Bat 1

Facing contribution to seismic response of reduced-
scale reinforced soil walls

M. M. El-Emam
1
and R. J. Bathurst
2
1
Formerly, PhD student, GeoEngineering Centre at Queens-RMC, Queens University, Kingston,
Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada; Currently, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Zagazig University,
Egypt, Telephone: +20 50 6981407, Telefax: +20 50 6981407, E-mail: elemam_m@hotmail.com
2
Professor and Research Director, GeoEngineering Centre at Queens-RMC, Department of Civil
Engineering, 13 General Crerar, Sawyer Building, Room 2085, Royal Military College of Canada,
Kingston, Ontario, K7K 7B4, Canada, Telephone: +1 613 541 6000 ext. 6479, Telefax: +1 613 545
8336, E-mail: bathurst-r@rmc.ca
Received 1 February 2005, revised 25 June 2005, accepted 10 July 2005
ABSTRACT: The behavior of six reduced-scale reinforced soil walls under base excitation is
investigated using physical shaking table tests. The models were tested to isolate the influence of
facing geometry, facing mass and facing toe condition on response to simulated seismic loading.
The walls were instrumented to measure facing lateral displacement, reinforcement strain, toe
reaction loads and accelerations. The model walls were constructed with a structural facing and
polymeric geogrid reinforcement layers and subjected to a stepped amplitude sinusoidal base input
acceleration. The toe boundary condition and facing panel configuration were found to have a
significant effect on model response. For example, the magnitude of the accumulated facing lateral
displacement at the top of the vertical wall models and at the same base acceleration magnitude
was less for vertical walls with a less massive facing panel regardless of toe boundary condition.
For the same boundary condition, a wall with an inclined facing displaced less than the nominal
identical vertical wall for the same base excitation level. The horizontally restrained toe in
reduced-scale models attracted approximately 40% to 60% of the peak total horizontal earth load
during base excitation, demonstrating that a stiff facing column plays an important role in resisting
dynamic loads under simulated earthquake loading. Measured footing and reinforcement loads are
compared with values predicted using current pseudo-static analysis and design methods for
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls, and the implications of differences in predicted to measured
values to current North American design practice are identified.
KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Reinforced soil, Retaining wall, Shaking table, Seismic, Earthquake,
1-g model
REFERENCE: El-Emam, M. M. & Bathurst, R. J. (2005). Facing contribution to seismic response
of reduced-scale reinforced soil walls. Geosynthetics International, 12, No. 3, 215238.
1. INTRODUCTION
The effects of facing design parameters including facing
height and type on the response of reinforced soil-retaining
walls under static loading have been investigated using
numerical simulation approaches (Karpurapu and Bathurst
1995; Ho and Rowe 1996; Hatami et al. 2001; Ling and
Leshchinsky 2003) and full-scale model testing (Bathurst
et al. 2000). In these investigations, facing stiffness and toe
restraint were found to provide additional resistance to wall
lateral movement, which in turn influences the magnitude
of maximum reinforcement load. Allen and Bathurst (2002,
2003) investigated the performance of 20 well-documented
geosynthetic wall case histories representing a total of 35
analysis conditions and concluded that very stiff facings
(including full-height concrete panel and concrete modular
block systemsreinforced segmental walls) could reduce
reinforcement loads by a factor of two relative to the loads
in geosynthetic-reinforced walls with more flexible facings
(e.g. wrapped facings). Tatsuoka (1993) noted that rela-
tively stiff concrete facing panels tend to increase soil
confinement and decrease soil reinforcement strains, there-
by reducing reinforcement loads. He also noted that facing
panels with overall axial stiffness are able to transfer
vertical loads to the facing toe and therefore increase wall
stability.
In current limit equilibrium-based static analysis and
design, Coulomb earth pressure theory is routinely used to
estimate the earth forces to be carried by the reinforcement
layers. In this approach the wall facing batter (i.e. inclina-
tion from the vertical) is taken into account explicitly in the
Geosynthetics International, 2005, 12, No. 5
215 1072-6349 # 2005 Thomas Telford Ltd
calculation of the active earth pressure coefficient. How-
ever, as demonstrated by Allen and Bathurst (2003), the
Coulomb earth pressure coefficient tends to excessively
underestimate the reinforcement loads for heavily battered
walls. Furthermore, the influence of the facing type,
geometry (excluding inclination angle) and height on
reinforcement loads is not explicitly considered in many
current design codes (e.g. FHWA 2001; AASHTO 2002).
In seismic analysis and design, the Coulomb approach
is extended to include inertial forces generated in the soil
mass by ground acceleration using MononobeOkabe
pseudo-static earth pressure theory. In pseudo-static analy-
sis and design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil-retaining
walls with a stiff facing, the concrete facing column can
be expected to generate additional inertial forces that
contribute to peak reinforcement loads (Bathurst and Cai
1995). With the exception of the method proposed by
Bathurst (NCMA) (1998) these additional forces are not
considered in current North American design guidance
documents (e.g. FHWA 2001, AASHTO 2002).
Reduced-scale shaking table tests on geosynthetic-
reinforced soil wall models (0.5 to 2.5 m high) have been
reported by Sakaguchi et al. (1993), Murata et al. (1994),
Bathurst et al. (1996), Koseki et al. (1998), and Matsuo et
al. (1998). Much of this previous work has been sum-
marized by Bathurst and Alfaro (1996) and Bathurst et al.
(2002b). However, with the exception of the experiments
described by Bathurst et al. (1996), the models used in
previous work did not include measurement of the reac-
tions developed at the wall toe.
A series of 14 one-sixth-scale model reinforced soil-
retaining walls with 1 m-high rigid panel facings were
constructed and tested using a shaking table located at the
Royal Military College of Canada (RMC) (El-Emam and
Bathurst 2004). The models were taken to failure using a
horizontal stepped-amplitude sinusoidal base acceleration
record. The variables between tests included: reinforce-
ment length and stiffness; reinforcement vertical spacing
(i.e. number of reinforcement layers); facing stiffness;
facing inclination angle; and input base motion character-
istics. A unique feature of these tests was the measurement
of reinforcement loads and facing toe loads at the end of
construction and during subsequent base excitation simu-
lating seismic loading. A brief overview of the experi-
mental design and instrumentation is included in the
current paper for completeness. The reader is directed to
the paper by El-Emam and Bathurst (2004) for a full
description of the experimental design (including scaling
laws), materials, instrumentation techniques, test facility
boundary conditions and interpretation of typical measure-
ment results.
This paper is focused on the results of a subset of six
test walls from this larger study that were designed to
investigate the influence of the facing on wall perform-
ance. The six walls were constructed with different facing
panel thickness (mass), facing batter (inclination) and toe
restraint condition (Table 1). The test configurations are
illustrated in Figure 1. The quantitative response of the
walls to base shaking in terms of facing displacements,
toe loads, reinforcement loads and amplification of the
base excitation through the facing and in the backfill soil
is presented, and the differences in response features due
to the wall facing configuration are identified. The experi-
mental results are also compared with results using current
pseudo-static analysis for geosynthetic-reinforced soil
walls constructed with a stiff structural facing column.
Differences between physical test results and predictions
using pseudo-static analytical solutions are identified, and
Table 1. Test configurations and model parameters (model
scale)
Test number Facing
Toe Inclination Thickness
(mm)
7 Sliding Vertical 76
8 Hinged Vertical 76
9 Hinged Vertical 38
10 Sliding Vertical 38
11 Hinged 108 from vertical 38
12 Sliding 108 from vertical 38
(a)
(b)
Reinforcement
0.6 m
0.076 or
0.038 m
Facing panel
1.0 m
0.225 m
0.6 m 0.038 m
Reinforcement
Facing panel
1.0 m
10
0.225 m
Figure 1. Reinforced model wall configurations: (a) Walls 7
10; (b) Walls 11 and 12
216 El-Emam and Bathurst
their possible implications for current North American
design practice are discussed.
2. TEST PROGRAM
2.1. RMC shaking table
The RMC shaking table comprises a 2.7 m by 2.7 m steel
platform driven by a 100 kN servo-hydraulic actuator with
a 75 mm stroke range. The maximum payload capacity
of the table is 4500 kg. The table is capable of shaking a
full payload at frequencies up to 13 Hz and peak base
acceleration amplitudes up to 2g. Test models are
confined within a rectangular strong box 1.2 m high,
1.4 m wide and 2.7 m long that is bolted to the steel
shaking table.
2.2. Wall configurations and construction
Details of the six model walls that were designed to isolate
the influence of the facing on the behavior of reinforced
soil walls under dynamic loading are summarized in Table
1 and illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. In these model walls
the reinforcement vertical spacing was kept constant at S
v
0.25 m and the reinforcement length, L, was chosen to
give a ratio L/H 0.6 where H 1.0 m is the height of
the model wall. For rigid faced walls with geogrid
reinforcement, the typical upper limit on vertical spacing
is 1.2 m (Holtz et al. 1997), which matches the equivalent
average reinforcement spacing of the reduced-scale mod-
els using a scaling factor of 1/6. The reinforcement length
to height ratio of 0.6 was chosen to meet the minimum
current NCMA recommendation (Bathurst (NCMA)
1998). The facing toe in different model walls was either
hinged (restrained from movement in the vertical and
horizontal direction, while free to rotate) or sliding
(allowed to slide horizontally and rotate, while restrained
from vertical movement). It should be noted that the two
boundary conditions at the wall toe represent two limiting
cases with respect to actual field structures. For example,
Tatsuoka et al. (1995) reported on the displacement of a
6 m-high reinforced soil wall constructed with a reinforced
concrete panel wall face that moved 100 mm at the toe
and 260 mm at the crest during the Kobe earthquake of
1995. Hence, even with 0.5 m of embedment of the wall
face, this wall experienced a combination of sliding at the
toe as well as rotation about a point at about ground level
in front of the structure.
Another advantage of the two different toe boundary
conditions investigated in the test program is that results
from numerical models can be compared with measured
vertical and horizontal toe loads generated in different
tests (El-Emam et al. 2001, 2004b). Accurate prediction
of boundary loads is always an important check on the
veracity of any geotechnical numerical model.
Two facing systems with different thickness values were
used to investigate the influence of facing mass on the
response of wall models. Facing inclination effects were
investigated using two model walls constructed with a
facing batter equal to 108 from the vertical. Segmental
retaining walls are typically constructed with a facing
batter of 38 to 158 from the vertical, with the majority of
facing systems between 78 and 128 (Bathurst et al. 1993;
Bathurst and Simac 1996). In order to predict the behavior
of equivalent (prototype) models at full scale, the model
walls were designed in accordance with simulation rules
proposed by Iai (1989).
The walls were constructed by bracing the facing panel
and constructing the soil and facing sections in 100 mm-
thick lifts. The soil was placed in a loose condition, and
each lift was compacted by vibrating the table at 9 Hz for
6 s. At the end of construction the external braces were
removed. This condition corresponded to the starting point
(static loading condition) prior to shaking. The sequence
of soil and facing placement while the facing column was
braced can be argued to be a construction technique that
falls between the field case of an incrementally con-
structed (unbraced) segmental (modular block) wall and a
full-height braced rigid panel method.
2.3. Backfill soil
The backfill material used in the model tests was a
synthetic olivine sand composed of angular to sub-angular
particle shapes with a specific gravity of 2.88. The maxi-
mum and minimum void ratios of the sand are 1.2 and 0.7
respectively. The material is silica-free and hence satisfied
government regulations regarding the health dangers of
silica dust that would be otherwise generated during model
preparation using a natural sand material. The sand was
also selected because of its simple mechanical properties
and ease of compaction to a repeatable density. According
to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the soil
is a uniformly graded sand (SP) with about 3% fines,
coefficient of curvature C
c
1.27 and coefficient of
uniformity C
u
2.5. In all model tests, the bulk unit
weight of the sand was maintained at 15.7 kN/m
3
(relative
density D
r
86%) and zero moisture content.
Direct shear box tests 10 cm by 10 cm in plan area were
carried out, and the material was shown to have a peak
friction angle
peak
518, dilation angle 158 and
constant-volume angle
cv
468 when prepared to the
same dry unit weight and relative density as the model
walls and a confining pressure equal to a height of 1 m of
soil (15.7 kPa). No attempt was made to deduce cyclic or
dynamic soil properties of the sand from standard labora-
tory tests in this study. However, a review of the literature
by Bathurst et al. (2002b) suggests that for dry cohesion-
less soils the rate of loading used in direct shear or triaxial
tests has a negligible effect on shear strength.
2.4. Facing panel
The facing panel was constructed using rectangular hollow
steel sections with cross-section dimensions of 76 mm by
38 mm, and 1.4 m in length. A total of 26 sections were
bolted together to form a 1 m-high rigid facing with a
thickness of 76 mm and a width of 1.4 m (Walls 7 and 8)
(Figure 2a). For Walls 9 through 12, the facing panel was
designed to be thinner by using a total of 13 steel sections
rotated 908 to form a 1 m-high facing with a thickness of
38 mm. As noted earlier, two of these walls (Walls 11 and
12) were constructed with a facing inclination of 108 from
Facing contribution to seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil walls 217
the vertical. The steel sections were bolted together using
three 25 mm-diameter steel rods. The reinforcement con-
nections with the facing panel were designed to be
perfectly rigid, which provided a perfect reinforcement-
facing connection by preventing slippage of the reinforce-
ment layers relative to the facing panel.
2.5. Geogrid reinforcement
In the present investigation, a PVC-coated polyester (PET)
geogrid with an aperture size of 21 mm by 25 mm was
chosen because its stiffness (1.8 kN/m at 2% strain) in
reduced-scale models is comparable to the range of typical
0.076 m
Plywood base
Sliders
Facing panel
Reinforcement layer
LVDT
Accelerometer
0.076 m
Plywood base
Facing panel
Reinforcement layer
LVDT
LVDT
Accelerometer
1.0 m
LVDT
0.076 m
0.6 m
Slide rails Accelerometer
Shaking table platform Extensometer node
Extensometer cables
Strain gauges
1.80 m
Load cell
Sand backfill
0.225 m
Reinforcement
Plywood base
Glued sand layer
Rigid
steel
wall
Plywood
back
(a)
Horizontal
load cell
Vertical
load cell
Aluminum
plate
Slide
rails
Shaking table
platform
(b)
Vertical
load cell
Sliders Aluminum
plate
Slide
rails
Shaking table
platform
(c)
Figure 2. General arrangement and instrumentation layout of reduced-scale reinforced soil model walls: (a) example cross-
section (Walls 7 and 8); (b) detail of instrumented toe (horizontal restrained toe condition); (c) detail of instrumented toe
(sliding toe condition)
reinforcement stiffness values at prototype scale using the
scaling laws proposed by Iai (1989). Furthermore, a PET
product was selected (rather than a polyolefin material)
because the axial loadextension properties of PET
reinforcement products are essentially strain-rate indepen-
dent (Bathurst and Cai 1994; Shinoda and Bathurst 2004).
Geogrid layers were installed with the machine direction
in the direction of loading so that the wider longitudinal
members could be instrumented with strain gauges.
2.6. Instrumentation
Four different types of instrument were installed in each
test wall to monitor facing horizontal movements, reinfor-
cement displacements and strains, horizontal and vertical
toe loads, and acceleration response at different locations
on the facing panel and in the backfill soil (Figure 2a).
Cable-extension position transducers were attached to a
rigid vertical post mounted at the front of the shaking
table to measure the relative movement of the facing panel
with respect to the table during base shaking. Local strains
in the reinforcement were measured using strain gauges
bonded to the polyester bundles of the longitudinal
members. Extensometers were used to measure global
strains, which are defined as strains measured over several
geogrid apertures. Global strain measurements were used
to confirm strain gauge readings and to convert strain
values to load using the results of in-isolation tensile tests
(El-Emam and Bathurst 2004). As noted earlier, an
instrumented footing was used to measure the horizontal
and vertical components of load at the base of the facing
panel. Linear roller bearings were used to ensure that the
entire horizontal component of the toe force was trans-
ferred to a row of horizontal load cells for the hinged toe
models (Figure 2b). The vertical component of toe load
was measured using six vertical load cells. Data from 64
instruments were collected at a sampling rate of 150
readings per second per channel. A high sampling rate is
necessary to avoid aliasing effects and to capture the peak
values of dynamic wall response induced by base shaking.
2.7. Input motion characteristics
A stepped amplitude sinusoidal function at 5 Hz predomi-
nant frequency (Figure 3) was used as the base excitation.
A 5 Hz frequency (i.e. 0.2 s period) at 1/6-scale model
represents a 2 Hz (i.e. 0.5 s period) earthquake at proto-
type scale according to the scaling laws by Iai (1989). In
addition, the 5 Hz predominant frequency was much
smaller than the 22 Hz fundamental frequency of the
model wall (El-Emam and Bathurst 2004). Frequencies of
2 to 3 Hz are representative of typical predominant
frequencies of medium- to high-frequency earthquakes
(Bathurst and Hatami 1998), and fall within the expected
earthquake parameters for North American seismic design
(NBCC 1990; AASHTO 2002). The displacement ampli-
tude (i.e. actuator stroke) was increased at 5 s intervals to
generate an equivalent incremental base acceleration of
0.05g until excessive model deformation occurred and the
test terminated. This simple base excitation record is more
aggressive than an equivalent true earthquake record with
the same predominant frequency and amplitude (Bathurst
and Hatami 1998; Matsuo et al. 1998). In addition, it
allowed all tests to be excited in the same controlled
manner, and this allowed valid quantitative comparisons to
be made between different test configurations. Finally, it
should be noted that the models were excited in the
horizontal cross-plane direction only, to be consistent with
the critical orientation typically assumed for design
(Bathurst (NCMA) 1998; AASHTO 2002).
3. TEST RESULTS
In most of the plots presented in the following sections
the wall response features are referenced to peak values
that occurred during each stepped base acceleration incre-
ment. Hence the values are seldom time coincident, with
the exception of end-of-construction values (i.e. the initial
static condition at external prop release).
3.1. Model wall lateral displacements and critical
acceleration values
Maximum lateral displacements at the top of the facing
panel versus peak input base acceleration amplitude are
shown in Figure 4 for hinged and sliding toe model walls
with different facing panel properties (i.e. different thick-
ness and inclination angle). The response curves show that
there was little effect of the facing configuration on lateral
20.8
20.4
0
0.4
0.8
Time (s)
(a)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0
200
400
600
800
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

a
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
g
-
s
)
Frequency (Hz)
(c)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (s)
(b)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
20.8
20.4
0
0.4
0.8
40.0 40.2 40.4 40.6 40.8 41.0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 3. Input base acceleration characteristics: (a) base
input accelerogram; (b) 1 s window; (c) frequency content
displacements up to about 0.2g peak base acceleration
amplitude for the vertical wall models (Figures 4a and
4b). The inclined wall models for both the hinged and
sliding toe conditions showed lower displacement values
at all base input acceleration values. This result is not
unexpected since pseudo-static earth pressure theory pre-
dicts a decrease in lateral earth forces with increasing wall
inclination towards the backfill soil. For model walls with
a thick vertical facing panel, the top lateral displacement
was larger than for the otherwise identical model walls but
with a thin facing panel. This can be attributed to the
larger destabilizing inertial force resulting from the larger
facing mass under dynamic loading.
In all tests, a threshold acceleration (i.e. critical accel-
eration) value can be estimated from each displacement
acceleration curve (points A, B and C). At these points, an
increase in the displacement rate with acceleration ampli-
tude occurred at the top of the wall. A threshold value can
be used to identify a critical input base acceleration
associated with wall failure in pseudo-static and displace-
ment (sliding block) methods of analysis (Bathurst and
Alfaro 1996; Cai and Bathurst 1996; Ling 2001; Bathurst
et al. 2002b).
Figures 4a and 4b indicate that the maximum input base
acceleration amplitude required to generate excessive
deformation at the top of the facing panel increased with
facing inclination angle and decreased with lower facing
thickness (mass). It can be also noted that the model walls
with a sliding toe (Figure 4b) showed higher critical
acceleration values (based on wall displacements at the
wall crest) compared with the otherwise identical model
walls with a hinged toe (Figure 4a). However, the
interpretation of critical acceleration values between
hinged and sliding toe models is complicated by the
difference in wall displacement patterns and how displace-
ments are quantified, as discussed below.
The effect of facing parameters on the lateral displace-
ment at the footing, X
B
, of the sliding toe model walls is
shown in Figure 5. Similar to the top displacement
response, the model wall with an inclined facing showed
the smallest movement at the toe, whereas the model wall
with the thickest vertical facing panel showed the largest
displacement at the toe for the same base acceleration
value. The figure also indicates that facing inclination and
mass significantly affect the toe displacement at input
base acceleration values larger than the model wall critical
acceleration. This effect is more clearly demonstrated in
Figure 6, which shows the relative displacement resulting
from normalized facing rotation (X
T
X
B
)/H at the
top of the wall against base sliding (X
B
/H), for the
sliding toe model walls with different facing parameters.
For each model wall, and prior to the critical acceleration
value (determined at a sudden change in rate of wall
rotation), the predominant facing deformation mode was
wall rotation about the toe. At peak acceleration ampli-
tudes larger than the critical acceleration in Figure 6a,
base sliding becomes the dominant wall deformation
mode. Critical acceleration values based on wall rotation
are more easily detected and less ambiguous than values
based on top wall deformation (Figure 5) or wall base
deformation (Figure 6b). Using wall rotationbase accel-
eration traces in Figures 4a and 6a to define critical
acceleration values leads to the conclusion that increasing
the facing panel inclination angle is more effective in
increasing wall stability than increasing the facing mass
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1.0 m
0.6 m
B
0.32g
Thin vertical facing (Wall 9)
Thin inclined facing (Wall 11)
Thick vertical facing (Wall 8)
Input base acceleration amplitude (g)
(a)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

X
T

(
m
m
)
X
T
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.6 m
1.0 m
X
T

(b)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

X
T

(
m
m
)
X
B
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
A
0.27g
C
0.33g
B
0.36g
A
0.31g
C
0.39g
Figure 4. Displacement measured at top of wall facing panel
against peak input base acceleration amplitude for hinged
and sliding toe model walls: (a) hinged toe model walls; (b)
sliding toe model walls
0
2
4
6
8
40
50
60
70
80
0.36g
0.39g
0.31g
0.6 m
1.0 m

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

X
B

(
m
m
)
X
T
X
B
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Figure 5. Displacement measured at toe of wall-facing panel
against peak input base acceleration amplitude for sliding toe
model walls
(i.e. by increasing the panel width), for the range of values
in this study. This conclusion is consistent with numerical
modeling results reported by Hatami et al. (2001), who
also concluded that increases in the facing stiffness did
not improve stability of reinforced soil walls under static
loading as much as an increase in the facing inclination
angle.
3.2. Vertical loads developed at the wall toe
Figure 7 shows the vertical toe loads recorded at the
instrumented footing at the end of construction and at
different input base acceleration amplitudes for model
walls with different toe boundary conditions and facing
parameters. Also shown in the figure are values of the
vertical toe load predicted using a pseudo-static seismic
analysis approach (Bathurst and Cai 1995). The total
vertical load at the facing toe, R
v
, is calculated here as
R
v
W
f
P
AE
sin

(1)
where W
f
facing self-weight, interface friction
angle at the back of the facing panel, and facing
panel inclination (positive in the clockwise direction from
the vertical). Here P
AE
is the total active earth force
expressed for the case with no vertical ground acceleration
component (i.e. consistent with the shaking table base
acceleration record) as follows:
P
AE
0:5K
AE
H
2
(2)
where and H are the unit weight of the backfill soil and
the model wall height respectively. The total (static +
dynamic) earth pressure coefficient, K
AE
, is calculated
using the following equation:
K
AE

cos
2
( )=cos cos
2
cos( )
1
sin sin
cos cos
_
_
_
_
2
(3)
where soil friction angle, backfill surface slope
angle from the horizontal, and seismic inertial angle
given by tan
1
(k
h
). Here the horizontal seismic
coefficient, k
h
, is expressed as a fraction of the gravita-
tional constant, g, and is assumed uniform and constant at
all locations (Bathurst (NCMA) 1998; AASHTO 2002). In
the calculation of vertical toe load using Equation 1, fully
mobilized interface friction between the facing panel and
the soil backfill was assumed (i.e.
peak
). Allen and
Bathurst (2002) concluded that continuous reinforcement
layers attached to the facing will restrict the relative
movement of the backfill soil against the facing panel and
generate a condition in which the interface friction angle
is equal to the peak soil friction angle. Under dynamic
loading conditions, the peak strength of a compacted dry
cohesionless soil is not expected to be less than the static
value (Bathurst and Cai 1995; Bathurst et al. 2002b).
The variation of vertical toe load with peak input base
acceleration (Figures 7a and 7b) shows that the vertical
toe load was significantly greater than the self-weight of
the facing panel, for all model walls, at end of construc-
tion (static loading) and during subsequent base excitation.
This difference is attributed to vertical down-drag forces
developed at the back of the facing panel. These down-
drag forces are the result of soil settlement with respect to
the rigid facing panel that occurs during soil placement
and which increases in magnitude as outward deformation
of the facing panel progresses during base shaking.
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
1.0 m
X
T
0.39g
0.31g
W
a
l
l

r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

(
X
T

2

X
B
)
/
H
0.4g
Rotation is
dominant
Translation is
dominant
Bottom displacement ratio, X
B
/H
(a)
0.33g
0.25g
0.22g
Input base acceleration (g)
(b)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
X
B
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.08
Figure 6. Wall displacement response for sliding toe models: (a) top relative displacement ratio against bottom displacement
ratio; (b) top relative displacement ratio against input base acceleration. Note: X
B
displacement at bottom of wall; X
T
displacement at top of wall; H height of wall
Figures 7a and 7b show that down-drag forces increased
in magnitude with increasing peak amplitude of the input
base acceleration.
Results in Figure 7 also show that the two model walls
with thick facing panels (Walls 7 and 8) gave the largest
vertical toe load compared with the other model walls.
This was an expected result as these two model walls have
a facing mass that is twice that of the thinner wall face
models. For the two model walls with inclined facing
panels (Walls 11 and 12), the vertical toe loads during
static and dynamic loading are significantly smaller than
for the vertical wall models. This is believed to be because
the inclined facing leaned into the soil backfill and hence
a portion of self-weight was carried by the soil. Finally,
comparison of vertical toe loads for model walls with a
hinged toe (Figure 7a) and identical model walls but with
a sliding toe (Figure 7b) illustrates that the toe restraint
condition had a negligible effect on the magnitude of
vertical load developed at the toe.
The predicted values shown in Figure 7 underestimate
the measured vertical toe load values in all cases, and the
difference between the predicted and measured values
increases for all model walls with increasing input base
acceleration amplitude. The underestimation varies from
13% to 29% of the measured value at end of construction
to 17% to 31% during base shaking. An explanation for
this difference is that both static and dynamic limit-
equilibrium methods (using Equation 1) do not fully
account for the down-drag forces that are developed at the
back of the facing. Neglecting these additional forces in
the design of reinforced soil walls is non-conservative.
Similar non-conservatism in the calculation of vertical toe
0
2
4
6
8
10
Self-weight of thin facing
(a)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

t
o
e

l
o
a
d
,

R
v

(
k
N
/
m
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.6 m
1.0 m
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Self-weight of
thick facing
Measured Predicted Facing configuration
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

t
o
e

l
o
a
d
,

R
v

(
k
N
/
m
)
Self-weight of thin facing
Self-weight of
thick facing
(b)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
R
v
Figure 7. Vertical toe load against peak input base acceleration amplitude for hinged and sliding toe model walls with different
facing parameters (
peak
518 used for predicted values): (a) hinged toe model walls; (b) sliding toe model walls
loads has been reported by Bathurst et al. (2000) during
construction and surcharging of full-scale reinforced soil
segmental retaining walls
3.3. Horizontal loads developed at wall toe
Measured horizontal loads developed at the toe, R
H
,
normalized to the total horizontal earth force, P
AE
, are
shown in Figure 8 for model walls with different facing
configurations and a hinged toe. The total horizontal earth
force, P
AE
, for each model is equal to the summation of
the horizontal toe load and the sum of the connection
loads, T
i
(i.e. P
AE
R
H
+ T
i
). The connection loads
were estimated from strains measured in the reinforcement
closest to the back of the facing and converted to loads
using tensile test results mentioned in Section 2.6. For all
model walls, the restrained toe attracted a significant
portion of the total horizontal earth force acting against
the facing panel at the end of construction (approximately
38% to 60% at release of external supports). This is not a
surprising result, as the toe of the model wall is very much
stiffer than the reinforcement layers at the end of construc-
tion. This result is consistent with quantitative measure-
ments from full-scale test walls, which showed that the
restrained footing contributed significant earth pressure
capacity to geosynthetic-reinforced walls constructed with
a structural facing (Bathurst et al. 2000, 2002c). For the
vertical walls the proportion of horizontal load taken by
the footing at prop release and at maximum base excita-
tion did not vary significantly (i.e. $ 45%). The explana-
tion for this behavior is that additional peak earth
pressures generated during shaking were carried by the
reinforcement, particularly as outward wall deformations
accumulated. For the inclined wall in this set of data (Wall
11), wall deformations were less under increasing base
excitation and consequently there was less load mobilized
in the reinforcement layers. Hence the load contribution
due to the reinforcement remained at about 40% of the
total earth force for the duration of the test.
3.4. Connection loads
3.4.1. Measured results
Figures 9 through 13 show the magnitude and distribution
of the measured connection loads at the end of construc-
tion and at selected values of the input base acceleration
amplitude for model walls with different toe boundary
conditions and facing parameters. For the walls with a
hinged toe, the toe loads are also plotted to highlight the
relative contribution of wall capacity due to this type of
boundary condition. Also shown on the plots are range
bars on measured connection loads that represent the
spread in estimated connection loads. Bathurst et al.
(2002a) demonstrated that for the reinforcement and strain
instrumentation technique used in full-scale walls that
were constructed with the same PET geogrid product and
instrumentation technique as used for these reduced-scale
walls, the coefficient of variation of strain readings from
multiple nominal identical strain measurements was 14%.
This value was used to calculate the 1 standard deviation
range bars on the data points (mean values) for connection
loads. Plotting of range estimates on measured data points
was adopted here because the accuracy of connection load
predictions using the analytical models described in the
next section need not be greater than the accuracy of
measurements against which they are compared.
The figures show that the reinforcement loads generally
increased with increasing base acceleration value for all
models. This is not unexpected, as there was a consistent
outward displacement of each model wall with increasing
base acceleration amplitude. For the hinged toe model
results in Figures 10 and 12 the horizontal toe load is
always greater then the load measured in any reinforce-
ment layer. However, the relative contribution of the
footing load and sum of connection loads for each wall
type did not vary over a large range as discussed in the
previous section. Some caution must be exercised in
regard to conclusions drawn from the connection load
histories for the top reinforcement layer in the model walls
because slip of the reinforcement may have occurred
at the later stages during base excitation owing to
low confinement pressure (i.e. depth of soil is 110 mm)
(El-Emam and Bathurst 2004). This represents one dis-
advantage of small-scale 1g testing of the type described
here when attempting to extrapolate performance of
reduced-scale reinforced wall tests to prototype scale.
Where there are consistent trends in the physical data in
Figures 9 through 13, they are summarized below.
Influence of toe boundary condition on vertical walls
(Figure 9):
The lowermost layer of reinforcement for the vertical
wall with a sliding toe was the largest connection
load in the wall and greater than the corresponding
load values for the otherwise nominally identical
wall with a hinged toe at the end of construction and
during subsequent base excitation. The relatively
more massive facing panel in combination with a
horizontally unrestrained toe boundary condition
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1.0 m

N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d

t
o
e

l
o
a
d
,

R
H
/
P
A
E

(
%
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
R
H
T
i
Y
total
P
AE
5 T
i
+ R
H
Figure 8. Measured horizontal (hinged) toe load, normalized
to total horizontal earth force for model walls with different
facing parameters, against peak input base acceleration
amplitude
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
NCMA/AASHTO/FHWA
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.6
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.0 2.4
Load (kN/m)
(a)
Load (kN/m)
(b)
Load (kN/m)
(c )
Load (kN/m)
(d)
Load (kN/m)
(e)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(Measured) sliding toe model with
thick facing (Wall 7)
(Measured) hinged toe model with
thick facing (Wall 8)
Predicted (NCMA)
Predicted (AASHTO/FHWA)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Figure 9. Measured and predicted connection loads for vertical model walls with different toe boundary conditions at different
peak input base acceleration amplitudes (
peak
518 used for predicted values): (a) static loading; (b) acceleration 0.1g;
(c) acceleration 0.2g; (d) acceleration 0.3g; (e) acceleration 0.4g
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Measured
Vertical thin facing (Wall 9)
Vertical thick facing (Wall 8)
Predicted (NCMA)
Vertical thin facing
Vertical thick facing
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
NCMA/AASHTO/FHWA
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.2
Load (kN/m)
(a)
Load (kN/m)
(b)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.6 2.0
Load (kN/m)
(d)
Load (kN/m)
(c)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.0 2.4
Load (kN/m)
(e)
Figure 10. Measured and predicted connection loads for vertical model walls with different facing mass and hinged toe at
different peak input base acceleration amplitudes (
peak
518 used for predicted values): (a) static loading; (b) acceleration
0.1g; (c) acceleration 0.2g; (d) acceleration 0.3g; (e) acceleration 0.4g
Measured
Predicted (NCMA)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
NCMA/AASHTO/FHWA
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Load (kN/m)
(e)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Load (kN/m)
(d)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Load (kN/m)
(c)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Load (kN/m)
(a)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Load (kN/m)
(b)
Figure 11. Measured and predicted connection loads for vertical model walls with different facing mass and sliding toe at
peak
Load (kN/m)
(b)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0
Load (kN/m)
(c)
0.4 0.8 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Load (kN/m)
(d)
0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.5
Load (kN/m)
(e)
Measured
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Inclined thin facing (Wall 11)
Inclined thin facing
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6
Load (kN/m)
(a)
0 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.2
Predicted (NCMA)
Figure 12. Measured and predicted connection loads for model walls with different facing inclination angle and hinged toe at
peak
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Load (kN/m)
(e)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Load (kN/m)
(c)
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Load (kN/m)
(d)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Load (kN/m)
(b)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Load (kN/m)
(a)
Measured
Predicted (NCMA)
Figure 13. Measured and predicted connection loads for model walls with different facing inclination angle and sliding toe at
peak
clearly led to earth loads being attracted to the lower
reinforcement layer. The pattern of highest connec-
tion load in the bottommost layer in the sliding toe
model persisted during progressively greater base
excitation.
Influence of wall mass on vertical walls (Figures 10 and
11):
For the vertical wall with a thick facing and a hinged
toe, the distribution of connection loads became
progressively more triangular with increasing base
acceleration (Figure 10).
The connection load distributions for the vertical
walls with a thin facing gave distributions that were
triangular in shape at all dynamic loading stages (i.e.
increasing connection load with depth) for both
hinged (Figure 10) and sliding models (Figure 11).
Influence of wall inclination (Figures 12 and 13):
For hinged toe (Figure 12) and sliding toe (Figure
13) models, the inclined wall model generally gave
lower connection loads than the matching vertical
wall during dynamic loading.
The distribution of connection loads was consistently
more triangular-shaped for the walls with a vertical
face than the corresponding inclined walls, regardless
of the boundary toe condition.
3.4.2. Predicted results
Superimposed on the plots in Figures 9 through 13 are the
predicted connection loads using MononabeOkabe earth
pressure theory together with a contributory area ap-
proach, peak soil friction angle, and the assumption of
fully mobilized soilwall friction angle (i.e.
peak

518) (Bathurst (NCMA) 1998). In this analysis approach,
the tensile loads under seismic loading, T
i
, in reinforce-
ment layer i are calculated as
T
i
k
h
W
f i
T
stai
T
dyni
(4)
where W
f i
S
vi
L
f

f
is the weight of the facing panel
increment falling within the contributory area S
vi
of the
reinforcement layer i. Parameters L
f
and
f
are the facing
panel width and unit weight respectively. The static and
dynamic components, T
stai
and T
dyni
, of the reinforcement
load are calculated as follows:
T
stai
K
AH
z
i
S
vi
T
dyni
0:8 0:6
z
i
H
_ _
K
dynH
HS
vi
_
_
(5)
Here, K
AH
K
A
cos ( ) is the horizontal compo-
nent of the static earth pressure coefficient, K
A
, and
K
dynH
is the horizontal dynamic component of the total
horizontal earth pressure coefficient, calculated as K
dynH
(K
AE
K
A
) cos ( ). The contributory area, S
v
, for
the topmost reinforcement layer is taken from the wall
crest to mid-elevation between the first and second
reinforcement layers from the crest. For the bottommost
layer, the contributory area, S
v
, is taken from the mid-
elevation between the bottom layer and the layer immedi-
ately above, and the base elevation of the reinforced soil
mass. The calculation of dynamic components, T
dyni
, of
reinforcement load in Equation 5 is based on the assump-
tion that the resultant of the dynamic earth pressure
distribution is located at H above the base of reinforced
soil mass where 0.6 (Bathurst and Cai 1995). As a
consequence of this assumption, the proportion of the
dynamic load increment carried by the reinforcement
layers closest to the crest of a wall with uniform reinforce-
ment spacing increases with increasing horizontal accel-
eration.
Also plotted in Figures 9 through 13 are the predicted
reinforcement loads using the current AASHTO (2002)
and FHWA (2001) codes of practice. In the AASHTO/
FHWA guidelines the value and distribution of the
dynamic earth force increment, T
dyni
, is weighted based on
total anchorage length embedded in the resistance zone
according to the following equation:
T
dyni
P
dyn
L
ai
n
j1
L
ai
(6)
where n number of reinforcement layers, and L
ai

anchorage length of the reinforcement layer i (i.e. the
portion of the layer i extended beyond the internal soil
failure surface). The dynamic earth force is calculated as
P
dyn
k
h
W
A
, where W
A
is the weight of the static
internal soil failure wedge with the geometry defined
using Rankine theory (i.e. wedge propagates from heel of
the facing column at an angle /4 + /2 from the
horizontal and taken as
peak
). In AASHTO/FHWA the
weight of the facing is not used in the calculation of
P
dyn
. The AASHTO/FHWA approach leads to redistribu-
tion of dynamic force to the lower reinforcement layers
for internal stability calculations in structures with uni-
form reinforcement length. However, the predicted distri-
butions for the end-of-construction (static) stage are the
same for both the NCMA and AASHTO/FHWA methods.
The predicted connection loads assuming that the entire
earth force is carried by the reinforcement (i.e. current
practice) show that the NCMA and AASHTO/FHWA
methods are reasonably accurate for the two topmost
reinforcement layers of the vertical wall with a thick
facing and a hinged toe but generally underestimate
connection loads at lower elevations at the end of
construction (Figure 9a). The static loading results for this
wall support the conclusion made by Allen and Bathurst
(2002) that current (static) design methods tend to be
reasonably accurate near the top of the wall but may
significantly overestimate the reinforcement loads in geo-
synthetic walls over the bottom half of the wall. For the
same wall, but a thinner facing, the two methods generally
overestimate the reinforcement loads at all elevations but
the discrepancy is largest toward the bottom of the wall at
the end of construction (Figure 10a).
In general, both methods tend to progressively over-
predict loads at the top of the wall and underpredict loads
at the bottom of the wall with increasing base acceleration
regardless of wall type and toe boundary condition. How-
ever, with increasing base input acceleration, the NCMA-
predicted values for connection loads were progressively
less accurate and more uniformly distributed than the
measured values. In general, the trend towards a more
triangular distribution of connection loads for all wall
models with increasing base acceleration input was better
captured using the AASHTO/FHWA method than with the
NCMA method. A possible explanation for the poor
agreement between predicted and measured reinforcement
loads using the NCMA method may be the assumption
regarding the magnitude and shape of the dynamic incre-
ment of earth pressure assumed in the current pseudo-
static design method for segmental retaining walls
(Bathurst (NCMA) 1998). For example, the dynamic load
increment is assumed to act at H 0.6H above the toe.
This assumption leads to a larger portion of the incre-
mental dynamic load being taken by the top layers of
reinforcement. However, as noted previously, the very low
measured connection loads for the top reinforcement layer
in the model tests during large base acceleration input
values may be due to reinforcement slippage.
Despite the deficiencies in prediction accuracy de-
scribed here, it may be argued that, for all wall configura-
tions, both pseudo-static methods give load distributions
that typically overlap the measured results, usually in the
vicinity of the wall middle. Hence prediction accuracy is
related largely to the way in which pseudo-static loads are
distributed to the reinforcement layers rather than the
calculation of the magnitude of total force to be carried by
the reinforcement layers. This point is explored in detail
in the following section.
3.4.3. Measured and predicted sum of connection loads
Effects of facing parameters (i.e. weight and inclination
angle) on the measured and predicted summation of the
total connection loads, T
i
, for model walls with a hinged
and sliding toe are shown in Figures 14a and 14b
respectively. From the physical data in these figures the
following observations can be made:
At the end of construction the sum of connection
loads was largest for the sliding toe models.
The largest value for sum of connection loads for the
six walls tested was recorded for the vertical wall
with the thinnest facing in combination with a
sliding toe boundary.
For the hinged toe models (Figure 14a) the effect of
facing mass on the vertical walls was not detected,
while for the sliding toe models the largest values of
T
i
for the vertical walls corresponded to the wall
with the least thickness (mass) (Figure 14b).
For the hinged wall models the sum of connection
loads was the least for the inclined wall model
during base shaking (Figure 14a). With the exception
of one data point the same observation can be made
for the walls constructed with a sliding toe (Figure
14b).
Predicted values of the sum of connection forces are
plotted in Figures 14a(ii) and 14b(ii) using the NCMA and
AASHTO/FHWA methods of analysis described earlier.
The trends in measured loads with increasing base accel-
eration are reasonably well captured using the AASHTO/
FHWA method for both hinged and sliding toe models
(i.e. measured and predicted values generally increase at a
decreasing rate with respect to base acceleration). For the
vertical hinged toe models, the predicted values at accel-
eration values in the vicinity of 0.2g fall within 1
standard deviation of the measurement values. For the
inclined wall test and a hinged toe condition the predicted
values are within the range bars up to 0.2g. The NCMA
method, however, does not capture the general trend in the
data, and discrepancies between measured and predicted
values are generally larger. Nevertheless, any good agree-
ment between theory and measured values for the hinged
models can be judged to be fortuitous, as the contribution
of toe restraint to the sum of lateral earth force capacity is
ignored in the analytical predictions.
3.4.4. Measured and predicted total earth forces (hinged
toe models)
Load data for hinged wall models are plotted in Figure 15
to include the measured toe forces and the sum of
connection loads (i.e. T
i
+ R
H
). The total load is largest
for the thick (i.e. stiffer) vertical wall and least for the
inclined wall model for peak base accelerations greater
than 0.2g. These are expected results as the thicker and
heavier facing panel leads to a larger destabilizing inertial
force during base excitation. Analytical predictions using
NCMA and AASHTO/FHWA pseudo-static methods con-
sistently underestimate the total horizontal forces acting
on the wall facing, with the exception of the thin vertical
wall face model at the end of construction. However, the
NCMA-based predictions are less in error. A practical
implication is that the NCMA method, although not
explicitly able to predict the magnitude of the toe load
contribution, is more accurate for facing stability design
(i.e. safer) but nevertheless non-conservative.
3.5. Line of action of total earth force
3.5.1. Reinforcement loads only
The differences in the relative distributions of total
(dynamic and static) connection loads, presented earlier in
Section 3.4.1, can also be quantified by comparing the
elevation of the line of action of the sum of the connection
loads, T
i
, with respect to the toe of each model. Figure
16 shows the computed line of action of the sum of total
reinforcement connection loads for model walls with
different facing configurations and boundary conditions.
Ignoring the horizontal toe force for the hinged toe
models, the measured resultant elevation, Y
R
, can be back-
calculated using the following equation:
Y
R

T
i
Y
i
T
i
(7)
where T
i
the measured connection load at reinforcement
layer i, and Y
i
height of reinforcement layer i above the
model wall base.
The line of action due to the contribution of the
reinforcement layers for hinged and sliding toe models
can be seen to generally decrease with increasing magni-
tude of base excitation up to (say) 0.3g. There is evidence
of a delayed increase in Y
R
at base acceleration values
approaching critical values in each test, but the overall
trend over the course of each test is downward.
For the vertical walls, the elevation of the connection
load resultant is highest for the wall with the lower mass
and a sliding toe boundary. When inclination angle is
considered, the thin wall with a facing batter of 108 from
vertical and a sliding toe gave a higher elevation for the
resultant compared with the nominally identical wall with
a hinged toe boundary. For any pair of walls with the same
toe boundary condition, the line of action for the connec-
tion load resultant was higher for the wall with an inclined
facing at peak ground acceleration values less than critical
values.
Also plotted in the figure is the total (dynamic + static)
moment arm, Y
R
, predicted using the NCMA pseudo-static
method (i.e. Equations 4, 5 and 7). The location of the
dynamic force moment arm is sensitive to the assumed
Predicted
Measured
Predicted
Measured
Inclined facing
Vertical facing
1.0 m
(i)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(ii)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(a)
T
i
T
i
0
1
2
3
4
5
L
o
a
d
,

T
i

(
k
N
/
m
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Inclined facing
Vertical facing
T
i
1.0 m
(i)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(ii)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
(b)
L
o
a
d
,

T
i

(
k
N
/
m
)
T
i
Figure 14. Measured and predicted sum of connection loads, T
i
, for model walls with different facing parameters against peak
input base acceleration amplitude (
peak
518 used for predicted values): (a) hinged toe models; (b) sliding toe models; (i)
AASHTO/FHWA method; (ii) NCMA method
value of the parameter (Section 3.4.2). According to the
current NCMA seismic design method for segmental
retaining walls, parameter is taken as 0.6 (Bathurst
(NCMA) 1998). AASHTO (2002) and FHWA (2001)
guidelines treat the distribution of the dynamic component
of the earth pressure distribution differently, as described
in Section 3.4.2. The line of action predicted using the
AASHTO/FHWA approach is also plotted in Figure 16.
Both analytical solution methods give trends that are in
the opposite direction to the predicted results. In addition,
the predicted line of action for the end-of-construction
condition (Y
R
0.36) was less than that computed from
measured connection loads. This is consistent with ob-
servations from full-scale tests that have shown that,
because the distribution of reinforcement loads is more
uniform with the depth than the triangular distribution of
earth pressure assumed using classical earth pressure
theory (Bathurst et al. 2000), it follows that the line of
action for the connection load distribution is at a greater
elevation than that predicted using current practice.
At the maximum peak base acceleration in the tests, the
NCMA-predicted value is almost twice that of the value
computed from measured connection load values. The
discrepancy is much less using the AASHTO/FHWA
method. Nevertheless, both methods can be argued to be
conservatively safe for design for peak ground accelera-
tions greater than (say) 0.2g based on test results. This is a
concern if local overturning of a column of modular
blocks is a design failure mode for reinforced segmental
retaining walls and (or) where dislodgement of the dry-
stacked facing units at the top of a reinforced segmental
retaining wall during seismic shaking is to be avoided
(Bathurst (NCMA) 1998).
3.5.2. Reinforcement loads and horizontal toe loads
Similar measured and predicted values for the resultant Y
R
are presented for the hinged and sliding toe models with
the same vertical face in Figure 17 but now including the
influence of the horizontal toe force, R
H
, for the hinged
toe case. For the hinged toe model, Equation 7 becomes
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NCMA method
AASHTO/FHWA method
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
/
m
)
facing panel
1.0 m
0.1 0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
T
i
R
H
T
i
1 R
H
Figure 15. Total earth force, P
AE
, at back of facing for model walls with different facing design parameters and hinged toe
against peak input base acceleration amplitude (
peak
518 used for predicted values)
Hinged toe
Sliding toe
0.55
0.60
NCMA method ( 5 0.6)
AASHTO/FHWA method
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
a
n
t

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,

Y
R
/
H
T
i
1.0 m
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
T
i
Y
R
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
Figure 16. Normalized total earth force resultant elevation against peak input base acceleration amplitude for hinged and
sliding toe model walls with different facing mass (reinforcement loads only)
Y
R

T
i
Y
i
R
H
T
i
(8)
The differences in magnitude of measured values of Y
R
are now more pronounced. The measured data in Figure
17 show that the position of the resultant above the toe is
significantly affected by the toe boundary condition. For
the hinged toe model wall, the elevation of the line of
action due to the reinforcement connection loads only is at
0.43H at the static condition and decreases to 0.35H with
increasing input base acceleration amplitude. Taking the
horizontal toe load into consideration, the elevation of the
total earth force behind the facing panel decreases from
0.22H at the static condition to 0.17H with increasing
input base acceleration. This reduction is attributed to the
stiffer restrained toe, which attracted a significant portion
of the earth force developed at the back of the facing
panel, leading to a decrease in the earth force resultant
elevation above the toe. For the sliding toe model wall, the
elevation of the line of action begins at 0.33H after
construction (i.e. static condition) and becomes slightly
lower and constant at about 0.3H thereafter. It should be
noted that, for sliding toe model walls, the elevation of the
connection load resultant is the same as the elevation for
total earth force resultant at the back of the facing.
Therefore the total earth force resultant elevation above
the toe is larger for the sliding toe model wall than for the
hinged toe model wall in this figure. Taken together, these
results show that the influence of the toe boundary
condition is greater than the influence of the magnitude of
peak base acceleration on back-calculated values of Y
R
.
The experimental results are also consistent with the
experimental results for conventional walls reported by
Ishibashi and Fang (1987) and analytical results by
Richards et al. (1999), who showed that the point of action
of the earth force resultant varies with type of wall
movement (i.e. rotation versus sliding). Both experimental
and analytical results by Ishibashi and Fang and Richards
et al. gave a higher line of action above the toe for walls
with a horizontal degree of freedom than for walls that
can only rotate about the toe.
3.6. Acceleration response
Accelerations were recorded in the physical models using
an array of accelerometers attached directly to the wall
facing panel and within the backfill soil (El-Emam and
Bathurst 2004). Acceleration amplification factors were
calculated using the root mean square (RMS) method
(Law and Ko 1995) applied to the acceleration-time
history for each device. The RMS approach is a simple
and direct method to quantify the intensity of the motion
measured at a specific elevation. It is very efficient
whenever the accelerogram is spiky and (or) noisy, and it
also captures the effects of amplitude and frequency
content of the input motion and duration on wall response
(Kramer 1996). The RMS value is calculated as
RMS
1
t
d
_
t
d
0
a t
2
dt
_ _1
2
(9)
where a(t) acceleration time history and t
d
duration
of the acceleration record. Each RMS acceleration record
was normalized with respect to the corresponding base
RMS acceleration to compute amplification factors. Figure
18 shows the vertical distributions of amplification factors
for the model walls with different facing panel configura-
tions. The data show that horizontal accelerations trans-
mitted through the facing panel and the backfill soil were
amplified. The amplification factors for both the facing
panel and the backfill soil are also nonlinear with eleva-
tion. This nonlinearity was greater for the model walls
with a hinged toe (Figure 18a) than for the model walls
with a sliding toe (Figure 18b). The reason for this trend
was the higher velocities at the wall crest as the facing
wall panel oscillated about the horizontally restrained toe
(i.e. rotation mode) during base excitation. The figure also
shows that the backfill soil acceleration amplification
factors were slightly less for the comparable models with
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 m
AASHTO/FHWA
Hinged (total earth forces) (Wall 8)
Sliding (total earth forces) (Wall 7)
Hinged (connection loads only) (Wall 8)
NCMA ( 5 0.6)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
a
n
t

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,

Y
t
o
t
a
l
/
H
T
i
1 R
H
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
T
i
Y
total
R
H
Figure 17. Normalized resultant elevation above toe versus peak input base acceleration amplitude for vertical walls with
hinged and sliding toe boundaries
a sliding toe boundary. The plots in Figures 18a and 18b
also show that the facing acceleration amplification
factors increased with the mass of the facing and de-
creased with increasing facing inclination angle. However,
within the backfill soil at locations corresponding to the
free end of the reinforcement (0.6 m from the back of the
facing) the influence of facing type and boundary toe was
minimal, and amplification factors were lower than those
calculated for the facing. The differences in magnitude of
amplification factors are also consistent with observed
out-of-phase movements of the soil mass and facing, as
noted by El-Emam and Bathurst (2004) for the same series
of experiments.
Recommended practice for pseudo-static design accord-
ing to current North American practice (FHWA 2001;
AASHTO 2002) is to assume a constant amplification
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
0.6 m
Acc 3
Acc 7
Acc 5
Acc 2
Acc 6
Acc 4
Acc 1
4

@

0
.
2
5

m
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Amplification factor
(i)
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
(ii)
(b)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
(i)
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
(ii)
(a)
Figure 18. Amplification of input base acceleration at different locations for model walls with different facing configurations
and toe boundary conditions: (a) hinged toe models; (b) sliding toe models; (i) facing panel; (ii) backfill soil. Note: Acc
accelerometer
factor at all locations in the backfill. A constant amplifi-
cation factor was not observed in these tests, as noted
above.
4. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the dynamic response of reinforced soil
walls was investigated using reduced-scale shaking table
models. A comparison of the response features of a series
of six model walls that were constructed with different
facing thickness (mass), inclination angle and toe bound-
ary condition is presented. Results from the physical
models have been compared with current North American
pseudo-static design and analysis practice as described in
AASHTO (2002), FHWA (2001) and NCMA (Bathurst
(NCMA) 1998) guidance documents. The following points
summarize the major findings of this research:
At the same base acceleration amplitude the lateral
displacement of the walls in this test series decreased
with inclination of the wall facing and increased with
increasing wall mass.
The critical acceleration corresponding to the onset
of large facing displacements with increasing base
acceleration was greater for inclined wall models and
vertical wall models with lower mass, regardless of
footing toe boundary constraint condition. Neverthe-
less, the selection of critical acceleration values for
walls with a sliding toe boundary was sensitive to
the choice of displacement acceleration plot used.
For sliding toe models, plots of wall rotation against
base sliding displacement gave the least ambiguous
break points to identify critical acceleration values
corresponding to the onset of wall instability.
Magnitudes of the vertical load developed at the toe
were greater than the facing self-weight at the static
loading condition, and increased with input base
acceleration amplitude regardless of the toe boundary
condition. The vertical toe load was less for inclined
facing models. The vertical toe load was greater for
the thicker vertical wall than for the otherwise
identical wall with a thinner facing (less mass) at the
end of construction (static loading) and during
subsequent base excitation.
Current AASHTO (2002) and FHWA (2001) seismic
design methods for reinforced soil walls do not
consider vertical loads developed at the base of
structural facings. If vertical loads are considered,
the current pseudo-static design approach consis-
tently underestimated vertical toe loads. The differ-
ence between the predicted and measured values in
physical tests increased for all model walls at higher
input base acceleration amplitudes. Neglecting the
down-drag forces that are developed at the back of
the facing as a result of wall rotation and lateral
deformation, and the additional loads that are put on
the connections as a result of down-drag forces,
could lead to unsafe wall performance in the field
under both static and earthquake loading conditions.
The horizontally restrained toe in reduced-scale
models attracted approximately 40% to 60% of the
peak total horizontal earth load during base
excitation, demonstrating that a stiff facing column
plays an important role in resisting dynamic loads
under simulated earthquake loading. The inability of
the current design methodologies to account for the
portion of lateral earth force resisted by the
restrained toe at the base of a structural facing
column leads to an underestimation of wall load
capacity.
The distribution and magnitude of connection loads
were in general poorly predicted over the height of
the wall models using current AASHTO/FHWA and
NCMA guidelines. The NCMA method progressively
overpredicted reinforcement loads at the top of the
walls and underpredicted the loads close to the toe
under initial static loading conditions and during
subsequent dynamic loading. The AASHTO/FHWA
method was better able to capture the triangular
distribution of load that was observed to develop
with increasing base excitation for hinged toe
models, but the magnitude of load was under-
estimated particularly towards the bottom of the
wall.
The magnitude of the sum of reinforcement
connection loads generally decreased with increasing
facing mass, greater horizontal toe restraint and
greater facing inclination angle. Increasing the wall
inclination was more effective than decreasing the
wall mass of vertical walls to reduce the sum of
connection loads for the range of wall model
configurations investigated.
The trend in the magnitude of the sum of
reinforcement connection loads with increasing base
acceleration was better captured using the AASHTO/
FHWA approach compared with the NCMA
approach. For hinged toe models the NCMA
approach overpredicted the sum of reinforcement
loads.
For model walls with an unrestrained toe, the
predicted total earth forces using the AASHTO/
FHWA method underestimated the measured values.
For model walls with a restrained toe, both NCMA
and AASHTO/FHWA design methods significantly
underpredicted the values of the total earth force.
For the hinged and sliding toe model walls, the
elevation of the line of action of the sum of
reinforcement connection loads alone varied from
about 0.46H to 0.37H above the toe at the end of
construction and decreased to about 0.3H at an input
base acceleration value of about 0.3g. If the
contribution of the horizontal toe restraint for the
thick vertical face wall model is included in the
calculation, the line of action was about 0.22H and
remained reasonably constant during increasing base
excitation.
Regardless of whether the wall toe force was
considered or not in the calculation of the line of
action of the total earth force, neither AASHTO/
FHWA nor NCMA methods captured the trend in
location of the line of action with increasing base
excitation. Nevertheless, the AASHTO/FHWA meth-
od was less in error.
Base accelerations generated at the foundation were
amplified with height through the facing panel and
the backfill soil. The trend in amplification factors
with elevation was nonlinear. The model walls with a
hinged toe gave generally larger amplification factors
than did the otherwise identical walls but with a
sliding toe boundary. The magnitude of acceleration
amplification factors generally increased with facing
mass and decreased with increasing facing inclina-
tion angle. The non-uniform distribution of amplifi-
cation factors with horizontal location and elevation
is at variance with the current assumption of a
uniform acceleration amplification factor in current
pseudo-static design practice.
5. DISCUSSION
Inferences from both qualitative and quantitative observa-
tions made in this test program for current North Amer-
ican pseudo-static design practice must be drawn with
caution. First it must be recalled that the model tests
described here were reduced-scale 1g models. Careful
attention was paid to scaling laws to ensure that the
reinforcement stiffness for the reduced-scale 1 m-high
walls was representative of models at prototype scale (i.e.
6 m-high walls), the details of which can be found in the
background paper by El-Emam and Bathurst (2004). The
stiffness of the reinforcement will have a major influence
on the magnitude of reinforcement and connection loads,
as demonstrated both in static full-scale tests (Bathurst
et al. 2000) and in numerical simulations of reinforced
soil walls subjected to simulated earthquake loading
(Bathurst and Hatami 1998). However, the interaction
between the reinforcement and the granular soil under
very low confining pressures (e.g. the topmost reinforce-
ment layer in these tests) can be expected to be less than
for the corresponding reinforcement layer located at a
greater depth at prototype scale (e.g. 0.66 m versus 0.11 m
at reduced scale). Consequently, the load capacity of the
topmost reinforcement layer may be expected to be less
for the models in this test program. Equally important are
the differences in dynamic response of wall structures of
different heights. For example, Hatami et al. (2005) have
demonstrated using a numerical model that the modes of
vibration for nominally identical walls with different
heights can be very different. In fact, they showed that a
6 m-high wall may generate larger peak accelerations in
the reinforced soil zone (and hence larger connection
loads) for the same base excitation record than a wall that
is 9 m in height, largely because of the difference in mode
shapes of the excited models. Perhaps even more impor-
tant is the proximity of the fundamental frequency of the
structure to the predominant frequency of the base excita-
tion record. If walls are excited close to their fundamental
frequency the resulting displacements and reinforcement
loads will be very much greater than for the same wall
excited at the same peak ground acceleration but at a
more distant predominant frequency. In fact, Bathurst and
Hatami (1998) and Hatami and Bathurst (2000, 2001)
have shown that the frequency, acceleration and velocity
content together with duration of the ground motion
record are all important contributors to wall response.
Consequently, current pseudo-static design methods based
on peak ground acceleration values cannot be expected to
give accurate predictions of reinforcement loads and their
distributions for all wall configurations. Nevertheless, the
reduced-scale model wall tests described here clearly
identify the influence of idealized reinforced soil wall
configurations and toe boundary conditions on wall
response to base excitation, and have been used to identify
potential deficiencies (at least qualitatively) in current
design practice for full-scale structures. Finally, the great-
est value of the careful set of experiments described herein
is that they provide a useful set of physical tests that can
be used to test the accuracy of numerical models using
dynamic finite element or finite difference codes
(El-Emam et al. 2001, 2004b). These verified numerical
models can then be used to carry out parametric analyses
with a wider range of prototype-scale wall configurations
and materials to investigate the dynamic response of walls
subjected to synthetic or actual earthquake records (El-
Emam et al. 2004a). The combination of physical test
results and numerical model results can then be used to
develop improved pseudo-static design tools for reinforced
soil walls and to identify the conditions under which these
design methods can be safely used.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers are grateful for funding provided by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada, the Academic Research Program at RMC, grants
from the Department of National Defence (Canada) and
the Egyptian Government to support the research de-
scribed in this paper. The many discussions with our
colleague K. Hatami on seismic design issues for rein-
forced soil walls are also gratefully acknowledged.
NOTATIONS
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
a(t) acceleration-time history (m/s
2
)
C
c
coefficient of curvature (dimensionless)
C
u
coefficient of uniformity (dimensionless)
D
r
relative density (dimensionless)
H height of wall (m)
i counter (dimensionless)
k
h
horizontal seismic coefficient (dimensionless)
K
A
static earth pressure coefficient
(dimensionless)
K
AE
coefficient of total earth pressure (static plus
dynamic) (dimensionless)
K
AH
horizontal component of the static earth
pressure coefficient (dimensionless)
K
dynH
dynamic component of total horizontal earth
pressure coefficient (dimensionless)
L reinforcement length (m)
L
ai
anchorage length of reinforcement layer i (m)
L
f
facing panel width (m)
n number of reinforcement layers
(dimensionless)
P
AE
total active earth force (static plus dynamic)
(N/m)
P
dyn
dynamic earth force (N/m)
R
H
horizontal toe load at base of wall (N/m)
R
v
vertical toe load at base of wall (N/m)
S
v
reinforcement vertical spacing (m)
S
vi
vertical spacing at reinforcement layer i (m)
t time (s)
t
d
duration of base excitation (s)
T
dyni
dynamic reinforcement load component for
layer i (N/m)
T
i
reinforcement load (N/m)
T
stai
static reinforcement load component for layer
i (N/m)
X
B
horizontal displacement at toe (bottom) of
wall (N/m)
X
T
horizontal displacement at top of wall (m)
W
A
weight of static internal soil failure wedge
(N/m)
W
f
facing self-weight (N/m)
W
f i
weight of facing panel increment
corresponding to reinforcement contributory
area i (N/m)
Y
i
height of reinforcement layer i above toe of
wall (m)
Y
R
height of resultant load above toe of wall (m)
z
i
depth of reinforcement layer i below soil
surface (m)
inclination of internal static failure wedge
from horizontal (degrees)
backfill surface slope angle from horizontal
(degrees)
bulk unit weight of soil (N/m
3
)
f
unit weight of facing panel (N/m
3
)
interface friction angle at back of facing
panel (degrees)
normalized height of line of action of
dynamic earth pressure distribution
(dimensionless)
seismic inertial angle (degrees)
soil friction angle (degrees)
peak
peak soil friction angle (degrees)
cv
constant-volume soil friction angle (degrees)
soil dilation angle (degrees)
facing panel inclination from vertical
(degrees)
REFERENCES
AASHTO (2002). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
Allen, T. M. & Bathurst, R. J. (2002). Soil reinforcement loads in
geosynthetic walls at working stress conditions. Geosynthetics
International, 9, No. 56, 525566.
Allen, T. M. & Bathurst, R. J. (2003). Prediction of Soil Reinforcement
Loads in Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall, Washington
State Department of Transportation Research Report WA-RD 522.1,
353 pp.
Bathurst, R. J. (1998). NCMA Segmental Retaining Wall Seismic Design
Procedure: Supplement to Design Manual for Segmental Retaining
Walls (2nd edn 1997). Herdon, VA: National Concrete Masonry
Association, 187 pp.
Bathurst, R. J. & Alfaro, M. C. (1996). Review of seismic design,
analysis and performance of geosynthetic reinforced walls, slopes
and embankments. Invited keynote paper. Proceedings of IS-
Kyushu96, 3rd International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement,
Fukuoka, vol. 2, 887918.
Bathurst, R. J. & Cai, Z. (1994). In-isolation cyclic loadextension
behavior of two geogrids. Geosynthetics International, 1, No. 1,
317.
Bathurst, R. J. & Cai, Z. (1995). Pseudo-static seismic analysis of
geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls. Geosynthetics
International, 2, No. 5, 789832.
Bathurst, R. J. & Hatami, K. (1998). Seismic response analysis of a
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall. Geosynthetics Interna-
tional, 5, No. 12, 127166.
Bathurst, R. J. & Simac, M. R. (1996). Geosynthetic reinforced segmental
retaining wall structures in North America, Invited keynote paper,
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, Singapore, vol. 4, 12751298.
Bathurst, R. J., Simac, M. R. & Berg, R. R. (1993). Review of the
NCMA segmental retaining wall design manual for geosynthetic-
reinforced structures. Transportation Research Record, 1414,
1625.
Bathurst, R. J., Cai, Z. & Pelletier, M. J. (1996). Seismic design and
performance of geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls.
Proceedings of the 10th Annual Symposium of the Vancouver
Geotechnical Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 26 pp.
Bathurst, R. J., Walters, D., Vlachopoulos, N., Burgess, P. & Allen, T. M.
(2000). Full scale testing of geosynthetic reinforced walls: Keynote
paper. ASCE Special Publication No. 103, Advancements in
Transportation and Geoenvironmental Systems using Geosynthetics,
Proceedings of GeoDenver 2000, Denver, CO, 201217.
Bathurst, R. J., Allen, T. M. & Walters, D. L. (2002a). Short-term strain
and deformation behaviour of geosynthetic walls at working stress
conditions. Geosynthetics International, 9, No. 56, 451482.
Bathurst, R. J., Hatami, K. & Alfaro, M. C. (2002b). Geosynthetic-
reinforced soil walls and slopes: seismic aspects. In Geosynthetics
and Their Applications (ed. S. K. Shukla), pp. 327392. London:
Thomas Telford.
Bathurst, R. J., Walters, D. L., Esfehani, M., El-Emam, M. & Blatz, J. A.
(2002c). Physical modelling of geosynthetic walls and embank-
ments: Invited keynote paper. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Physical Modeling in Geotechnics, (ICPMG), St
Johns, Newfoundland, pp. 2130.
Cai, Z. & Bathurst, R. J. (1996). Deterministic sliding block methods for
estimating seismic displacements of earth structures. Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 15, No. 4, 255268.
El-Emam, M. & Bathurst, R. J. (2004). Experimental design,
instrumentation and interpretation of reinforced soil wall response
using a shaking table. International Journal of Physical Modelling
in Geotechnics, 4, 1332.
El-Emam, M. M., Bathurst, R. J., Hatami, K. & Mashhour, M. M. (2001).
Shaking table and numerical modelling of reinforced soil walls.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforce-
ment, IS Kyushu 2001, Fukuoka, Japan, vol. 1, 329334.
El-Emam, M., Bathurst, R. J. & Hatami, K. (2004a). Numerical
parametric study of reinforced soil walls subjected to earthquake
load. Proceedings of the 57th Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Quebec City, 8 pp (CD-ROM).
El-Emam, M., Bathurst, R. J. & Hatami, K. (2004b). Numerical modeling
of reinforced soil retaining walls subjected to base acceleration.
Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, 15 pp (CD-ROM).
FHWA (2001). Mechanically Stabilised Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil
Slopes: Design and Construction Guidelines, Federal Highway
Administration Publication No. FHWA-SA-2001-071 (eds V. Elias,
B. R. Christopher and R. R. Berg). Washington, DC: US
Department of Transportation, 371 pp.
Hatami, K. & Bathurst, R. J. (2000). Effect of structural design on
fundamental frequency of reinforced-soil retaining walls. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 19, 137157.
Hatami, K. & Bathurst, R. J. (2001). Investigation of seismic response of
reinforced soil retaining walls. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, San Diego, Paper no. 7.18, 8 pp
(CD-ROM).
Hatami, K., Bathurst, R. J. & Di Pietro, P. (2001). Static response of
reinforced soil retaining walls with nonuniform reinforcement.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 1, No. 4, 477506.
Hatami, K., Bathurst, R. J. & El-Emam, M. M. (2005). Acceleration
amplification in the backfill of reinforced soil walls of different
heights. Proceedings of the 3rd Biot Conference on Poromechanics,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, 6 pp, CD-ROM.
Ho, S. K. & Rowe, R. K. (1996). Effect of wall geometry on the behavior
of reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 14, No.
10, 521541.
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R. & Berg, R. R. (1997). Geosynthetic
Engineering. Richmond, BC, Canada: Bitech Publishers Ltd.
Iai, S. (1989). Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid
models in 1g gravitational field. Soils and Foundations, 29, No. 1,
105118.
Ishibashi, I. & Fang, Y. S. (1987). Dynamic earth pressure with different
wall movement modes. Soils and Foundations, 27, 4, 1122.
Karpurapu, R. G. & Bathurst, R. J. (1995). Behaviour of geosynthetic
reinforced soil retaining walls using the finite element method.
Computers and Geotechnics, 17, No. 3, 279299.
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. Geosynthetics International,
5, No. 12, 7396.
Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 653 pp.
Law, H. K. & Ko, H-K. (1995). Dynamic response of uniform level
ground deposits. Proceedings of the First International Conference
on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, vol. 1,
623628.
Ling, H. I. (2001). Recent applications of sliding block theory for
geotechnical design. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
21, No. 3, 189197.
Ling, H. I. & Leshchinsky, D. (2003). Finite element parametric study of
the behavior of segmental block reinforced-soil retaining walls.
Geosynthetics International, 10, No. 3, 7794.
Murata, O., Tateyama, M. & Tatsuoka, F. (1994). Shaking table tests on a
large geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall model. In Recent
Case Histories of Permanent Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Walls
(eds F. Tatsuoka and D. Leshchinsky), pp. 287294. Rotterdam:
Balkema.
Matsuo, O., Tsutsumi, T., Yokoyama, K. & Saito, Y. (1998). Shaking
table tests and analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining
walls. Geosynthetics International, 5, No. 12, 97126.
NBCC (1990). National Building Code of Canada. Ottawa: National
Research Council of Canada.
NCMA (1998). Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, 2nd edn
(ed. J. Collin). Herdon, VA: National Concrete Masonry Associa-
tion, 289 pp.
Richards, R. J., Huang, C. & Fishman, K. L. (1999). Seismic earth
pressure on retaining structures. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 125, No. 9, 771778.
Sakaguchi, M., Muramatsu, M. & Nagura, K. (1993). A discussion on
reinforced embankment structures having high earthquake resis-
tance. Proceeding of the International Symposium on Earth
Reinforcement Practice, IS-Kyushu 92, Fukuoka, Japan, vol. 1,
287292.
Shinoda, M. & Bathurst, R. J. (2004). Lateral and axial deformation of
PP, HDPE and PET geogrids under tensile load. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 22, 205222.
Tatsuoka, F. (1993). Roles of facing in soil reinforcing. Keynote lecture.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforce-
ment, IS-Kyushu 92, Fukuoka, Japan, vol. 2, 831870.
Tatsuoka, F., Koseki, J. & Tateyama, M. (1995). Performance of geogrid-
reinforced soil retaining walls during the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake, January 17, 1995. Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, IS-Tokyo 95,
Tokyo, Japan, 5562.
The Editors welcome discussion in all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 April 2006.

Bat 1

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Bat 1

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Facing contribution to seismic response of reduced-

scale reinforced soil walls

Input base acceleration amplitude (g)

Input base acceleration amplitude (g)

S-ar putea să vă placă și