calculated based on the
A.M. Safaee et al.
Fig. 10. The overview of constructed wall models and the final deformation modes of: (a) and (b) single-tiered; (c) and (d) two-tiered; (e) and (f) three-tiered
wall models.
results of the impact tests as follows:
Vs 107
ff = = = 26.75 ​ Hz
4H 4 × 1
where Vs is the shear wave velocity, which is obtained 107 m/s, and H
denotes the height of the wall.
In the second approach, the fundamental frequency of the model is
computed by the Fourier spectrum of the input waves. Given the fre­
quency content of the free vibration response after the impact tests
(Fig. 6), the fundamental frequency of the model walls corresponded to
the peak at 25 Hz. It was shown that the obtained frequencies by the two
approaches were consistent.
The frequency of the waves was set to 6 Hz by evaluating the results
and considering a margin for the wall’s fundamental frequency to pre­
vent resonance. Varnier and Hatami (2011) showed that the predomi­
nant frequencies of earthquake records could typically range from 0.1 to
10 Hz. It is worth noting that during all the tests, the data logging in­
terval was 5 ms. (i.e., a frequency of 200 Hz).
The cumulative absolute velocity (CAV) parameter can be used to
quantify the power of the waves (Komak Panah et al., 2015). The
following theoretical formula is used to calculate the CAV for each wave.
∫t
CAV = |a(t)|dt ​
0
where a(t) denotes the acceleration function, and t represents the
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145
duration of the loading. The values of CAV for each wave (waves No. 01
to No. 12) are listed in Table 5. Two cyclic motions (namely, waves No.
(3) 13 and No. 14) were also applied to the models after the termination of
the first 12 seismic waves to generate the failure surfaces on the models
and observe the final deformation mode of the walls. Finally, 14 dy­
namic waves were applied to the models. The specifications of the waves
are presented in Tables 5 and 6. Moreover, Fig. 7 shows a sample time-
acceleration curve related to one of the input waves.
5. Experimental results
The seismic performance of the walls was analyzed in two general
categories, including dynamic deformation and seismic acceleration
responses. The crucial parameters influencing the dynamic behavior of
the geogrid MSE walls are compared among the three models.
5.1. Seismic displacements
The results of the experimental study conducted by Nakajima et al.
(2008) suggest that deformation characteristics of the reinforced backfill
are necessary for evaluating the performance of the reinforced soil
retaining walls, especially under seismic loading.
(4)
5.1.1. Seismic lateral displacements of the wall facing
Typical time histories of lateral displacements of the wall wrap-
around facing are shown in Fig. 8 for all the models after the termina­
tion of waves No. 08 to No. 12. Results indicate that the amplitude of the
137
A.M. Safaee et al.
Fig. 11. The measured facing displacements at the various heights and shaking intensities.
lateral displacements increased significantly by increasing the peak
ground acceleration (PGA) of the input seismic waves. Similar dis­
placements responses were reported by Latha and Santhanakumar
(2015), Bhattacharjee and Krishna (2015), Yazdandoust (2018), and
Zheng et al. (2019) for the reduced-scale models of single reinforced soil
walls.
According to Fig. 8, the maximum displacements of the walls after
applying wave No. 14 were 32.25 mm, 8.51 mm, and 6.31 mm for GRS1,
GRS2, and GRS3 models, respectively. A further comparison between
Fig. 8a to c indicates that the wrap-around facing had lower displace­
ments in the multi-tiered models than the single wall model, which
might be due to the less reinforced soil mass in tiered wall affecting the
magnitude of the dynamic pressure. As a result, the construction of walls
in multi-tiered form can considerably reduce the facing residual lateral
displacement in comparison to the single-tiered walls, which is consis­
tent with the results of Liu et al. (2014) for a three-tiered wall.
The concept of performance-based design has increasingly been
applied to MSE walls, and it has been adopted in the current seismic
design guidelines, e.g., FHWA (2009), and AASHTO (2014) (Gaudio
et al., 2018). This method needs to determine the significant ranges of
wall deformations as the boundaries of wall performance levels. The
138
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145
boundaries of the behavior change during the earthquake are also
defined based on the test results. Three behaviors were detected after
applying the seismic waves, i.e., quasi-elastic, plastic, and failure
behaviors.
Fig. 9 shows the wall deformation vs. time for all the wall models
after applying waves No. 08 to No. 14. The wall deformations observed
after applying the initial waves were negligible; hence, the model
behavior could be considered quasi-elastic.
In the multi-tiered walls, a noticeable change in wall deformation
was observed during the generation of initial cracks on the backfill
surface by increasing the wave power after the application of wave No.
11. Accordingly, wave No. 11 could indicate the change in the boundary
of the model behavior from quasi-elastic to plastic, while the plastic
threshold acceleration was 0.8 g. The Δx/H values of the model were
0.46% and 0.35% for the two-tiered and three-tiered models at this
boundary, respectively. Δx/H stands for the normalized lateral
displacement of the facing, where Δx is the displacement of the middle
point of the wall, and H is the height of the wall.
Furthermore, the results indicate that the former boundary (quasi-
elastic to plastic) was observed after applying wave No. 09 in the single-
tiered model. Therefore, the threshold acceleration and Δx/H were
A.M. Safaee et al.
Fig. 12. The details of failure mechanisms after application wave No. 14 on the: (a) one-tiered; (b) two-tiered; (c) three-tiered wall models.
obtained as 0.6 g and 0.74% for the one-tiered model, respectively.
Yazdandoust (2017) obtained a consistent range of Δx/H between
0.2% and 0.8% to represent a transitional state of the walls from
quasi-elastic to the plastic state, which is in good agreement with the
results of the present study.
When applying wave No. 14 the failure wedge started forming, and
the cracks developed on the backfill surfaces in all three models. This
step was known as the boundary of behavior change from plastic to
failure, where the threshold acceleration value was 0.9 g, and the values
of the model Δx/H were 0.85%, 0.76%, and 0.63% for GRS1, GRS2, and
GRS3 models, respectively.
5.1.2. The deformation modes and the failure mechanisms of the walls
Three typical forms of deformation modes for single reinforced soil
walls include bulging, overturning, and base sliding (Sabermahani et al.,
2009). Bhattacharjee and Krishna (2012) demonstrated that the defor­
mation of a wrap-faced wall subjected to dynamic excitation consisted of
three different modes of failure, i.e., shear deformation within the
reinforced zone, relative compaction near the end of the reinforcement,
and a compound failure surface extending to the backfill zone. All the
wall models failed after applying wave No. 14. The modes of wall
deformation are investigated and compared between the single-tiered
and multi-tiered walls by observing the deformation form and evalu­
ating the recorded outputs, as shown in Fig. 10. The bulging deformation
mode formed in GRS1 model, as presented in Fig. 10b. In the
multi-tiered models, the modes of the deformation were investigated in
each tier individually. For GRS2 model (Fig. 10d), the deformation mode
of the first tier was overturning, and bulging with base sliding were
observed for the second tier. As depicted in Fig. 10f, the deformation
modes of GRS3 model were overturning, base sliding, and bulging with
139
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145
base sliding for the first, second, and third tiers, respectively. The
dominant failure mode of the third tier of the three-tiered model is
possibly formed due to a reduction of confinement within the bottom
reinforcement layers with a decrease in resistance to base sliding.
Fig. 11 depicts the profile of the horizontal displacements of the
wrap-around facing along the height of the walls to distinguish the
general predominant modes of the wall deformation, whose typical
shape formed gradually by increasing the power of the seismic input
waves.
All the models showed a predominant mode of bulging (Fig. 11d).
The obtained results show a satisfactory agreement with the findings of
Zhang et al. (2019), Xu et al. (2020b), and Fan et al. (2020). In the
bulging mode of the wall models, an internal failure surface is generated
due to the application of the dynamic waves. The maximum value of
facing deformation occurred at the middle height of the wall approxi­
mately, and the maximum settlement of the backfill surface was in the
retained soil mass zone. Experimental evidence of deformation modes
and the failure surfaces provided in this study are in good agreement
with the details presented by Sabermahani et al. (2009) and Huang
(2019) for one-tiered walls reinforced by geogrid.
After applying all vibrations, the maximum displacement of the one-
tiered wall was obtained as 82.2 mm. However, the maximum de­
formations of two-tiered and three-tiered walls were 46.4 mm and 31.9
mm, respectively. Measured results show that the construction of walls
in the tiered configurations can affect wall displacements at the time of
failure, with a negligible impact on the general predominant failure
mode.
The failure surfaces were generated at the 15th second of the 14th
shaking (Fig. 12). The wall failure mechanisms were determined based
on the development of the failure surface in the models.
A.M. Safaee et al.
Fig. 13. The settlements of wall backfill measured at the surfaces of: (a) wall crest; (b) retained soil.
These surfaces started from the lower half of the walls (first half of
the single-tiered and the first tier of the multi-tiered models) inside the
reinforced soil mass and passed through some initial reinforcements.
Then, the surfaces were developed up to the backfill surface through the
retained soil zone. It was observed that fewer reinforcement layers were
located inside the failure surfaces in the multi-tiered wall models
compared to the single-tiered model (five layers for the single-tiered and
four layers for the multi-tiered models). As shown in Fig. 12, in all cases,
the maximum displacements of the wall facing occurred approximately
at the middle height of the walls. These results are consistent with the
results of other authors, positing that the failure surfaces are not
developed in upper tiers in general (Liu et al., 2014). The upper tiers are
generally affected by lower localized shear regions, which is the primary
reason for the formation of an internal rupture level in the lower tiers.
The observed failure surfaces are compared with those proposed by
the FHWA (2009) (see Fig. 12). It can be noted that the inclination angle
of the observed surfaces is in good agreement with the surfaces proposed
by the current design practice. The difference is in the shape of surfaces,
which the FHWA guideline suggests a planar failure surface, but the
surfaces obtained in the present study are not planar. Therefore, the
anchored lengths of the reinforcement layers are shorter than that pre­
dicted by FHWA.
Thus, it is non-conservative to calculate the reinforcement anchorage
lengths based on the failure surface predicted from current seismic
design methods. Similar results were previously reported (Koseki et al.,
1998; El-Emam, 2018; Xu et al., 2019).
The general form of the failure surfaces is consistent with the results
140
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145
of Komak Panah et al. (2015), Yazdandoust (2017), and Huang (2019).
The reinforcement length of the tiered walls plays a decisive role in the
formation of strains in the soil (Bhattacharjee and Amin, 2019). The
horizontal length of the ground that reinforced by the geogrids is longer
in the multi-tiered than the one-tiered wall models, which is as long as
the wall’s tier-offset length. These layers of reinforcements with suffi­
cient lengths prevent the development of combined sliding surfaces
(especially in the upper tiers) and improve the external stability of the
walls, which is one of the most significant advantages of wall con­
struction in tiered form.
5.1.3. Settlement profile of the wall backfill sand surfaces
The settlements of the wall backfill surfaces were measured at two
locations, i.e., the surface of the wall crest and retained soil, after
applying wave No. 12, using LVDT7 and LVDT9. The settlement profiles
for single-, two-, and three-tiered wall models are depicted in Fig. 13. In
all cases, the soil settlements in the crest surfaces of the wall models
were much smaller than those in the retained soil, consistent with the
results obtained by Ling et al. (2005). The results reveal that the seismic
settlements of the backfill soil surfaces could effectively decrease in the
tiered walls. Moreover, compared to the single walls, the differential
settlements between the reinforced and retained zones of the
multi-tiered walls are substantially low.
The number, location, and development of cracks generated on the
backfill surface of the wall models were discussed as well. As depicted in
Fig. 14, the first crack was generated after wave No. 09 on the surfaces of
the one-tiered model, and after wave No. 11 on the multi-tiered wall
A.M. Safaee et al.
Fig. 14. The cracks generated on the ground surfaces of: (a) one-tiered; (b) two-tiered; (c) three-tiered wall models.
surfaces. Therefore, the initial cracks formed after applying the stronger
shakings on the multi-tiered models. In addition, more cracks were
generated on the surface of the single wall compared to the multi-tiered
models after the application of wave No. 12.
Moreover, nine cracks were created after GRS1 model failure,
whereas seven cracks were observed in GRS2 and GRS3 models.
Therefore, the presence and development of cracks on the surfaces of the
multi-tiered wall models are better than the single-tiered model.
141
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145
5.1.4. The settlement profile of wall tier-offset surfaces
Fig. 15 presents the time histories of settlements related to the wall
tier-offset surfaces at the end of the shaking process for the single berm
of GRS2 model, and both berms of GRS3 model. The magnitude of the
settlements was the same in the single berm of GRS2 and in the first
berm of GRS3 model. The observations from Fig. 15c show that the
settlements measured at the second berm surfaces of the three-tiered
model were negligible (a few millimeters).
Based on the above results, the vertical displacements of the berm
A.M. Safaee et al.
Fig. 15. The settlements profiles of the wall tier-offset for: (a) the first tier in the two-tiered model; (b) the first; (c) the second tier in the three-tiered model.
surfaces of tiers are located in an acceptable range in the multi-tiered
models.
5.2. Wall acceleration response
Dynamic acceleration is an important parameter in the seismic
behavior of MSE walls. This section provides the details of the acceler­
ation responses recorded for the wall physical models at 12 different
elevations and in three general regions (including wall facing, reinforced
soil zone, and the retained soil zone). Results show that the acceleration
increases by increasing the model height and the PGA of input motions.
The Root Mean Square Acceleration (RMSA) amplification factor is
the magnitude rate of acceleration response in the soil due to vibration
(Kramer, 1996). The value of this parameter can be computed as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√ ∫td
√ multi-tiered models was lower than that of the single-tiered model near
√1
RMSA = √ a(t)2 ​ dt (5)
td
0 facing (inside the reinforced soil zone) increased, the following factors
where a(t) is the acceleration time-history, and td is the duration of
acceleration record. The results for GRS1, GRS2, and GRS3 models are
shown in Fig. 16. Komak Panah et al. (2015) showed that the values of
amplification factors in the reinforced zone were larger than those in the
backfill soil, which can be due to the possible reduction of shear stiffness
of the sand backfill material by accumulating permanent deformation.
The results of the present study confirm this observation.
Furthermore, the obtained results illustrate that the RMSA factors are
larger than 1.0 and non-uniformly distribute over the height, which
agrees well with the findings of Yang et al. (2013), Bhattacharjee and
Krishna (2012) and Xu et al. (2020a). Also, Xu et al. (2020b) reported
higher acceleration amplification in the upper half of the wall, consis­
tent with the results of the current study.
The current design guidelines for MSE walls are mainly based on
pseudo-static methods, which involve simplified assumptions (Xu et al.,
2020b). FHWA (2009) relate the horizontal acceleration coefficient (kh)
to the peak ground acceleration of the site (ag) as follows:
( )
ag ag
kh = 1.45 − (6)
g g
When the ag is larger than 0.45 g, the value of the second part of Eq.
a
(6) will be less than one (1.45 − gg ≤ 1) and, in turn, the result of the
equation is reductive, i.e., the acceleration de-amplification occurs
within the wall. In this regard, Segrestin and Bastick (1988) recommend
that Eq. (6) be used with caution because it is based on the results of the
142
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145
finite element numerical modeling of steel-reinforced soil walls. It is
shown that for ag/g < 0.3, Eq. (6) used by FHWA (2009) is closer to the
experimental values. The results of a series of shaking table tests con­
ducted by El-Emam (2018) demonstrated that the input base accelera­
tion was substantially amplified for input motions larger than 0.45 g,
which is consistent with the results of the present study. Richardson
et al. (1977) recorded an increase in soil surface acceleration amplifi­
cation by increasing the amplitude of the input base acceleration. In
addition, the experimental results indicated that the current FHWA
significantly underestimates the acceleration amplification for input
motions larger than 0.45 g. The findings of the current study are sup­
ported by a number of previous studies (e.g., Komak Panah et al., 2015;
Yazdandoust, 2017, 2019b).
A comparison of the RMSA values between single-tiered and multi-
tiered wall models illustrates that the acceleration response of the
the wall facing. According to Fig. 16b, as the distance from the wall
were more consistent in all of the models. The decreasing acceleration
amplification was also detected in the retained soil of the tiered walls.
The RMSA values for all the models were in an intermediate-range
(from 1 to 1.7). For instance, the values for the retained soil after
wave No. 12 were obtained as 1.61, 1.39, and 1.32 for GRS1, GRS2, and
GRS3 models, respectively. Comparing these factors shows that the
magnitude of acceleration amplification decreased in multi-tiered
models, and a slight difference was observed between the two-tiered
and three-tiered wall models. It is therefore concluded that the con­
struction of multi-tiered walls can prevent further increases in acceler­
ation amplification factors due to the lower weight of the backfill soil.
6. Conclusions
The present study aimed to conduct a series of shaking table tests on
the models of single-tiered and multi-tiered mechanically stabilized
earth (MSE) walls. A significant contribution of this study is a deep
understanding of the seismic performance of the tiered geogrid-
reinforced soil walls. The following conclusions are made based on the
results of the present study:
1 The deformations in the facing of multi-tiered models were about
230% lower than that of the single walls models, which can be
attributed to the lower magnitude of the dynamic pressure applied
on the facing of the tiered wall due to the lower weight of the rein­
forced soil mass. This result suggests that the construction of the
A.M. Safaee et al.
Fig. 16. Acceleration amplification factors obtained after applying some of the waves related to: (a) facing; (b) reinforced zone; (c) retained zone.
reinforced soil walls in a tiered fashion can significantly reduce
lateral displacements of the walls.
2 The threshold accelerations related to the change in the boundary of
the model behavior from quasi-elastic state to the plastic state were
0.6 g and 0.8 g for the one-tiered and multi-tiered wall models,
respectively. The Δx/H values were 0.74%, 0.46%, and 0.35% for the
GRS1, GRS2 and GRS3 wall models, respectively. The boundary of
behavior change from plastic to failure state was observed during the
application of wave No. 14 in all models. The failure threshold ac­
celeration was 0.9 g, and the Δx/H values for this boundary for
single-, two-, and three-tiered wall models were obtained as 0.85%,
0.76%, and 0.63%, respectively.
3 The bulging deformation mode occurred in the single wall model.
The multi-tiered walls exhibited multiple modes of deformation
under input excitations. The overturning and bulging with base
sliding modes were observed in the first and second tiers of GRS2
model, respectively. The pattern of the observed deformation modes
143
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145
in GRS3 model involved overturning, base sliding, and bulging with
base sliding for the first, second, and third tiers, respectively. These
results imply that the damage to multi-tiered MSE walls would be
lower in stronger seismic events.
4 The extra length of soil reinforcement in the tiered walls has pre­
vented the development of combined sliding surfaces, especially in
the upper tiers, and improved the external stability of the walls. This
result is one of the essential benefits of tiered MSE walls. The con­
struction of walls in multi-tiered form can also affect displacements
at the failure time, whereas it has a negligible impact on the general
predominant failure mode.
5 The maximum vertical deformations of the single-tiered wall model
were 3.9 and 1.68 times that of the two-tiered and three-tiered wall
models, respectively. In addition, the construction of tiered walls can
effectively decrease the seismic settlements of the backfill soil sur­
faces. The differential settlements between the reinforced and
retained zones of the multi-tiered walls are much lower compared to
A.M. Safaee et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145

single-tiered walls. Moreover, the presence and development of the
cracks have led to a decrease in the tiered wall models.
6 The acceleration responses of tiered models were lower than that of
the single-tiered model at the wall backfill and near the wall facing.
Accordingly, the multi-tiered walls can prevent further increase in
acceleration amplification factors due to the lower weight of the
backfill soil, which is another key result proving the dynamic
advantage of multi-tiered MSE walls.
All seismic response characteristics have confirmed the better dy­
namic behavior of multi-tiered MSE walls compared to the single-tiered
walls. The results of the current study can provide a reference for the
performance analysis of the wrap-around geogrid MSE walls in the
multi-tiered configurations, especially in the seismic conditions.
Acknowledgments
The physical models were constructed and tested at the Centrifuge
and Physical Modeling Center of Tehran University. Special thanks go to
Dr. Abbas Ghalandarzadeh for his valuable insights and recommenda­
tions. The authors appreciate the people M.A. Salimi, M. Edalatnia, A.
Sarabi, A.H. Safaee, and Z. Donyadideh for their contribution in con­
ducting some of the experiments. Financial support from the Rahyab
Melal Consulting Engineers Company is gratefully acknowledged.

NOTATION

Basic SI units are shown in parentheses

λ governing parameter for scaling (dimensionless)

φ internal friction of soil (degree)
ü (t) acceleration (m/s2)
Δx/H normalized horizontal displacement (dimensionless)
Δx lateral displacement of facing (mm)
a(t) acceleration (m/s2)
ag peak ground acceleration of the site (m/s2)
Cc coefficient of curvature (dimensionless)
Cu coefficient of uniformity (dimensionless)
D the length of tier-offset (m)
D50, D30, D10 particle sizes of 50%, 30%, and 10% finer, respectively (m)
Dcr minimum value of offset distance (m)
Dmin ritical value of tier-offset (m)
Dr relative density (dimensionless)
f loading frequency (Hz)
Gs specific gravity (dimensionless)
HL upper tier of height (m)
Htotal total wall height (mm)
kh horizontal acceleration coefficient (dimensionless)
N scale factor of modeling (dimensionless)
t time duration of dynamic loading (second)
td time duration of acceleration record (second)
VS shear velocity of soil (m/s)
α, β, ξ β the constant values of the seismic loading (dimensionless)
γdmax maximum dry unit weight of soil (kN/m3)
γdmax minimum dry unit weight of soil (kN/m3)

ABBREVIATIONS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACC0, ACC1-6, ACC7-9, ACC10-12 accelerometers mounted on the deck of shaking table, in the facing, in the reinforced zone, and in the retained zone of
wall models, respectively
CAV Cumulative Absolute Velocity
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
LVDT Linear Variable Displacement Transducer
NCMA National Concrete Masonry Association
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration (g: gravitational acceleration)
RMSA Root Mean Square Acceleration

References Bathurst, R.J., Hatami, K., Alfaro, M.C., 2002. Geosynthetic reinforced soil walls and
slopes: seismic aspects. London, England. In: Proceedings of Geosynthetics and Their
Applications, pp. 327–392.
Balakrishnan, S., Viswanadham, B.V.S., 2015. Performance evaluation of geogrid
Bhattacharjee, A., Krishna, A.M., 2012. Development of numerical model of wrap-faced
reinforced soil walls with marginal backfills through centrifuge model tests. Geotext.
walls subjected to seismic excitation. Geosynth. Int. 19 (5), 354–369.
Geomembranes 44 (1), 1–14.
Bhattacharjee, A., Amin, M.U., 2019. Behaviour of two-tiered geosynthetic-reinforced
Bathurst, R.J., Hatami, K., 1998. Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced
soil walls. J. Indian National Academy of Eng. 4, 91–100.
wall. Geosynth. Int. 5 (1–2), 127–167.

144
A.M. Safaee et al.
Bhattacharjee, A., Krishna, A.M., 2015. Strain behavior of backfill soil in rigid faced
reinforced soil walls subjected to seismic excitation. Int. J. of Geosynth. Ground Eng.
1, 14.
El-Emam, M., 2018. Experimental verification of current seismic analysis methods of
reinforced soil walls. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 113, 241–255. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.06.006.
El-Emam, M., Bathurst, R.J., 2007. Influence of reinforcement parameters on the seismic
response of reduced-scale reinforced soil retaining walls. Geotext. Geomembranes 25
(1), 33–49.
Fan, C., Liu, H., Cao, J., Ling, H.I., 2020. Responses of reinforced soil retaining walls
subjected to horizontal and vertical seismic loadings. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 129,
105969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105969.
FHWA, 2009. Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes- Volume 1. Federal Highway Administration Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-10-243. US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, USA.
FHWA, 2005. Design Guidelines for Multi-Tiered MSE Walls. Federal Highway
Administration Publication No. FHWA-TX-05/0-4485-2. US Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC, USA.
Gaudio, D., Masini, L., Rampello, S., 2018. A performance-based approach to design
reinforced-earth retaining walls. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (4), 470–485. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.04.003.
Guler, E., Selek, O., 2014. Reduced-scale shaking table tests on geosynthetic-reinforced
soil walls with modular facing. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 140 (6), 1–11.
Huang, C.C., 2019. Seismic responses of vertical-faced wrap-around reinforced soil walls.
Geosynth. Int. 26 (2), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.18.00044.
Huang, C.C., Horng, J.-C., Chang, W.-J., Chueh, S.-Y., Chiou, J.-S., Chen, C.-H., 2010.
Dynamic behavior of reinforced slopes: horizontal acceleration response. Geosynth.
Int. 17 (4), 207–219.
Huang, C.C., Horng, J.C., Chang, W.J., Chiou, J.S., Chen, C.H., 2011. Dynamic behavior
of reinforced walls: horizontal displacement response. Geotext. Geomembranes 29
(3), 257–267.
Javankhoshdel, S., Shokri, S., Rezvani, M., Yacoub, T., 2019. 2D and 3D sensitivity
analysis of a multitiered retaining wall. Global J. Eng. Sciences 1 (5). https://doi.
org/10.33552/GJES.2019.01.000522.
Komak Panah, A., Yazdi, M., Ghalandarzadeh, A., 2015. Shaking table tests on soil
retaining walls reinforced by polymeric strips. Geotext. Geomembranes 43 (2),
148–161.
Koseki, J., Munaf, Y., Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Kojima, K., Sato, T., 1998. Shaking and
tilt table tests of geosynthetic-reinforced soil and conventional-type retaining walls.
Geosynth. Int. 5 (1–2), 73–96.
Koseki, J., 2012. Use of geosynthetics to improve seismic performance of earth
structures. Geotext. Geomembranes 24, 51–68.
Kramer, S.L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, first ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Krishna, A.M., Latha, G.M., 2007. Seismic response of wrap-faced reinforced soil
retaining wall models using shaking table tests. Geosynth. Int. 14 (6), 355–364.
Kuwano, J., Miyata, Y., Koseki, J., 2014. Performance of reinforced soil walls during the
2011 Tohoku earthquake. Geosynth. Int. 21 (3), 179–196.
Latha, G.M., Santhanakumar, P., 2015. Seismic response of reduced-scale modular block
and rigid faced reinforced walls through shaking table tests. Geotext. Geomembranes
43 (4), 307–316.
Leshchinsky, D., Han, J., 2004. Geosynthetic reinforced multitiered walls. Geotech. Eng.
17 (3), 1235–1255.
Li-Cong, C., Xiao, F., Zhi-jia, W., Yong-Yi, Z., Fei-cheng, L., Jian-jing, Z., 2018. Seismic
responses of the steel-strip reinforced soil retaining wall with full-height rigid facing
from shaking table test. J. Mt. Sci. 15 (5), 1137–1152.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., 2001. Post-earthquake investigation of several geosynthetic
reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes during Ji-Ji earthquake in Taiwan. Soil
Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 21 (4), 297–313.
Ling, H.I., Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K., Liu, H., 2005. Large-
scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (4), 465–476.
Liu, H., 2011. Comparing the seismic responses of single- and multi-tiered geosynthetic
reinforced soil walls. Dallas, USA. In: Proceeding of ASCE Geo- Frontiers,
pp. 3478–3486.
Liu, H., Yang, G., Ling, H.I., 2014. Seismic response of multi-tiered reinforced soil
retaining walls. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. (61–62), 1–12.
Mahajan, R.R., Viswanadham, B.V.S., 2007. Centrifuge model tests on geotextile-
reinforced slopes. Geosynth. Int. 14 (6), 365–379.
Mohamed, S.B.A., Yang, K.H., Hung, W.Y., 2013. Limit equilibrium analyses of
geosynthetic-reinforced two-tie walls: calibration from centrifuge tests. Geotex.
Geomembrans 41, 1–16.
Mohamed, S.B.A., Yang, K.H., Hung, W.Y., 2014. Finite element analyses of two-tier
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls: comparison involving centrifuge tests and limit
equilibrium results. Comput. Geotech. 61, 67–84.
Nakajima, S., Hong, K., Watanabe, K., Tateyama, M., 2008. Study on seismic
performance of geogrid reinforced soil retaining walls and deformation
characteristics of backfill soil. In: Proceeding of 4th Asian Regional Conference on
Geosynthetics, pp. 124–130. Shanghai, China.
Pamuk, A., Kalkan, E., Ling, H.I., 2005. Structural and geotechnical impacts of surface
rupture on highway structures. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 25 (7–10), 581–589.
145
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 130–145
Ren, F., Huang, Q., Wang, G., 2020. Shaking table tests on reinforced soil retaining walls
subjected to the combined effects of rainfall and earthquakes. Eng. Geol. 267,
105475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105475.
Richardson, G.N., Feger, A., Lee, K.L., 1977. Seismic testing of reinforced earth walls.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 103 (1), 1–17.
Rowe, R.K., Skinner, G.D., 2001. Numerical analysis of geosynthetic reinforced retaining
wall constructed on a layered soil foundation. Geotext. Geomembranes 19 (7),
387–412.
Sabermahani, M., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Fakher, A., 2009. Experimental study on seismic
deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls. Geotext. Geomembranes 27 (2),
121–136.
Santos, E., Palmeira, E.M., Bathurst, R.J., 2014. Performance of two geosynthetic
reinforced walls with recycled construction waste backfill and constructed on
collapsible ground. Geosynth. Int. 21 (4), 256–259.
Seyedi Hosseininia, E., Ashjaee, A., 2018. Numerical simulation of two-tier geosynthetic-
reinforced-soil walls using two-phase approach. Comput. Geotech. 100, 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.04.003.
Segrestin, P., Bastick, M.J., 1988. Seismic design of reinforced earth retaining walls - the
contribution of finite element analysis. Fukuoka, Japan. In: Proceedings of
International Geotechnical Symposium on Theory and Practice of Earth
Reinforcement, pp. 577–582.
Stuedlein, A.W., Allen, T.M., Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R., 2012. Assessment of
reinforcement strains in very tall mechanically stabilized earth walls. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (3), 345–356.
Stuedlein, A.W., Bailey, M., Lindquist, D., Sankey, J., Neely, W.J., 2010. Design and
performance of a 46-m-high MSE wall. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (6),
786–796.
Varnier, J.B., Hatami, K., 2011. Seismic response of reinforced soil retaining walls: is
PGA-based design adequate? Atlanta, Georgia, US. In: Proceeding of Georisk.
Wang, L., Chen, G., Chen, S., 2015. Experimental study on seismic response of geogrid
reinforced rigid retaining walls with saturated backfill sand. Geotext.
Geomembranes 43 (1), 35–45.
Xu, P., Hatami, K., Jiang, G., 2019. Seismic sliding stability analysis of reinforced soil
retaining walls. Geosynth. Int. 26 (5), 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1680/
jgein.19.00033.
Xu, P., Hatami, K., Jiang, G., 2020a. Shaking table study of the influence of facing on
reinforced soil wall connection loads. Geosynth. Int. https://doi.org/10.1680/
jgein.20.00001.
Xu, P., Hatami, K., Jiang, G., 2020b. Study on seismic stability and performance of
reinforced soil walls using shaking table tests. Geotext. Geomembranes 48 (1),
82–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103507.
Yang, G.Q., Liu, H., Zhou, Y.T., Xiong, B.L., 2014. Post-construction performance of a
two-tiered geogrid reinforced soil wall backfilled with soil-rock mixture. Geotext.
Geomembranes 42 (2), 91–97.
Yang, K.H., Hung, W.Y., Kencan, E.Y., 2013. Acceleration-amplified responses of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures with a wide range of input ground
accelerations. San Diego, USA. In: Proceeding of ASCE Geo-Congress,
pp. 1178–1187.
Yazdandoust, M., 2017. Investigation on the seismic performance of steel-strip
reinforced-soil retaining walls using shaking table test. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 97,
216–232.
Yazdandoust, M., 2018. Laboratory evaluation of dynamic behavior of steel-strip
mechanically stabilized earth walls. Soils Found. 58 (2), 264–276.
Yazdandoust, M., 2019a. Shaking table modeling of MSE/soil nail hybrid retaining walls.
Soils Found. 59 (2), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.05.013.
Yazdandoust, M., 2019b. Assessment of horizontal seismic coefficient for three different
types of reinforced soil structure using physical and analytical modeling. Int. J.
GeoMech. 19 (7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001344.
Yoo, C., Jung, H.S., 2004. Measured behavior of a geosynthetic reinforced segmental
retaining wall in a tiered configuration. Geotext. Geomembranes 22 (5), 359–376.
Yoo, C., Song, A.R., 2007. Effect of foundation yielding on performance of two-tier
geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls: a numerical investigation.
Geosynth. Int. 20 (3), 110–120.
Yoo, C., Kim, S.B., 2008. Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic reinforced segmental
retaining wall under a surcharge load: full-scale load test and 3D finite element
analysis. Geotext. Geomembranes 26 (6), 460–472.
Yoo, C., 2018. Serviceability state deformation behavior of two-tiered geosynthetic
reinforced soil walls. Geosynth. Int. 25 (1), 12–25.
Yoo, C., Jang, Y.S., Park, I.J., 2011. Internal stability of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls
in tiered configuration. Geosynth. Int. 18 (2), 74–83.
Yu, Y., Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M., Nelson, R., 2016. Physical and numerical modelling of
a geogrid reinforced incremental concrete panel retaining wall. Can. Geotech. J. 53
(12), 1883–1901.
Yu, Y., Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M., 2017. Numerical modeling of two full-scale reinforced
soil wrapped-face walls. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (4), 237–249.
Zhang, W., Chen, J.F., Yu, Y., 2019. Influence of toe restraint conditions on performance
of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls using centrifuge model tests. Geotext.
Geomembranes 47 (5), 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2019.103469.
Zheng, Y., McCartney, J.S., Benson Shing, P., Fox, P.J., 2019. Physical model tests of half-
scale geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutments. II: dynamic Loading. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 145 (11), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-
5606.0002158.