Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic Response of the Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls with Different Reinforcement and Backfill Conditions

  • Research paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Civil Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents the dynamic behavior of the mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls with different reinforcement and backfill conditions. Model shaking table tests were performed to determine the effect of density and wetness of the backfill on the dynamic response of the retaining structure. The tests were carried out for three different ground motions with increasing peak ground acceleration (PGA) values. Two different types of geosynthetics, namely, geotextiles and geogrids were used as reinforcements. Considering the effects of base excitations, acceleration responses at different locations of the structure, wall deformations, vertical settlements, and strain responses of the reinforcement were investigated. Acceleration was found to amplify with the height of the backfill. However, acceleration amplification was found to reduce by 18% for the geogrid reinforced wall compared to the unreinforced wall. It was observed from the test results that the overall performance of the structure deteriorated in the wet backfill condition. Wet backfill witnessed 30.8% more wall deformation in the unreinforced wall. However, maximum wall displacement was reduced by 28% for the geogrid reinforced wall as compared to the unreinforced wall in wet backfill. As compared to geogrids, higher deformation was observed in geotextile reinforcements. Strain in geogrid was found to be 32.4% less than the geotextile reinforced case for wet backfill conditions. Thus, it can be concluded that the geogrid reinforced wall displayed better performance as compared to other cases in both dry and wet backfill conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data will be made available on request.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

a :

Acceleration (m/s2)

AAF:

Acceleration amplification factor

b :

Width of geosynthetics (m)

Cc :

Coefficient of curvature (dimensionless)

C u :

Uniformity coefficient (dimensionless)

d :

Displacement (m)

D 10 :

Diameter of particles corresponding to 10% finer in the particle size distribution curve (mm)

D 30 :

Diameter of particles corresponding to 30% finer in the particle size distribution curve (mm)

D 60 :

Diameter of particles corresponding to 60% finer in the particle size distribution curve (mm)

f :

Frequency (Hz)

f * :

Friction coefficient (dimensionless)

FFT:

Fast Fourier transform

G :

Stiffness (N/m)

GSIF:

Geosynthetics strain increment factor

H :

Height of the wall (m)

l :

Length of geosynthetics (m)

LVDT:

Linear variable differential transducer

MSE:

Mechanically stabilized earth

N :

Scale factor (dimensionless)

P max :

Peak pullout load (N)

PGA:

Peak ground acceleration

SP:

Poorly graded sand

T :

Time (s)

V s :

Shear wave velocity (m/s)

Δx :

Horizontal displacement (m)

σ:

Stress (N/m2)

σn :

Normal stress (N/m2)

φ:

Angle of internal friction (degrees)

References

  1. Schlosser F, Elias V (1978) Friction in reinforced earth. In: Proceedings of the ASCE Symposium on Earth Reinforcement. ASCE, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, April 1978, pp 735–763

  2. Elias V, Christopher BR, Berg RR (2001) Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes design and construction guidelines. NHI Course 132042; FHWA NHI-00-043

  3. Srbulov M (2001) Analyses of stability of geogrid reinforced steep slopes and retaining walls. Comput Geotech 28(4):255–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-352X(00)00032-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ghaderi R, Vafaeian M, Hashemol HH (2005) A parametric study of the behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil slopes. Int J Eng 18(4):371–389

    Google Scholar 

  5. Abusharar SW, Zheng JJ, Chen BG, Yin JH (2009) A simplified method for analysis of a piled embankment reinforced with geosynthetics. Geotext Geomembr 27(1):39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cai Z, Bathurst RJ (1996) Seismic-induced permanent displacement of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls. Can Geotech J 33(6):937–955. https://doi.org/10.1139/t96-123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Géotechnique 15(2):139–160. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1965.15.2.139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. FHWA (2009) Design and construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes, vol. 1. Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Institute, Washington DC; NHI-10-024

  9. Leshchinsky D, Hu Y, Han J (2004) Limited reinforced space in segmental retaining walls. Geotext Geomembr 22(6):543–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hatami K, Bathurst RJ (2005) Development and verification of a numerical model for the analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental walls under working stress conditions. Can Geotech J 42(4):1066–1085. https://doi.org/10.1139/t05-040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bathurst RJ, Vlachopoulos N, Walters DL, Burgess PG, Allen TM (2006) The influence of facing stiffness on the performance of two geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls. Can Geotech J 43(12):1225–1237. https://doi.org/10.1139/t06-076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Latha GM, Krishna AM (2008) Seismic response of reinforced soil retaining wall models: influence of backfill relative density. Geotext Geomembr 26(4):335–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.11.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Abdelouhab A, Dias D, Freitag N (2010) Numerical analysis of the behavior of mechanically stabilized earth walls reinforced with different types of strips. Geotext Geomembr 29(2):116–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.10.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Han J, Leshchinsky D (2010) Analysis of back-to-back mechanically stabilized earth walls. Geotext Geomembr 28(3):262–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.09.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ehrlich M, Mirmoradi SH, Saramago RP (2012) Evaluation of the effect of compaction on the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geotext Geomembr 34:108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu Y, Bathurst RJ, Miyata Y (2015) Numerical analysis of a mechanically stabilized earth wall reinforced with steel strips. Soils Found 55(3):536–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2015.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Song F, Liu H, Chai H, Chen J (2017) Stability analysis of geocell-reinforced retaining walls. Geosynth Int 24(5):442–450. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.17.00013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yazdandoust M (2017) Investigation on the seismic performance of steel-strip reinforced-soil retaining walls using shaking table test. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 97:216–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.03.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sadat MR, Huang J, Bin-Shafique S, Rezaeimalek S (2018) Study of the behavior of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls subjected to differential settlements. Geotext Geomembr 46(1):77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bandyopadhyay TS, Chakrabortty P, Hegde A (2021) Shake table studies to assess the effect of reinforced backfill parameters on dynamic response of MSE walls. In: Sitharam TG, Parthasarathy CR, Kolathayar S (eds) Ground improvement techniques. Lecture notes in civil engineering, vol 118. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9988-0_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Başbuğ E, Cengiz C, Güler E (2021) 1-g Shaking table tests to determine the behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls under seismic loads. Transp Geotech 30:100597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nandan SK, Bandyopadhyay TS, Chakrabortty P (2021) Effect of backfill sand density on dynamic response of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. In: Patel S, Solanki CH, Reddy KR, Shukla SK (eds) Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference 2019 Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 138. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6564-3_67

  23. Yazdandoust M, Samee AA, Ghalandarzadeh A (2022) Assessment of seismic behavior of back-to-back mechanically stabilized earth walls using 1g shaking table tests. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 155:106078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sakaguchi M, Muramatsu M, Nagura K (1992) A discussion on reinforced embankment structures having high earthquake resistance. In: Ochiai H, Hayashi S, Otani J (eds) Proceedings of International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, IS-Kyushu’92, Fukuoka, Japan. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 287–292

  25. Bathurst RJ, Cai Z, Alfaro M, Pelletier MJ (1997) Seismic design issues for geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls. Mechanically stabilized backfill, In: Wu JTH (ed) Balkema, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mechanically Stabilized Backfill, Denver, Colorado, USA, February 1997, pp 79–97

  26. Matsuo O, Yokoyama K, Saito Y (1998) Shaking table tests and analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. Geosynth Int 5(1–2):97–126. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.5.0116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramakrishnan S, Budhu M, Britto A (1998) Laboratory seismic tests of geotextile wrap-faced and geotextile-reinforced segmental retaining walls. Geosynth Int 5(1–2):55–71. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.5.0114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Latha GM, Santhanakumar P (2015) Seismic response of reduced-scale modular block and rigid faced reinforced walls through shaking table tests. Geotext Geomembr 43(4):307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang M, Rau RJ, Yu JY, Yu TT (2000) Geodetically observed surface displacements of the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake. Earth Planets Space 52(6):403–413. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pradel D, Smith PM, Stewart JP, Raad G (2005) Case history of landslide movement during the Northridge earthquake. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(11):1360–1369. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:11(1360)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tang CL, Hu JC, Lin ML, Angelier J, Lu CY, Chan YC, Chu HT (2009) The Tsaoling landslide triggered by the Chi-Chi earthquake, Taiwan: insights from a discrete element simulation. Eng Geol 106(1–2):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tatsuoka F, Koseki J, Tateyama M, Munaf Y, Horii N (1998) Seismic stability against high seismic loads of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining structures. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, 1, pp 103–142

  33. Ling HI, Leshchinsky D, Chou NN (2001) Post-earthquake investigation on several geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes during the Ji-Ji earthquake of Taiwan. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 21(4):297–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(01)00011-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ren F, Zhang F, Wang G, Zhao Q, Xu C (2018) Dynamic assessment of wet reinforced-soil retaining wall. Comput Geotech 95:211–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.08.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tricarico M, Madabhushi GSP, Aversa S (2016) Centrifuge modeling of flexible retaining walls subjected to dynamic loading. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 88:297–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.06.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang L, Chen G, Chen S (2015) Experimental study on seismic response of geogrid reinforced rigid retaining walls with wet backfill sand. Geotext Geomembr 43(1):35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Srilatha N, Latha GM, Puttappa CG (2016) Seismic response of soil slopes in shaking table tests: effect of type and quantity of reinforcement. Int J Geosynth Gr Eng 2:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0074-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. ASTM D3999/D-3999M−11 (2013) Standard Test Methods for the Determination of the Modulus and Damping Properties of Soils Using the Cyclic Triaxial Apparatus. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org

  39. ASTM D6637 (2011) Standard Test Method for Determining the Tensile Properties of Geogrid by the Single or Multi-rib Tensile Method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org

  40. ASTM D4595 (2005) Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Geotextiles by the Wide Width Strip Method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org

  41. ASTM D6706–01 (2013) Standard Test Method for Measuring Geosynthetic Pullout Resistance in Soil. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA www.astm.org

  42. Wang Z, Richwien W (2002) A study of soil-reinforcement interface friction. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 128(1):92–94. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:1(92)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Prashanth V, Krishna AM, Dash SK (2016) Pullout tests using modified direct shear test setup for measuring soil–geosynthetic interaction parameters. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(10):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0050-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. El-Emam MM, Bathurst RJ (2007) Influence of reinforcement parameters on the seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil retaining walls. Geotext Geomembr 25(1):33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Iai S (1989) Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid model in 1g gravitational field. Soils Found 29(1):105–118. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.29.105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wood DM (2004) Geotechnical Modeling; Version 2.2, p. 247 (electronic copy)

  47. Kokusho T (1980) Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range. Soils Found 20(2):45–60. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.20.2_45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bathurst RJ, Cai Z, Pelletier MJ (1996) Seismic design and performance of geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Symposium of the Vancouver Geotechnical Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp 937–955

  49. Ling HI, Mohri Y, Leshchinsky D, Burke C, Matsushima K, Liu H (2005) Large-scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(4):465–476. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(465)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ye L, Ma Q, Miao Z, Guan H, Zhuge Y (2013) Numerical and comparative study of earthquake intensity indices in seismic analysis. Struct Des Tall Spec Build 22(4):362–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hazari S, Ghosh S, Sharma RP (2020) Experimental and numerical study of soil slopes at varying water content under dynamic loading condition. Int J Civ Eng 18(2):215–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00439-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author(s) would like to greatly acknowledge the Indian Institute of Technology Patna and Department of Higher Education (Govt. of India) for providing the funding for present research work for which no specific grant number has been allotted.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Patna, 801106, India

    Tirtha Sathi Bandyopadhyay, Pradipta Chakrabortty & A. Hegde

Authors
  1. Tirtha Sathi Bandyopadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pradipta Chakrabortty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Hegde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TSB: conceptualization, experimental investigation, formal analysis, writing – original draft. PC: conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, validation, supervision, investigation, writing – review and editing. AH: conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, validation, supervision, data curation, writing – review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pradipta Chakrabortty.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bandyopadhyay, T.S., Chakrabortty, P. & Hegde, A. Dynamic Response of the Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls with Different Reinforcement and Backfill Conditions. Int J Civ Eng 21, 81–99 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00761-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-022-00761-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation