Mechanically Stabilized Earth Pressures against

Unyielding Surfaces Using Inextensible Reinforcement

Wyatt W. Kelch 1; Michael B. Rodgers, Ph.D., P.E. 2; Taylor A. Rawlinson, Ph.D. 3;
Michael C. McVay, Ph.D. 4; Rodrigo A. Herrera, P.E. 5;
and David J. Horhota, Ph.D., P.E. 6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This article presents experimental data on the earth pressures that develop between mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall
panels that are tied together in an unyielding condition. Prior to design and construction, an extensive literature review was conducted to
ensure the MSE wall adhered to the local standard specifications for road and bridge construction, current design codes, and the construction
sequencing specified by the wall panel manufacturer. The Strong Wall at the University of Florida’s Structures and Materials Laboratory was
utilized to construct a model full-scale MSE wall using inextensible reinforcement, with 140 locations continuously monitored. The MSE
wall was divided into two different relative compaction zones, 95% and 103% of the reinforced soil’s optimum dry density, to investigate
a range of friction angles that can develop during conventional construction. To achieve the necessary aspect ratio of 0.3 specified by practi-
tioners for use in real-world applications, a reaction frame was incrementally loaded on top of the reinforced backfill to simulate additional
wall height and overburden stress. Earth pressure coefficients were found for each compacted soil lift and incremental load from the reaction
frame for both states of soil density. A force equilibrium analysis was conducted to ensure all forces within the experimental setup were
accounted for to validate the results. From the derived earth pressure coefficients, it was observed that earth pressures moved from a passive
condition to an active or at-rest condition as the soil-height increased above each reinforcement level. It was concluded that increased lateral
stress develops from the compaction effort in an unyielding condition, which is not accounted for using conventional MSE design methods.
Consequently, an equation was developed that incorporates a variable friction angle (φ) based on the compaction effort for an unyielding
condition that closely followed the trends of the measured results. DOI: 10.1061/JGGEFK.GTENG-11799. © 2024 American Society of
Civil Engineers.

Introduction precast concrete, are mechanically attached to the embedded rein-

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are a type of reinforced
earth retaining structure commonly used for bridge abutments,
highway separations, and when the construction area is limited.
MSE structures use metallic or geosynthetic reinforcing strips or
grids compacted between layers of soil. Wall facings, typically
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Engineering School of Sustainable Infra-
structure and Environment, Univ. of Florida, 365 Weil Hall, Gainesville,
FL 32611 (corresponding author). Email: wkelch@ufl.edu
2
Research Assistant Scientist, Engineering School of Sustainable Infra-
structure and Environment, Univ. of Florida, 365 Weil Hall, Gainesville,
FL 32611. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9975-5849. Email: michael
.rodgers@essie.ufl.edu
3
Research Assistant Scientist, Engineering School of Sustainable Infra-
structure and Environment, Univ. of Florida, 365 Weil Hall, Gainesville,
FL 32611. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9522-2911. Email: taylor
.rawlinson@essie.ufl.edu
4 In most cases of MSE wall construction, the far end of the soil-
Professor, Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Envir-
onment, Univ. of Florida, 365 Weil Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5731-5711. Email: mcm@ce.ufl.edu
5
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Florida Dept. of Transportation, Central
Office, 605 Suwannee St., Tallahassee, FL 32699. Email: rodrigo.herrera@
dot.state.fl.us
6
State Geotechnical Materials Engineer, Florida Dept. of Transportation,
State Materials Office, 5007 Northeast 39th Ave., Gainesville, FL 32609.
Email: david.horhota@dot.state.fl.us
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 24, 2023; approved on
October 17, 2023; published online on January 25, 2024. Discussion period
open until June 25, 2024; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
forcements. The frictional resistance that develops between the soil
and reinforcement surface opposes the lateral earth pressure exerted
on the wall facings, holding the panels in place, and retaining the
earthen backfill.
MSE wall reinforcements are either extensible or inextensible.
Extensible reinforcements such as geosynthetics allow sufficient
internal deformation to occur, which engages full active pressure
within the reinforced mass with a linear active zone defined by
the Rankine failure plane. MSE structures supported by extensible
reinforcements do not behave as rigid bodies and tension does not
develop over the full reinforcement length. Conversely, inexten-
sible reinforcements such as metallic strips prevent internal defor-
mation and tension develops over the full reinforcement length.
The reinforced mass supported by inextensible reinforcement tends
to behave as a rigid body with a bilinear failure plane (Anderson
et al. 2010).
embedded reinforcement is not attached to a structure. This allows
minor lateral deformation of the wall panels to occur, as the lateral
earth pressure imposed on the wall panels by the backfill pushes
them slightly outward. The lateral earth pressure that develops
within the reinforced zone in this case is approximately equal to
the active lateral pressure developed in conventional earth pres-
sure theory. The tension that develops in the reinforcements from
the induced active lateral pressure dictates the internal stability
and controls the reinforcement density required by the AASHTO
(2007) design code.
In practice, cases such as road widening may require an MSE
structure to be constructed in front of an existing MSE wall or other

© ASCE 04024009-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009

 solid facing. The ratio of the distance between the existing wall face
and new wall face (base, B) to the new wall height (H) is known as
the aspect ratio. A range of aspect ratios was examined in Kniss
et al. (2007), which concluded that traditional MSE walls should
not be constructed if the aspect ratio is less than 0.3 due to suscep-
tibility of sliding, overturning, and plunging failure. At aspect ratios
less than 0.3, MSE wall reinforcements are often directly tied to an
existing MSE wall or other structure using an inextensible rein-
forcement type. This direct connection creates an “unyielding con-
dition” that prohibits stress relief through minor deformation of
the retaining structure that typically occurs in conventional MSE
wall design. Unfortunately, little information is available regard-
ing the earth pressures that are generated for this design scenario.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Current design recommendations for MSE walls in Federal High-
way Administration Geotechnical Engineering Circular, GEC,
number 11 (FHWA et al. 2009a, b) indicate that “much higher”
reinforcement tension develops when wall panels are tied together,
but the actual soil pressure and reinforcement tensions developed
in the unyielding case are not well understood/defined. This arti-
cle presents experimental data collected from an instrumented,
unyielding MSE wall constructed using the Strong Wall in the
Structures and Materials Laboratory at the University of Florida
(UF), which is described in the following section. The MSE wall
was constructed with inextensible reinforcement and was divided
into overcompacted and undercompacted zones, with earth pres-
sures measured using wall-mounted and soil-embedded earth pres-
sure cells (EPCs), and reinforcement tension measured using full
bridge strain gauges attached to the steel reinforcement strips.
Based on the experimental data, a better understanding of the earth
pressures developed during this unyielding scenario was identified,
and a new equation that incorporates a variable friction angle (φ)
based on the compaction effort is suggested.
Model MSE Wall
The full-scale model MSE wall constructed during this study was
designed to comply with current design standards and to closely
match real-world field conditions. This included following the
Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) standard specifica-
tions for road and bridge construction (FDOT 2017), AASHTO’s
Fig. 1. (a) Model MSE wall without reinforced fill; and (b) model MSE wall with reaction frame.
© ASCE 04024009-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
design code (AASHTO 2007), and the construction sequencing
specified by the wall panel manufacturer (RECo 2011). As depicted
in Fig. 1 and detailed in Table 1, the model MSE wall was con-
structed using the Strong Wall in the UF Structures Laboratory. The
right side of the Strong Wall is removed in Figs. 1(a and b) for
viewing purposes. Fig. 1(b) also indicates the undercompacted side
and overcompacted side of the construction area, and a portion of
the reinforced steel plate on the overcompacted side is removed to
show the MatJack airbags and soil-bearing plates. A construction
time-lapse of the model MSE wall is provided in Video S1.
Design Methodology
From the findings of Kniss et al. (2007) and discussions among UF
researchers, the FDOT, and MSE wall panel manufacturers, it was
determined that, in practice, MSE panel reinforcements are only
tied to an unyielding structure when the aspect ratio is 0.3 or less.
Because the proposed MSE wall and base soil layer needed to fit
within the UF Strong Wall area (Fig. 1), and the base of the MSE
wall needed to be approximately 3 m to use standard compaction
equipment, it was determined that a reaction frame would be neces-
sary to simulate additional wall height and overburden stress on top
of the constructed MSE wall to achieve the necessary aspect ratio.
The dimensions of the nominal 1.52 × 1.52 m square panels
used for construction were 1.46-m wide by 1.50-m tall. This pro-
vided 75 cm of vertical spacing between four rows of reinforcement
for a total constructed wall height of 3 m. To satisfy the unyielding
condition, the constructed area was designed to use a second set of
identical wall panels placed up against the back of the UF Strong
Wall that would tie directly to the front-facing panels. This ensured
that the anchor points both lined up from front to back and that the
reinforcement connections, which often control internal stability,
were representative of field standards. Since the as-built distance
between the front and rear MSE wall panels was 2.97 m, the re-
action frame on the top of the MSE structure was designed to sim-
ulate an additional 6.9 m of overburden pressure for a total wall
height of 9.9 m and an aspect ratio of 0.3. Flat galvanized steel
strips measuring 50-mm wide and 4-mm thick were used as the
inextensible reinforcement, as specified by the wall panel manufac-
turers for this design scenario.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 1. Model MSE wall experimental components and functions
ID Experimental component
A UF strong wall
B High strength anchor points
C Base soil retention blocks
D Base layer of soil
E Concrete leveling pads
F Front MSE wall panels
G Rear MSE wall panels
H Separation boundary
I Steel reinforcement strips
J Soil-embedded EPCs
K Wall-mounted EPCs
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
L Threaded rods
M Reinforced backfill
N Soil-bearing plates
O MatJack airbags
P Reinforced reaction plates
Q Reaction girders
R Potentiometer locations
Conventional MSE design theories for panels constructed in a
yielding condition were reviewed for both internal and external sta-
bility calculations and later compared to the measured results found
from the Model MSE wall constructed in an unyielding condition
(Chalermyanont and Benson 2004, 2005; Lawson and Yee 2005;
FHWA et al. 2006a, b, 2009a, b; WSDOT 2010; Anderson et al.
2012; Kim and Salgado 2012). First, the coherent gravity method,
which was developed to estimate steel strip reinforcement stresses
for precast panel faced MSE walls (Anderson et al. 2010), was ex-
amined. The method treats the reinforced soil as a rigid body with
lateral forces from the retained soil acting upon the rigid body sim-
ilar to those found in conventional gravity-type retaining systems.
The soil friction angle is used to calculate a lateral earth pressure
coefficient that is applied to the vertical stress to derive lateral
stress. It is assumed that the potential stress carried by a reinforce-
ment is equal to the lateral soil stress acting on a defined tributary
wall area, which will be discussed later. The top of the wall is as-
sumed to have a lateral earth pressure of k0 (at-rest geostatic stress)
Fig. 2. (a) Coherent gravity (reprinted from Anderson et al. 2012, © ASCE); and (b) simplified methods (reprinted with permission from AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2007, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC).
© ASCE 04024009-3
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
Experimental function
Supports model MSE wall layout
Counteracts surcharge loads induced by the reaction frame
Retains base layer soil and routes free draining water
Supports constructed area and provides a gravel drainage layer
Supports MSE wall panels
Simulates new MSE wall in an unyielding condition
Simulates existing MSE wall in an unyielding condition
Minimizes influence from adjacent compaction effort
Connects front and rear wall panels for an unyielding condition
Measures vertical earth pressure
Measures lateral earth pressure
Connects the reaction frame to reinforced anchor points
Simulates two controlled compaction efforts for investigation
Distributes uniform surcharge loads to reinforced soil
Induces controlled surcharge loads to reinforced soil
Provides uniform reaction surface to counteract MatJack loads
Provides reaction frame resistance to counteract MatJack loads
Measures wall displacement
that decreases to ka (active geostatic stress) at a depth of 6 m below
the backfill surface, as shown in Fig. 2(a).
Next, the simplified coherent gravity method, or simplified
method (Allen et al. 2001), combines favorable elements of several
design methods allowed by the AASHTO standard specifica-
tions. Instead of using ka and k0 directly as in the coherent gravity
method, a kr =ka curve was developed to account for differences in
reinforcement type, as shown in Fig. 2(b). The simplified method
suggests a lateral pressure varying from a multiple of ka at the top
of the wall, which is a function of the reinforcement type, to a near-
active earth pressure state at a depth of 6 m below the backfill
surface.
Differing from the coherent gravity and simplified methods,
the Spangler and Handy method (Spangler and Handy 1984) con-
siders the silo effect, or soil arching (Handy 1985; Paik and Salgado
2003), for narrow conventional MSE walls using reinforcements
tied in a yielding condition in front of a stabilized face (Kniss
et al. 2007). The method proposes that friction between the wall
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. (a) MSE wall front profile and tributary wall areas; and (b) MSE wall in plan view.
face and soil provides a vertical shear load that resists soil settle-
ment, reducing vertical overburden pressure and, consequently,
lateral earth pressure. This method suggests that the reduction
in lateral pressure results in an overly conservative reinforcement
design while the vertical shear load is redistributed as increased
bearing pressure directly below MSE wall panels.
The tributary wall area used for internal stability design with the
coherent gravity and simplified methods (AASHTO 11.10.6.2.1) is
defined as a half-panel tall by two-panels wide, as indicated by the
diagonal hatch marks in Fig. 3(a). The figure presents the front pro-
file of the model MSE wall with the front wall panels and base soil
retention blocks removed to display the reinforcement and wall-
mounted EPC locations within each tributary area. Additionally,
the naming convention for the four rows of reinforcement is shown
in Fig. 3(a), while the arrows identify the four columns of reinforce-
ment strips that were instrumented with strain gauges. Fig. 3 shows
that the wall was divided into two halves by a separation barrier
composed of a wood frame and high-strength Styrofoam board.
Each row of reinforcement included four steel reinforcement strips
tying the rear and front MSE wall panels together on both sides of
the separation barrier. The instrumented strips were placed in the
two center columns of reinforcement per compaction side to reduce
any frictional effects generated by the side Strong Walls and sep-
aration barrier, both of which were lined with plastic sheeting to
reduce friction at the boundaries (Fang et al. 2004). The letters in
Fig. 3 refer to Table 1.
The modified proctor test (AASHTO T-180) covers the determi-
nation of the moisture-density relations of soils when compacted
in a mold and identifies a maximum dry density and optimum mois-
ture content for a given soil. A relative compaction effort target
of 95% of the maximum dry density from T-180 was applied on
the left (undercompacted) side, and a target of 103% of T-180 was
applied on the right (overcompacted) side. This was intended to
provide a high and low internal friction angle (φ) for the reinforced
soil and represent the compaction effort range commonly experi-
enced in the field.
The AASHTO (2007) code for load and resistance factor design
(LRFD) was used in compliance with the FDOT’s standard spec-
ifications for road and bridge construction (FDOT 2017) for all
other stability design checks and soil testing to closely follow con-
ventional design practices. From the stability analyses, it was found
that the reinforcement strip bolt hole bearing resistance limit state
© ASCE 04024009-4
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
controlled the design (RECo 2003). Although factored loads for
certain earth pressure coefficients exceeded this controlling factored
resistance, strain gauges mounted on reinforcement strips allowed for
the safe monitoring of reinforcement tensions as the MSE structure
was constructed and the reaction frame was incrementally loaded.
Instrumentation and Data Acquisition
Vibrating wire EPCs were used to measure both vertical and hori-
zontal stresses in the reinforced backfill. Sixteen Geokon 4810
(Lebanon, New Hampshire) vibrating wire “fatback” EPCs were
installed on the back face of the front MSE wall panels to measure
horizontal stress at each row of reinforcement, as depicted in Fig. 3(a).
These EPCs are specifically designed to measure earth pressures
against a solid surface. Per manufacturer recommendation for in-
stallation, a layer of mortar was first applied to the gauge location
on the wall panel prior to placement. EPCs were pressed into the
mortar layer prior to curing to ensure a completely smooth surface
free of point loads.
Vertical stress was measured by 36 Geokon 4800 vibrating wire
EPCs at each reinforcement level as well as 15.24 cm below the
center of the four concrete leveling pads bearing the MSE wall
panels. The layout of the embedded EPCs measuring vertical stress
at each reinforcement level is depicted in Fig. 3(b). The embedded
EPCs were placed in line with the wall-mounted EPCs at each
reinforcement level to best capture the vertical and horizontal stress
relationship. Prior to construction, each EPC was tested and cali-
brated inside a small soil box by applying incremental loads with
a calibrated instrumented loading frame. For installation, soil was
placed and compacted 15.24 cm above the target EPC depth. Each
soil-embedded EPC location was then carefully excavated and lev-
eled at the base. The soil-embedded EPCs were then placed and
checked with a digital level. Per manufacturer recommendation,
a powdered sand layer was placed at the bottom of each excavated
area prior to gauge placement, to reduce the development of point
loads. Once the gauges were confirmed to be level, the excavations
were backfilled with soil in 2.54-cm hand-compacted layers.
Five strain gauge locations were installed on 16 of the 32 steel
reinforcement strips identified in Fig. 3(a). Each strain gauge loca-
tion comprised four individual VPG C2A-06-062LW-350 strain
gauges arranged in a full bridge formation to eliminate the influ-
ence of bending and temperature, so that only axial forces were
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 measured within the reinforcements. Waterproof-shielded direct
burial cable was used, and multiple protective coatings were ap-
plied at each gauge location. This was done to ensure the gauges
and wires could survive the high stresses induced by compaction
and overburden (Chen and Fang 2008; Duncan and Seed 1986;
Duncan et al. 1991), as well as exposure to water introduced during
compaction. Each instrumented reinforcement strip was incre-
mentally load-tested before and after each protective coating was
applied, and just prior to installation. Individual calibration curves
for the 80 full bridge locations were developed from a total of 240
load tests. The percent difference of each calibration curve before
and after the protective coatings were applied was less than 0.1%.
Full bridge strain gauges were also installed on the last sections
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of the six threaded rod assemblies to measure the load applied by
the reaction frame. The instrumented threaded bar sections were
also load-tested and calibrated up to the maximum expected load
for each bar. Calibration curves were found for each bar by com-
paring applied loads to monitored strain, as was done for the gauges
mounted on the steel strip reinforcements.
To monitor wall movement, Micro-Epsilon WDS-750-P60-CR-P
draw-wire displacement sensors (Vishay Measurements Group,
Raleigh, North Carolina), also known as potentiometers, were
installed at the base of each MSE wall compaction zone. The
locations of the two displacement sensor draw-wires, attached to
the wall panels, are indicated by the letter R in Fig. 3(a). The base
of each displacement sensor was mechanically fastened to the soil
retaining blocks and housed in a protective enclosure.
Two separate data acquisition modules were required to handle
the 140 monitored locations. A Campbell Scientific CR6 (Logan,
Utah) was used to collect data from the EPCs at each reinforcement
level, as well as the strain gauges mounted on the reinforcements.
A Campbell Scientific CR10X was used to monitor the four EPCs
beneath the MSE wall leveling pads, the displacement sensors, and
the six full bridge strain gauge locations on the reaction frame
threaded rods. The DAQ modules were programmed to continu-
ously collect synchronized data every 3 min.
For each reinforcement level, average measurements were de-
rived for the vertical earth pressure, lateral earth pressure, and strip
tension using the four soil-embedded EPCs, two wall-mounted
EPCs, and the average strip tensions from both reinforced strips,
respectively. The average values were then used during construc-
tion earth pressure coefficient analyses. Averages were used to ac-
count for the possible research-induced effects of the separation
barrier and side Strong Wall boundary conditions; therefore, the
intent of the averaging was to balance the influence of different
interfaces on each side of the reinforced zone.
MSE Wall Construction
To best represent real-world conditions, a soil base layer was
first constructed for the unyielding MSE wall to bear upon within
the bin-shaped Strong Wall area. To achieve this, a 76.2-cm tall,
61.0-cm thick retaining wall was constructed across the open side
of the Strong Wall using three reinforced concrete blocks to retain
the base layer soil. Threaded rods tied to the floor anchors ran
through holes cast into the retaining blocks, and bearing plates and
nuts were tensioned down on the blocks using a jacking system to
ensure the blocks did not yield from the lateral stresses.
The base soil consisted of three 15.2-cm (6-in.) compacted
layers of soil overlying a 15.2-cm nonwoven geotextile encapsu-
lated gravel drainage layer. The soil used throughout the project
was an AASHTO classified A-3 poorly graded sand typical for
MSE wall construction in Florida, with a maximum dry density
(γ d-max ) of 16.6 kN=m3 and optimum moisture content (wopt ) of
© ASCE 04024009-5
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
Table 2. Soil properties of base soil and MSE reinforced fill from direct
shear testing following AASHTO T-236 (AASHTO 2013)
Low High
compaction compaction
Engineering property effort effort
Relative compaction, RC (%) 95.7 103.5
Dry density, γ d (kN=m3 ) 15.9 17.2
Density index/unit weight, I d (%) 64.3 102.8
Moisture content, w (%) 12.8 12.8
Internal friction angle, φ (degrees) 31.0 40.5
12.7% obtained from AASHTO T-180. Table 2 provides the soil
engineering properties obtained from tests performed at the
FDOT’s State Materials Office.
The coarse aggregate used in the drainage layer met the
requirements of FDOT section 901 (FDOT 2017) with a size dis-
tribution of No.89. Each base soil layer was compacted to 103.5%
of T-180 using a vibratory plate compactor to mitigate a potential
bearing capacity failure of the wall footing based on factored loads.
Nuclear density testing in accordance with FM 1-T 238 (FDOT
2017), ASTM D4643 (ASTM 2017), and AASHTO (2007) was
performed at four locations for each compacted lift to ensure the
target compaction was achieved. After the third soil lift was com-
pacted, the four MSE wall panel leveling pads were installed at an
embedment depth of 15.2 cm from the top of the base soil layer.
An EPC was installed 15.2-cm beneath each leveling pad to record
vertical stress beneath the wall panels. Starting at the surface of the
base soil, a reinforced high-strength Styrofoam barrier was con-
structed, which divided the area into two equal halves as depicted
in Figs. 1 and 3. The barrier was constructed in stages as the wall
height increased and provided separation between the 95% and
103% compaction effort zones. This allowed the investigation to
quantify the effects of an unyielding condition for a wide range
of friction angles developed by undercompacting and overcompact-
ing the reinforced fill, without influence from the adjacent compac-
tion effort.
A construction and quality control manual for reinforced earth
square panels (RECo 2011) provided by the MSE wall panel manu-
facturer was followed for proper construction sequencing and
technique. Panels were maneuvered and placed using the labora-
tory overhead crane. The rear Strong Wall face was layered with
12.7 cm of high-strength Styrofoam to provide clearance between
the Strong Wall and back MSE wall. The rear unyielding MSE
panels were centered on the rear leveling pads flush against the
12.7-cm Styrofoam layer. Strong Wall anchor points were used
to brace the rear panels in place before fill and reinforcements
were added. The front-yielding MSE panels were placed, leveled,
and braced using conventional MSE wall construction techniques
(Fig. 4) with the exception of wall brace anchorage, which was
attached to the retention block threaded rods as opposed to soil-
embedded wood posts used in the field. The first set of panels
consisted of alternating half- and full-height panels at 1.90-cm
horizontal spacing for the front and rear walls. Once in place,
EPCs were installed on the inside wall face of the front MSE wall
panels at the first reinforcement level to measure horizontal stresses
[Fig. 3(a)]. Filter cloth was then glued over all panel and side wall
joints to avoid soil loss at the wall seems.
Per construction specifications, the initial soil layers beneath the
first row of reinforcement were prevented from interacting with the
wall panels until the first row of reinforcements were connected to
the MSE wall panels as depicted in Fig. 4(a); this procedure was
to prevent lateral earth pressures from pushing the unsecured panels
outward at the base during compaction. After the first row of
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. (a) First course of backfill; and (b) second course of backfill. (Reprinted from RECo 2011, with permission from The Reinforced Earth
Company.)

reinforcements was connected, fill and compaction efforts were
extended to the wall face for all following lifts [Fig. 4(b)].
Once soil layers for both compaction zones were level with
MSE wall panel reinforcement connections, the steel reinforcement
strips were installed, tying the front wall panels to the rear unyield-
ing wall panels. Next, a 15.2-cm compacted lift was constructed
over the reinforcements for both compaction zones, and soil-
embedded earth pressure cells were installed 15.2-cm deep, level
with the reinforcement, following the installation process previ-
ously outlined. Each compaction zone had four embedded EPCs
for measuring vertical stress at each reinforcement row, as shown
in Fig. 3(b). This process was repeated for the remainder of
construction with wall panels, reinforcements, threaded rod seg-
ments, and reinforced foam boards being installed when necessary.
Nuclear density testing in accordance with FM 1-T 238 (FDOT
2017) was conducted in two locations for both compaction zones
for each 15.2-cm compacted lift to ensure the target compaction
was reached within each compaction zone. Data collection began
for each gauge as it was installed allowing for the live monitoring
of reinforcement tensions, horizontal stress, vertical stress, and wall
displacement during construction.
Simulated Wall Height Reaction Frame Design
Fig. 5(a) shows the model MSE structure after the final layer
of reinforced soil was compacted, and wall panel bracings were
removed. Fig. 5(b) depicts the layout of soil-bearing plates and
MatJacks for the 95% of T-180 compaction effort. Bearing soil
plates were arranged to maximize coverage of the reinforced soil’s
footprint to apply a simulated surcharge over the entire reinforced
zone. MatJacks were centered on the soil-bearing plates as depicted
in Fig. 5(b) to avoid application of asymmetric loading on the soil.
The incremental MatJack pressures applied during loading were
controlled by a manifold using air regulators and monitored using
digital pressure gauges.
A reinforced steel plate was placed symmetrically on top of
the MatJack arrangements in both reinforced fill areas with I-beam
reinforcements welded perpendicular to the MSE wall faces
[Figs. 6(a and b)]. Two custom-made girders were positioned
perpendicular to the I-beam reinforcements and aligned with the
row of three threaded bar assemblies at the front and rear of the
MSE structure, as shown in Fig. 6(a). Each custom girder com-
prised two 5.94-m long C-channels welded back-to-back with
15.2-cm (6-in.) clear spacing using steel plates. The final threaded
bar sections, instrumented with strain gauges, were run through
the clear space between the welded C-channels with strain gauges
positioned at the midspan. Steel bearing plates and nuts were then
installed on each thread bar assembly to lock the two custom gird-
ers and reaction frame in place. Strain gauge readings from the six
instrumented bar sections were used to ensure that each threaded
bar assembly was under equal tension before MatJack loading
began. Fig. 6(b) depicts the fully constructed MSE wall with the
reaction frame in place.

Fig. 5. (a) Completed MSE wall before reaction frame installation; and (b) MatJacks and soil-bearing plates on the top of the 95% of T-180
compaction effort side.

© ASCE 04024009-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. (a) Welded C-channels on top of the reinforced steel plates; and (b) completed MSE wall after reaction frame installation.

Test Results and Discussion
Nuclear Density and Loading Frame Results
Two nuclear density tests were performed in each compaction zone
for each 15.2-cm soil lift. Based on the results of all nuclear den-
sity tests, the average relative compaction (RC) from the under-
compacted side was 95.7% of T-180 and the average relative
compaction from the overcompacted side was 102.8% of T-180.
A summary of the average soil relative compaction and density
index/unit weight [Id , ASTM D4253 (ASTM 2019) and ASTM
D4254 (ASTM 2016)] between MSE wall reinforcement levels
for both compaction zones is shown in Table 3.
Table 3 shows that the compaction effort from Row 1 to Row 2
is noticeably lower than the other levels for the 103% of T-180
compaction effort. It is suspected that this is due to the construction
method illustrated in Fig. 4(a), where the backfill is prevented from
contacting MSE wall panels until the backfill height is 15.2 cm
above the first row of reinforcements. Consequently, the vibratory
compaction effort applied to the lifts directly above the first row of
reinforcements was distributed into the relatively loose backfill di-
rectly behind the wall panels. Compacting the soil to approximately
103% of T-180 was easily achieved after the second row of rein-
forcements was secured.
Each incremental surcharge load applied by the reaction frame
from pressurizing the MatJacks was sustained until the measured
earth pressures, strip tensions, and reaction bar tensions stabilized.
The incremental surcharge pressures for each compaction effort
were derived based on the average loads measured from the reac-
tion frame instrumented rods divided by the surface area of the steel
plates bearing on the soil. Each incremental surcharge pressure was
then divided by the average dry unit weight measured from nuclear
density testing during construction to estimate simulated soil heights.
The surcharge was applied in eight load phases shown in Table 4.
A blowout occurred in a MatJack on the 103% compaction
effort side twice at two different locations during Load Phases 2
and 3. Both times, the reaction frame was removed, and faulty
MatJacks were replaced. Load Phases 4–8 were completed without
issue. The applied surcharge at Load Phase 8 equated to 6.89 m
of overburden for the 95% of T-180 side and 6.91 m of overbur-
den for the 103% of T-180 side. This achieved the necessary aspect
ratio of 0.3 when added to the constructed wall height of 3 m.
Figs. 7(a and b) combine the depth profiles of the vertical earth
pressures measured by nuclear density testing (ND) during con-
struction with the results of the applied surcharge loading derived
from threaded bar (DD) measurements to produce a ND/DD pro-
file, and compare them with the vertical earth pressures measured
by EPCs at Row 1 (R1 EPC).
Good agreement is observed in Fig. 7(a) between the applied
and measured vertical stress at nearly every soil height above
Row 1 for the 95% compaction effort besides the first two data
points after the end of construction (EOC), where MatJack failures
caused variability in the EPC measured vertical earth pressure. This
indicates that there was a minimal loss of vertical stress due to soil
arching in Row 1 on the 95% compaction effort side. Conversely,
Fig. 7(b) shows that the measured vertical stress in Row 1 for the
103% compaction effort was less than the applied pressure at every
soil height above Row 1 beyond a height of 0.76 m when the sec-
ond row of reinforcement strips was added. This indicates that the
higher compaction effort resulted in some degree of soil arching
and shear transfer to the wall panels that decreased the overburden
pressure within the reinforced zone.

Table 3. Soil properties of base soil and MSE reinforced fill

Soil height (m) 95% of T-180 103% of T-180
Layers Bottom Top γ d (kN=m3 ) RC (%) I d (%) γ d (kN=m3 ) RC (%) I d (%)
Base layer 0.00 0.46 17.2 103.3 101.9 17.2 103.3 101.9
Base layer to Row 1 0.46 0.76 16.3 98.3 77.1 17.1 102.7 99.1
Row 1 to Row 2 0.76 1.52 15.9 96.0 65.9 17.0 102.3 96.7
Row 2 to Row 3 1.52 2.29 15.8 95.3 62.6 17.1 102.9 100.0
Row 3 to Row 4 2.29 3.05 16.0 96.1 66.4 17.1 102.9 100.0
Above Row 4 3.05 3.41 15.9 95.7 64.5 17.3 103.9 105.1

© ASCE 04024009-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009

 Table 4. Simulated surcharge loading results These alternating directional shifts in wall displacement are corre-
95% of T-180 103% of T-180 lated to construction processes such as adding wall panels, attach-
(γ d ¼ 15.91 kN=m3 ) (γ d ¼ 17.05 kN=m3 ) ing subsequent levels of reinforcement, and removing wall panel
bracings. This is also supported by the measured displacements
Load Surcharge Soil Surcharge Soil
phase (kPa) height (m) (kPa) height (m)
that occurred during surcharge loading where alternating direc-
tional shifts were not observed, and the panels only shifted away
1 15.03 0.94 18.10 1.06 from the reinforced backfill. The wall displacements presented in
2 27.24 1.71 30.07 1.76 Figs. 8–11 were all measured from the same potentiometers at the
3 35.67 2.24 44.62 2.62
base of each compaction zone. The bottom wall displacement was
4 53.58 3.37 69.71 4.09
5 63.06 3.96 73.21 4.29 adjusted to the soil height above each row of measurements in the
6 73.93 4.65 83.26 4.89 following figures.
7 93.27 5.86 98.63 5.79
8 109.69 6.89 117.74 6.91
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Reinforcement Row 2 Results Analysis

Reinforcement Row 1 Results
The ratio of lateral to vertical stress (kh ) decreased at Row 1 for
both compaction efforts during construction. For the 95% of
T-180 compaction effort, shown in Fig. 8(a), the kh moved from
a passive condition during early compaction to an at-rest condi-
tion at the end of construction (EOC, i.e., horizontal black dashed
line). The kh further decreased during the surcharge loading until
an approximate height of 6 m above Row 1, where kh is seen to
stabilize in the active condition. The active condition is confirmed
by the continuous wall displacement (δ wall ) seen in Fig. 8(c).
The kh for the 103% of T-180 compaction effort decreased
until a soil height of approximately 1.98 m above Row 1, where
it stabilized above an at-rest condition until 3.69 m, where the kh
began a decline to below an active condition by the end of
loading [Fig. 8(b)]. Unlike the 95% of T-180 compaction effort
side, limited wall displacement was measured for the 103% side.
The lack of wall movement further suggests that shear stress
at the soil–wall interface was increased for the higher compac-
tion effort.
Figs. 8(c and d) indicate that the wall panels actually moved
toward the reinforced fill at a soil height of 2.62 m above Row 1,
which is when the temporary braces were removed at EOC. This
followed the trends seen in Figs. 8(c and d) in relation to wall
displacement that is observed to move both toward and away
from the backfill during construction for both compaction efforts.
Row 2 showed similar results to Row 1. For the 95% compaction
effort, the kh for Row 2 decreased until a soil height of approx-
imately 5.85 m above Row 2, where kh stabilized in an active
condition, in Fig. 9(a). The active condition is supported by the
continuous wall movement away from the soil mass measured dur-
ing surcharge loading shown in Fig. 9(c).
For the 103% compaction effort, the Row 2 kh decreased
throughout construction and surcharge loading to below an active
condition, in Fig. 9(b). As previously discussed, minimal wall
movement was observed for the higher compaction effort. Also
observed for both Rows 1 and 2 were higher tension loads in the
reinforcements for the lower compaction effort compared to the
higher compaction effort. This provides evidence that panel dis-
placement is a key determining factor in reinforcement tensions.
Reinforcement Row 3 Result Analysis
The third row indicated a change in behavior for both compaction
zones. The 95% compaction zone produced a kh that decreased
until a soil height of approximately 3.38 m above Row 3, then
stabilized in an at-rest condition until approximately 5.76 m of
soil height, shown in Fig. 10(a). Past this, kh continued to decrease
slightly below the at-rest condition. Additionally, reinforcement
strip tensions were much higher in the top two rows of reinforce-
ment when compared to the bottom two rows. As suggested by
the coherent gravity method, higher locked-in compaction forces
in the top half of the wall fully engaged tension forces in the
reinforcement, while compaction in the lower half of the wall was

(a) (b)

Fig. 7. Depth profiles of applied vertical stress (ND/DD) compared to measured vertical stress at Row 1 (R1 EPC) for (a) 95% compaction effort; and
(b) 103% compaction effort.

© ASCE 04024009-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 8. Depth profiles of Row 1 earth pressures and coefficients for (a) 95%; and (b) 103% compaction efforts; and strip tensions and wall
displacements for (c) 95%; and (d) 103% compaction efforts.
insufficient to fully engage tension forces in the reinforcement
strips. During the loading phase, the top panels were prevented
from moving outward until bottom panels fully engaged their
reinforcement strips, resulting in the at-rest condition seen in
Fig. 10(a).
Similar to the 95% compaction zone, Row 3 in the 103%
compaction zone indicated a change in soil behavior in the upper
half of the wall, likely due to locked-in compaction forces as sug-
gested by the coherent gravity method. The kh at Row 3 began
above the passive state, then slowly declined to the at-rest con-
dition during the last load phase, Fig. 10(b). Also, similar to the
95% side, strip tensions in Rows 3 and 4 of the 103% side were
much higher than Rows 1 and 2, further indicating that the upper
half of the wall was exposed to higher locked-in compaction
forces, as suggested by the coherent gravity method. It is believed
that these locked-in compaction forces in the upper half of the
wall account for the inward displacement seen at the base of the
wall as a slight rotational component was induced by the locked-
in compaction forces when bracings were removed. As discussed,
the displacement measurements presented in Fig. 10 were taken
from the potentiometers at the base of the wall for each compac-
tion effort. If wall displacements had been measured at the Row 3
reinforcement level, a displacement shift away from the backfill
would likely have been observed at the EOC when bracings were
removed.
© ASCE 04024009-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
(b)
(d)
Reinforcement Row 4 Results Analysis
An issue arose at the fourth level of reinforcement when the divider
separating the two compaction zones was observed to be bowing
toward the undercompacted zone at the top where the divider was
weakest (Fig. 11). This portion of the divider had the least amount
of soil on each side to counteract the large surcharge load induced
0.37 m above the reinforcement level. Due to the 103% side be-
ing loaded to a higher pressure (i.e., qs103% ¼ 117.7 kPa versus
qs95% ¼ 109.7 kPa) to achieve the necessary surcharge height, it is
believed that the soil in the 103% side at Row 4 began moving
toward the 95% zone, which resulted in an increase in lateral stress.
This was expressed through an increasing kh value with depth on
the 95% side and a near-active condition being reached on the
103% side, shown in Figs. 11(a and b). Although the analysis at
Row 4 did match the observed behavior, these results were not used
to derive earth pressure coefficients because they were deemed to
be unrepresentative of the true soil behavior had the divider not
failed in the uppermost segment.
Overall, strip tensions were higher at each row on the 103% side
compared to the 95% side after construction but were then lower
than the 95% side at maximum surcharge loading. This is a strong
indication that strip tension is largely influenced by wall move-
ment, because the 95% side experienced less surcharge load than
the 103% side but did experience five times the wall displacement.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 9. Depth profiles of Row 2 earth pressures and coefficients for (a) 95%; and (b) 103% compaction efforts; and strip tensions and wall
displacements for (c) 95%; and (d) 103% compaction efforts.
Force Equilibrium Analysis
An analysis of the forces and stresses acting on the wall confirmed
that force equilibrium had been achieved for both compaction
efforts. A diagram of the forces and pressures acting on the wall
at row one is shown in Fig. 12. These forces and pressures included
the average vertical stress (σvRow1 ), average lateral stress (σhRow1 ),
simulated surcharge (qs ), shear stress at the wall (τ w ), weight of the
wall panels (W w ), weight of the soil column acting on the leveling
pad (W s ), and the force at the leveling pad (FLP ).
It was found that frictional resistance generated at the soil–wall
interface led to an arching effect that reduced overburden pressure
within the reinforced soil zone and, consequently, lateral stress at
the wall. For force equilibrium, the shear stress distributed to the
wall face due to frictional resistance should be equal to the reduc-
tion in overburden pressure, which is then translated into additional
leveling pad pressure/force beyond the weight of the wall and soil
column acting on the leveling pad. The depth profiles of the com-
bined weight of the wall and soil column (SC), leveling pad pres-
sure under the front wall (LPF), leveling pad pressure under the
back wall (LPB), and the average leveling pad pressure (LPAVG)
are depicted for both compaction effort zones in Fig. 13.
For the 95% side, it is shown in Fig. 13(a) that the average lev-
eling pad pressure recorded at EOC was consistent with the com-
bined weight of the soil and the wall. After surcharge loading was
applied, the average leveling pad pressure slightly increased above
© ASCE 04024009-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
(b)
(d)
the applied soil height and wall weight, indicating a small degree
of soil arching. An overburden reduction of 1.45 kPa was found
between the applied and the measured stress at Row 1 for the maxi-
mum surcharge load. This overburden reduction of 1.45 kPa was
then converted to a vertical force by multiplying the stress by the
reinforced zone area. Dividing this force between the two pads and
their areas resulted in a vertical stress of 6.77 kPa on each leveling
pad due to the arching effect. This was in good agreement with the
measured additional average leveling pad pressure, beyond the
weight of wall panels and soil column, of 6.87 kPa. The minimal
1.5% difference between these values indicates force equilibrium
was achieved.
The estimated shear stress available at the soil–wall interface
(τ w ) was then calculated as 26.04 kPa for the 95% side using a
soil–wall friction angle of 30° (Gomez et al. 2003). The additional
average leveling pad pressure of 6.87 kPa was then converted into a
vertical force by multiplying the value by the leveling pad area.
This vertical force was then divided by the area of the wall facing
above Row 1 to find the equivalent shear stress of 0.83 kPa. This
indicates that the measured equivalent shear stress at the soil–wall
interface did not exceed the available shear stress, and the limited
wall height to surcharge height had no effect on the shear transfer
from soil arching.
Fig. 13(b) shows that the average pressure on the 103% leveling
pads exceeded the combined weight of the leveling pad soil column
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 10. Depth profiles of Row 3 earth pressures and coefficients for (a) 95%; and (b) 103% compaction efforts; and strip tensions and wall
displacements for (c) 95%; and (d) 103% compaction efforts.
and wall panels by 38.99 kPa. The average additional leveling pad
pressure on the 103% side was five times larger than on the 95%
side, indicating a much higher degree of soil arching. The overbur-
den reduction from arching was calculated to be 8.31 kPa, which
translated to a leveling pad pressure of 38.79 kPa. This resulted in a
negligible 0.52% difference from the measured additional average
leveling pad pressure, and indicates that force equilibrium was
achieved.
The equivalent shear stress calculated from average leveling pad
pressure on the 103% side of 4.73 kPa did not exceed the estimated
shear stress available at the soil–wall interface of 14.95 kPa. This
further confirmed that the limited wall height to surcharge height
had no effect on the shear transfer from soil arching.
Derived Earth Pressure Coefficients
Figs. 14(a and b) show the derived earth pressure coefficients for
the first three reinforcement rows along with active, at-rest, and
passive earth pressure coefficients for the 95% side and 103% side
compaction efforts, respectively. Row 4 was removed from the
analysis due to bowing of the separation barrier at the top of the
reinforced fill, as previously discussed. The 95% compaction effort
resulted in a φ ¼ 31.2° while the 103% compaction effort produced
a φ ¼ 39.5°, which provided a large range of φ based on the com-
paction effort for the investigation. As seen in Figs. 14(a and b),
© ASCE 04024009-11
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
(b)
(d)
earth pressure coefficients in both compaction zones moved from
a passive condition to an active condition for the first two rows.
Meanwhile, the third row in both compaction efforts moved toward
an at-rest condition, providing more evidence that the wall behaved
differently in the upper and lower halves, as suggested by the co-
herent gravity method.
Design Recommendations for Soil Pressure against
Unyielding Surfaces
After comparing the earth pressure coefficients derived from both
compaction efforts to the earth pressure coefficients estimated from
the coherent gravity method, the simplified method, and Spangler
and Handy method (Fig. 15), it is clear that the conventional meth-
ods inadequately quantified the additional lateral stress developed
from compaction efforts in an unyielding condition using inexten-
sible reinforcement.
A new equation was subsequently developed based on the re-
search results that considered the movement of earth pressure co-
efficients from the passive condition to an active or at-rest condition
as previously described. Additionally, the equation also considered
a variable range of φ based on the values found for the under and
over compacted zones which correlates well to the ranges most
likely found in practice. This allows the expected compaction ef-
fort to be considered directly in design when using the equation.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 11. Depth profiles of Row 4 earth pressures and coefficients for (a) 95%; and (b) 103% compaction efforts; and strip tensions and wall
displacements for (c) 95%; and (d) 103% compaction efforts.
Fig. 12. Force equilibrium diagram.
Eq. (1) was developed to estimate the expected design earth pres-
sure coefficients of the unique MSE wall configuration where the
aspect ratio is equal to or less than 0.3, and inextensible reinforce-
ment is mechanically fastened between stiff wall facings. It is
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
(b)
(d)
assumed that concrete facing panels and flat steel reinforcement
strips are used in design
kh ¼ kp@OC × zb ð1Þ
where kh = design earth pressure coefficient; kp@OC = passive earth
pressure coefficient for an over-compact state of soil density; z =
depth below the top of the wall (m); and b = exponent parameter
that quantifies a variable φ based on the compaction effort and geo-
static state of stress in the soil (active, at-rest, passive).
Laboratory testing must be performed to fully develop the equa-
tion. Modified proctor tests must be performed at 95% of T-180 and
above 100% of T-180 to satisfy compaction requirements in addi-
tion to direct shear testing to determine the internal friction angle
at each state of soil density. For demonstration, the 103% of T-180
compaction effort measured within the reinforced soil zone from
nuclear density testing is used for equation development. The fol-
lowing trial first sets kh to an active condition for 95% of T-180 and
z to 6 m based on the observed data trends and coherent gravity
design methodology. After solving for b, Eq. (2) is produced
b ¼ logðka@95 =kp@103 Þ= logðzÞ ð2Þ
The b parameter found in Eq. (2) is then used in Eq. (1) for
design. Following the design methodology of the coherent gravity
and simplified methods, a value of ka@95 is used rather than the kh
04024009-12 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 13. Depth profiles of vertical earth pressure for the soil column (SC), front leveling pad (LPF), back leveling pad (LPB), and leveling pad average
for (a) 95% compaction; and (b) 103% compaction efforts.

(a) (b)

Fig. 14. Depth profiles of earth pressure coefficients for (a) 95% compaction effort; and (b) 103% compaction effort.

Fig. 15. Conventional design methods coherent gravity, simplified, and Spangler and Handy compared to earth pressure coefficients measured in an
unyielding condition.

© ASCE 04024009-13 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 16. Developed design equation: (a) kp − ka ; and (b) kp − k0 with a 6-m cutoff compared to earth pressure coefficients measured in an unyielding
condition.
derived from Eq. (1) beyond a depth of 6 m. As seen in Fig. 16(a),
the design equation using ka@95 fits well for Rows 1 and 2, which
moved from a passive condition to an active condition, but it under-
estimated the earth pressure coefficients for Row 3 from both com-
paction zones.
Because the upper half of the wall was observed to move from
a passive condition to an at-rest condition for both compaction
efforts, the at-rest earth pressure coefficient from 95% of T-180
was also used in the equation development to quantify behavior
observed in Row 3 for both compaction efforts. The b parameter
considering the at-rest earth pressure is shown in Eq. (3)
b ¼ logðk0@95 =kp@103 Þ= logðzÞ ð3Þ
The results provided in Fig. 16(b) show that the updated equa-
tion can quantify the behavior of Row 3 in the upper half of the wall
for both compaction zones well. The only two outlying data points
occurred during the first two load phases when MatJacks failed
and can be disregarded. In summary, two equations considering a
variable φ based on the compaction effort were developed that fol-
lowed the data trends well for the upper and lower halves of the
wall. It is advised that, due to the limited constructed wall height
of 3 m, caution be taken when distinguishing between the upper
and lower halves of a wall. It is entirely possible that behavior ob-
served in Row 3 of the experimental MSE wall could occur in the
lower half of a much taller wall. One possible explanation of the
different behavior observed between the upper and lower halves of
the experimental MSE wall could be the construction procedures
implemented, where soil is not placed or compacted against the
wall facing until after the first row of reinforcements are connected.
Conclusions
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions can be
drawn for an MSE wall with an aspect ratio less than or equal to 0.3
in an unyielding condition using inextensible reinforcement tied
between stiff wall facings:
© ASCE 04024009-14
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
(b)
• Higher compaction efforts increase soil arching and shear trans-
fer to wall panels in an unyielding condition. The shear trans-
ferred at the soil–wall interface is then translated into increased
bearing pressure on the MSE wall leveling pads.
• Increased shear transfer at the soil–wall interface due to soil
arching leads to a reduction in vertical and lateral stress as
described by the Spangler and Handy method.
• As described by both the coherent gravity and simplified meth-
ods, higher locked-in compaction forces were generated in the
upper half of the constructed wall compared to the bottom half,
regardless of compaction effort. The distinction between the
upper and lower region of a wall should be treated with cau-
tion due to the limited wall height of 3 m for the experimental
MSE wall.
• In an unyielding condition, earth pressure coefficients move
from a passive condition to an active or at-rest condition as soil
height is increased above the reinforcement level. Earth pres-
sure coefficients developed in the unyielding condition gener-
ally stabilized in an active or at-rest condition at an approximate
depth of 6 m as suggested by the coherent gravity and simplified
methods.
• An equation that incorporates a variable friction angle based on
the compaction effort for an unyielding condition and FDOT
design and construction requirements was developed that fol-
lowed the trends of the measured data well.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
Acknowledgments
The assistance of the FDOT’s State Materials Office as well as
the district and central office Geotechnical Engineers is greatly
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 appreciated. The authors thank the FDOT’s Geotechnical Field
Specialists: Bruce Swidarski, Todd Britton, Kyle Sheppard, and
Travis “Dalton” Stevens, Geotechnical Laboratory Manager Bill
Greenwood, and Geotechnical Laboratory Specialists Mike Risher.
The authors also thank Keith Brabant and the Reinforced Earth
Company for their guidance on MSE wall construction, and Mark
Wallace at Campbell Scientific for his programming expertise.
Without their assistance, this research would not have been pos-
sible. This work was supported by the Florida Department of
Transportation’s State Materials Office through research contract
No. BDV31-977-89. The opinions, findings, and conclusions ex-
pressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not neces-
sarily those of the Florida Department of Transportation or the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Central Florida on 02/07/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
United States Department of Transportation.
Supplemental Materials
Video S1 is available online in the ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary
.org).
References
AASHTO. 2007. LRFD bridger design specifications. 4th ed. Washington,
DC: AASHTO.
AASHTO. 2013. Direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained
conditions. AASHTO T-236. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Allen, T., B. Christopher, V. Elias, and J. DiMaggio. 2001. Development of
the simplified method for internal stability design of mechanically sta-
bilized earth walls. Rep. No. WA-RD 513.1. Olympia, WA: Washington
State DOT.
Anderson, P. L., R. A. Gladstone, and J. E. Sankey. 2012. “State of the
practice of MSE wall design for highway structures.” In Geotechnical
Engineering State of the Art and Practice: Keynote Lectures from Geo-
Congress 2012, GSP 226. Reston, VA: ASCE. https://doi.org/10.1061
/9780784412138.0018.
Anderson, P. L., R. A. Gladstone, and J. L. Withiam. 2010. “Coherent
gravity: The correct design method for steel-reinforced MSE walls.”
In Proc., Earth Retention Conf., 3GSP 208. Reston, VA: ASCE.
https://doi.org/10.1061/41128(384)51.
ASTM. 2016. Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit
weight of soils and calculation of relative density. ASTM D4254. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017. Standard test method for determination of water content
of soil and rock by microwave oven heating. ASTM D4643. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2019. Standard test methods for maximum index density and
unit weight of soils using a vibratory table. ASTM D4253. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Chalermyanont, T., and C. H. Benson. 2004. “Reliability-based design for
internal stability of mechanically stabilized earth walls.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (2): 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2004)130:2(163).
Chalermyanont, T., and C. H. Benson. 2005. “Reliability-based design for
external stability of mechanically stabilized earth walls.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 5 (3): 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532
-3641(2005)5:3(196).
© ASCE 04024009-15
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2024, 150(4): 04024009
Chen, T. J., and Y. S. Fang. 2008. “Earth pressure due to vibratory com-
paction.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (4): 437–444. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:4(437).
Duncan, J. M., and R. B. Seed. 1986. “Compaction-induced earth pressures
under K0-conditions.” J. Geotech. Eng. 112 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:1(1).
Duncan, J. M., G. W. Williams, A. L. Sehn, and R. B. Seed. 1991.
“Estimation earth pressures due to compaction.” J. Geotech. Eng.
117 (12): 1833–1847. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1991)
117:12(1833).
Fang, Y. S., T. J. Chen, R. D. Holtz, and W. F. Lee. 2004. “Reduction of
boundary friction in model tests.” Geotech. Test. J. 27 (1): 3–12. https://
doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10812.
FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). 2017. Standard specifica-
tions for road and bridge construction. Tallahassee, FL: FDOT.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), R. R. Berg, B. R. Christopher,
and N. C. Samtani. 2009a. Design of mechanically stabilized earth
walls and reinforced soil slopes—Volume I. Publication No. FHWA-
NHI-10-024, FHWA GEC 011-Vol I. Washington, DC: FHWA.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), R. R. Berg, B. R. Christopher,
and N. C. Samtani. 2009b. Design of mechanically stabilized earth
walls and reinforced soil slopes—Volume II. Publication No. FHWA-
NHI-10-025, FHWA GEC 011-Vol II. Washington, DC: FHWA.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), N. C. Samtani, and E. A.
Nowatzki. 2006a. Soils and foundation reference manual—Volume I.
Publication No. FHWA-NHI-06-088. Washington, DC: FHWA.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), N. C. Samtani, and E. A.
Nowatzki. 2006b. Soils and foundation reference manual—Volume II.
Publication No. FHWA-NHI-06-089. Washington, DC: FHWA.
Gomez, J. E., G. M. Filz, and R. M. Ebeling. 2003. “Extended hyperbolic
model for sand-to-concrete interfaces.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
129 (11): 993–1000. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)
129:11(993).
Handy, R. L. 1985. “The arch in soil arching.” J. Geotech. Eng. 111 (3):
302–318. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:3(302).
Kim, D., and R. Salgado. 2012. “Load and resistance factors for internal
checks of mechanically stabilized earth walls.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 138 (8): 910–921. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000664.
Kniss, K. T., S. G. Wright, J. Zornberg, and K. Yang. 2007. Design con-
siderations for MSE retaining walls constructed in confined spaces.
Rep. No. FHWA/TX-08/0-5506-1. Austin, TX: Texas DOT.
Lawson, C. R., and T. W. Yee. 2005. “Reinforced soil retaining walls with
constrained reinforced fill zones.” In Proc., Slopes and retaining struc-
tures under seismic and static conditions, GSP 140. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Paik, K. H., and R. Salgado. 2003. “Estimation of active earth pressure
against rigid retaining walls considering arching effects.” Géotechnique
53 (7): 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.2003.53.7.643.
RECo (Reinforced Earth Company). 2003. Documentation and test results
for clip angle connections used in reinforced earth structures. Sterling,
VA: RECo.
RECo (Reinforced Earth Company). 2011. Design manual for reinforced
earth walls. Sterling, VA: RECo.
Spangler, M. G., and R. L. Handy. 1984. Soil engineering. New York:
Intext Educational Publishers.
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2010. Geotech-
nical design manual. M-46-03.01. Olympia, WA: WSDOT.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.