Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

Numerical analysis of the behaviour of mechanically stabilized earth walls

reinforced with different types of strips
Abdelkader Abdelouhab a, *, Daniel Dias a, Nicolas Freitag b
a
Inst. Nat. Sc. Appl. Lyon, Laboratory of Civil and Environmental Engineering, LGCIE, 20 av. A. Einstein, F-69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, France
b
Terre Armée Internationale, 1 bis, rue du Petit Clamart, 78140 Vélizy-Villacoublay, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall behaves as a flexible coherent block able to sustain significant
Received 8 November 2009 loading and deformation due to the interaction between the backfill material and the reinforcement
Received in revised form elements. The internal behaviour of a reinforced soil mass depends on a number of factors, including the
17 October 2010
soil, the reinforcement and the soil/structure interaction and represents a complex interaction sol/
Accepted 18 October 2010
Available online 12 November 2010
structure problem. The use of parameters determined from experimental studies should allow more
accurate modelling of the behaviour of the MSE structures.
In this article, a reference MSE wall is modelled from two points of view: serviceability limit state “SLS”
Keywords:
Numerical modelling
and ultimate limit state “ULS”. The construction of the wall is simulated in several stages and the soil/
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) interface parameters are back analysed from pullout tests. An extensive parametric study is set up and
structures permits to highlight the influence of the soil, the reinforcement and the soil/structure parameters. The
Deformation and stability behaviour of MSE walls with several geosynthetic straps is compared with the metallic one. Several
Geosynthetic and metallic reinforcements constitutive models with an increasing complexity have been used and compared.
Experimental parameters The results obtained from stress-deformation analyses are presented and compared. The use of geo-
Soil constitutive models synthetic straps induces more deformation of the wall but a higher safety factor. To design theses walls
the important parameters are: the soil friction, the cohesion, the interface shear stiffness and the strip
elastic modulus.
It is shown that for wall construction that involves static loading conditions, the modified DuncaneChang
model is a good compromise but induces slightly lower strip tensile forces due to the fact that it do not take
into account of dilatancy before failure.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction excessively conservative for the synthetic reinforcement (Elias

et al., 2001; Koerner and Soong, 2001; Allen et al., 2002; Bathurst
The MSE wall is a composite material formed by the combina- et al., 2005), this straightforward design methodology allows
tion of soil and metallic or synthetic strips able to sustain signifi- verifying the structure stability (Yoo and Jung, 2006; Quang et al.,
cant tensile loads. The reinforcing strips give to the soil mass an 2008) but does not make it possible to determine the deforma-
anisotropic cohesion in the direction perpendicular to the rein- tion state of the structure.
forcement (Schlosser and Elias, 1978). The presence of the strips In order to make new steps in the optimization of the design
improves the overall mechanical properties of the soil. The design method, it is essential to understand the behaviour of such struc-
methods used in these structures are based on the internal and tures. Several studies, experimental, theoretical or numerical, have
external stability analysis using limit equilibrium methods. For the been carried out with this objective.
internal stability, the common method is based on the verification The experimental studies present the inconvenience that they
of the strip long-term tensile force and the adherence or bond are expensive and time-consuming. They are commonly focused on
capacity at the soil/strip interface (AASHTO, 2002; NF P 94-270, the definition of the parameters of new elements such as new
2009; BS 8006, 1995). Although sometimes described as reinforcement types, new facing panels or the interface between
soil and new reinforcement types (e.g., Park and Tan, 2005; Yoo and
Kim, 2008; Won and Kim, 2007).
* Corresponding author.
The theoretical studies are mainly dedicated to the definition of
E-mail addresses: abdelkader.abdelouhab@insa-lyon.fr (A. Abdelouhab), daniel. new anchorage models taking into account the actual behaviour of
dias@insa-lyon.fr (D. Dias), nicolas.freitag@terre-armee.com (N. Freitag). the new reinforcement (e.g., Leshchinsky, 2009; Ling et al., 2005;

0266-1144/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.10.011
 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129 117

Notation ULS Ultimate Limit State

lUl Maximal displacement of the reinforced backfill
A Deviatoric slope in CJS2 model Ux Maximal horizontal displacement of the reinforced
CJS2 Simplified version of the CJS model developed by backfill
Cambou and Jafari (1987) for cohesionless soils Uy Maximal vertical displacement of the reinforced
D&C Duncan and Chang hyperbolic constitutive model backfill
E Young modulus Ur Deformation in the reference model
Fs Factor of safety U* Relative soil/strip displacement at the total
Fsr Factor of safety in the reference model mobilisation of the strip in pullout tests for one meter
GS 50 Geosynthetic reinforcement strips (GeoStrap 50) used width of wall
in MSE Walls c Soil cohesion (kPa)
GSHA New geosynthetic strips (GeoStrap High Adherence) f Apparent friction coefficient at the soil/strip interface
used in MSE Walls (f ¼ s/sv)
G Shear modulus (MPa) fd Yield function of the deviatoric mechanism
G0 Material parameters for the reference pressure in CJS2 f* Maximum apparent friction coefficient at the soil/strip
model interface (f* ¼ smax/sv)
I1 First stress invariant in CJS2 model h Function of the Lode angle
J Geosynthetic elongation modulus (kN/m) kb Shear stiffness at the soil/strip interface
K Bulk modulus (MPa) n Material parameters for the reference pressure Pa in
Ky Young’s modulus parameter of Duncan and Chang CJS2 model
KB Bulk’s modulus parameters of Duncan and Chang nB Volumetric parameter in Duncan and Chang model
K0p Plastic bulk modulus for the reference pressure in CJS2 nY Young modulus parameter in Duncan and Chang
model (MPa) model
K0 Material parameters for the reference pressure in CJS2 sII Deviatoric stress tensor second invariant
model b Dilatancy slope in CJS2 model
L Strip length (m) g Parameter of CJS2 model
MC Elastic linear perfectly plastic soil constitutive model s Shear stresses exerted by reinforcements (kN/m2)
with the MohreCoulomb plasticity criterion smax Maximum shear stresses exerted by reinforcements
MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth (kN/m2)
Pa Atmospheric pressure used for normalization of the 3 Locale strip deformation
stress input 4 Soil friction angle ( )
P0 Average effective confining pressure q Lode angle in CJS2 model
Q Hardening variable determined by the isotropic j Dilatancy angle
hardening mechanism n Poisson’s ratio
Rf Failure Ratio coefficient which represents the failure sv0 Initial vertical stress applied on the strips
vicinity in D&C model Dsv Increase of the vertical stress sv0 due to the
Rc Characteristic surface of CJS2 model phenomenon of constrained dilatancy
Rm Size of the failure surface related to the friction angle in DFs Difference between Fsr and the Fs obtained from the
CJS2 model most influential value
SLS Serviceability Limit State DU Difference between Ur and the lUl obtained from the
Tmax Maximum shear force (tensile force) on the strip most influential value

Koerner and Soong, 2001; Yoo and Jung, 2006; Sieira et al., 2009; highlighted. The soil/interface parameters are back analysed from
Khedkar and Mandal, 2009; Su et al., 2008; Abdelouhab et al., 2009). pullout tests (Abdelouhab et al., 2009).
In the numerical studies, two and three-dimensional methods In the second part, the influence of several parameters (soil/strip
based on finite elements or finite differences (Ho and Rowe, 1994; interface, strips and soil) on the behaviour of the MSE wall is
Hatami and Bathurst, 2006; Skinner and Rowe, 2005; Al Hattamleh shown. To satisfy the serviceability limit state criteria, a structure
and Muhunthan, 2006; Bergado and Teerawattanasuk, 2008) allow must remain functional for its intended use subject to routine
the authors to analyse the deformation and the influence of several loading, and as such the structure must not cause occupant
parameters in some types of reinforced soil walls. Huang et al. (2009) discomfort under routine conditions. To satisfy the ultimate limit
and Ling and Liu (2009) have studied different soil constitutive state, the structure must not collapse when subjected to the peak
models and their influence on results. They conclude that the modi- design load for which it was designed. The criteria used in this
fied DuncaneChang model is a good compromise between prediction study are deformation (serviceability limit state “SLS”) and global
accuracy and availability of parameters from conventional triaxial stability (ultimate limit state “ULS”).
compression testing. However, interface parameters used in these
studies (friction and shear stiffness at soil/reinforcement interface) 2. Two-dimensional modelling
are considered constant from the surface to the base of the wall.
In this article, a two-dimensional numerical analysis of an MSE A 6 m high reference MSE Wall is modelled using the finite
wall is carried out using the explicit finite difference software FLAC difference numerical analysis program Fast Lagrangian Analysis of
2D (Itasca Consulting Group, 2006). Continua FLAC 2D (Itasca Consulting Group, 2006). This case is an
In the first part, this paper presents a reference wall reinforced academic one using realistic geometrical and geotechnical parameters.
by synthetic reinforcements. Differences and similarities between This numerical program FLAC 2D allows the resolution of
geosynthetic reinforcements and metallic reinforcements are stressestrain problems in a continuous area. At every point of the
118 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129

Table 1
Geomechanical characteristics.

Reinforced backfill Retained backfill Foundation soil

Constitutive model Mohr Coulomb Mohr Coulomb Elastic linear
Young modulus (MPa) 50 30 200
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.3 0.25
Unit weight (kg/m3) 1580 1800 2000
Friction angle ( ) 36 30 e
Dilatancy angle ( ) 6 0 e
Cohesion (kPa) 0 0 e

two layers of the reinforced backfill (equilibrium under self-

weight).
 Stage 2: placement of the third and the fourth layer, installation
of the second strip between the two layers of the reinforced
backfill (equilibrium under self-weight).
 Stage 3: set up of the second beam, the fifth and sixth layer and
Fig. 1. Geometry of the modelled wall.
installation of the third strip between the two layers of the
reinforced backfill.
range, the stress and strain tensor is known, which allows viewing  These phases are repeated up to 6 m height.
the events in. The program is based on the finite difference method:
the variables are known in discrete locations in space and it is not
necessary to store a global stiffness matrix. 2.2. Geomechanical parameters of the reference case

2.1. Presentation of the numerical model The reference case is an academic one but with geomechanical
parameters of actual soils back analysed from triaxial tests. The soil/
The simulated 6 m high wall is made of 4 superimposed panels reinforcement interface parameters are back analysed from pullout
and reinforced by 8 levels of 4 m long reinforcement layers (Fig. 1). tests. These reference parameters are described below.
The cruciform geometry of the panels (Fig. 2a), leads to In none of the calculations the incremental lateral movement of
a complex geometry of the wall. This three-dimensional geometry the facing during construction has been taken into account. The
and staggered layout are simplified into a two-dimensional model effect of soil compaction is not considered in the reference case. It is
using some simplifications. Two panels are considered as the width investigated in the following study.
of calculation, with 4 connecting points for strips at each level over
3 m course. The panels are modelled like rectangular plates of 1.5 m 2.2.1. Soils
by 1.5 m (Fig. 2b). The model is constituted of three different soils (Fig. 1) charac-
The simplification of the geometry makes it possible to use teristics of which are reported in Table 1:
a two-dimensional model with continuous reinforcements. The
characteristics of these reinforcements are calculated as being the  Reinforced backfill: simulated by uniform fine dense sand
ratio of characteristics for the width of considered ground (Fig. 2c). known as Hostun RF sand (Gay, 2000; Flavigny et al., 1990).
For the boundary conditions, horizontal and vertical displace-  Retained backfill.
ments are blocked at the bottom of the model and horizontal  Foundation soil.
displacements are blocked on the lateral limits.
In order to model with accuracy the actual construction stages, The constitutive model to simulate the behaviour of the rein-
the reinforced backfill and the retained backfill are modelled by forced backfill and the retained backfill is a linear elastic, perfectly
layers of 0.375 m height in 8 stages: plastic model with the MohreCoulomb’s failure criterion (named
MC in this study).
 Stage 1: set up of the first concrete panel, the first and the This constitutive model is characterised by five parameters:
second soil layer and installation of the first strip between the elastic parameters (E: Young modulus, n: Poisson’s ratio) and plastic

Fig. 2. Representation of a three-dimensional structure by a two-dimensional model.

 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129 119

parameters (4: friction angle, c: cohesion, and j: dilatancy angle). Table 2

The parameters of this constitutive model were defined for the Concrete panels characteristics.

reinforced soil by calibration on triaxial tests carried out under Parameter

confinement of 30 kPa, 60 kPa and 90 kPa (Fig. 3a and b). Constitutive model Elastic linear
For the foundation soil, a linear elastic constitutive model is used.
Young modulus (MPa) 15,000
This model is characterised by two elastic parameters (E: Young Poisson’s ratio 0.2
modulus and n: Poisson’s ratio). Density (kg/m3) 2500

2.2.2. Concrete panels

The panels are modelled using Beam elements. They are used to
represent structural elements and take into account effects of stiffness. It offers by its lateral teeth, a higher adherence with
bending resistance and limited bending moments. Tensile and the soil (Table 4, column 3).
compressive yield strength limits can also be specified (Table 2).
In order to reproduce the flexibility of the actual wall facing, the The reinforcements are modelled using Strip elements, specifi-
beams were connected by pins. In the actual structure, wall panel cally designed to simulate the behaviour of thin, flat and discrete
spacers made of ribbed elastomeric pads, are inserted between reinforcing strips. The Strip element can yield in compression and
panels to help provide the proper spacing. Proper spacing keeps the tension. They provide shear resistance but cannot sustain bending
panels from having contact points and spalling of the concrete. The moments.
elastomeric pads are taken into account in numerical modelling by
reducing artificially the beam section but keeping its actual inertia 2.2.5. Soil/reinforcement interface parameters
moment. The shear behaviour of the strip/soil interface is defined by
a nonlinear shear failure envelope that varies as a function of the
2.2.3. Interaction between concrete panels and soil confining pressure. The interface parameters are the apparent
Interface elements were attached on one side of beam elements friction coefficient f* and the shear stiffness kb at the soil/strip
in order to simulate the frictional interaction between the smooth interface. The friction coefficient at the soil/strip interface f is
concrete facing panels and the backfilling soil (Table 3). The normal expressed as:
and the shear stiffness are calculated using the FLAC recommen- smax
dations and the friction angle is estimated to be equal to 2/3 of the f ¼ (1)
sv0 þ Dsv
soil friction angle.
smax is the maximum shear stresses exerted by reinforcements;
2.2.4. Reinforcements sv0 is the initial vertical stress applied on strips;
The reinforcement simulated in the reference calculation is Dsv is the increase of vertical stress due to the phenomenon of
a synthetic strip (GS 50) containing high-tenacity polyester yarns the constrained dilatancy.
protected by polyethylene sheath. Its properties are presented in For a compacted granular soil, the soil/inclusion shearing will
Table 4, column 1. lead to volumetric dilation that will be constrained by the
However, as the behaviour of MSE Wall depends mainly on the surrounding soil and causes local increase of the vertical stress. To
reinforcement type, two other strip types were studied: take into account this three-dimensional phenomenon in the two-
dimensional design methods, Schlosser and Elias (1978) defined an
 High Adherence Metallic strips: commonly used in the rein- apparent friction coefficient f*:
forced soil structures (Table 4, column 2).
smax
 New High Adherence synthetic strips (GS HA): this product has f* ¼ (2)
been developed during our experimental research works. As
sv0
with the GS 50, this strip is made of high-tenacity polyester The increase of the friction coefficient due to the constrained
yarns protected by polyethylene sheath but manufactured dilatancy effect will only be significant at a low vertical stress, but
under a new geometric shape. It has the same in-air axial will be negligible when the volume of soil cannot increase under

Fig. 3. Calibration of numerical models on triaxial tests.

120 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129

Table 3
Concrete panel/soil interface characteristics.
0m f*1 f*0 f*
Parameter

Constitutive model Coulomb sliding

Normal stiffness (MPa) 1000
Shear stiffness (MPa) 1000
Friction angle at panel/soil interface ( ) 24
6m

a high vertical stress. This coefficient decreases as the confinement

stress increases. It varies between f*0 and f*1 from the surface of the
soil mass to 6 m depth (Fig. 4, (NF P 94 220, 1998)).
The shear stiffness at the soil/strip interface (kb) is defined as:
Depth (m)
Tmax =L
kb ¼ (3) Fig. 4. Variation of the apparent friction coefficient in the soil mass.
U*
Tmax is the maximum shear force (tensile force) on the strip
L is the strip length
U* is the relative soil/strip displacement at the total mobilisation
of the strip in pullout tests for a wall of 1 m width.
The values of the friction coefficient (f*) and the shear stiffness
(kb) parameter taken in the numerical model were defined by
calibration on laboratory pullout tests. In fact, several tests were
carried out in a metallic tank of 2 m3. They consisted in pulling out
a strip of 2 m length anchored at the centre of the tank in uniform
dense sand (Abdelouhab et al., 2009). This uniform dense sand is
similar to the reinforced soil simulated in the numerical model. The
pullout tests (Fig. 5) were modelled numerically and allowed us to Fig. 5. Numerical modelling of pullout tests.

define the soil/strip interface parameters to use in the MSE Wall

modelling. 2.3. Comparison criteria
The dimensions of the physical model have been kept in the
modelling. The mesh was refined around the strip in order to have Two criteria are used to study the MSE Walls behaviour:
accurate results. a deformation criterion (serviceability limit state “SLS”) and
Several tests with different confinement stresses have been a stability criterion (ultimate limit state “ULS”).
modelled (7 kPa, 22 kPa, 40 kPa and 80 kPa) in order to simulate The deformation criterion of the wall is calculated using the
different depth level. Fig. 6 shows the calibration of the numerical norm of the maximal displacement jUj of the reinforced backfill:
results on the experimental tests carried out under confinement rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 ffi
stresses of 8 kPa and 40 kPa. In the reference numerical modelling jUj ¼ Ux2 þ Uy2 (4)
of MSE Wall, as in standards, an average value of the shear stiffness
has been used. However, in order to highlight the influence of the Analysis of the walls stability has been carried out by calculation
variation of this parameter versus the confinement stresses, as in of the factor of safety (Fs). This factor is calculated by the ce4
the actual conditions, a modelling of the MSE Wall was made taking reduction process. In this approach the strength parameters of the
into account different values from the top to the bottom of the wall. reinforced backfill and the retained backfill (friction and cohesion)
The parameters used in the reference numerical modelling are are successively reduced until failure of the structure occurs. The
presented on Table 5. factor of safety is then given by:

Table 4
Reinforcements characteristics.

Reinforcements GS 50 Metallic GS HA

Constitutive model Elastic linear Elastic linear Elastic linear

Elastic modulus of the strip (GPa) 2.5 210 2.5
Width (m) 0.1 0.05 0.1
Thickness (mm) 3 4 3
Strip tensile yield-force limit (KN) 100 100 70
Strip compressive yieldeforce limit (N) 0.0 100 0.0
Tensile failure strain limit of strip (%) 12 10 12
 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129 121

Table 6
Reference calculation results on synthetic strips.

SLS ULS

jUj (mm) jUx j (mm) jUy j (mm) Fs

78 61 53 1.51

Table 7
Influence of the soil parameters.

Parameter Varied Most influential value lDFsl/Fsr (%) lDUl/Ur (%)

between

Min Max
Young modulus 20 100 100 2 3
Fig. 6. Calibration of the numerical results on the experimental pullout tests. (MPa)
Poisson’s ratio 0.25 0.35 0.35 2 3
Friction angle ( ) 30 40 30 6 45
Dilatancy ( ) 2 36 36 2 18
Cohesion (kPa) 0 40 20 and 40 7 84
Table 5 Fsr, safety factor in the reference model; Ur, deformation in the reference model;
Soil/reinforcements interface characteristics. DFs, difference between the Fsr and the Fs obtained by the most influential value;
Parameter GS 50 Metallic GS HA
DU, difference between the Ur and the U obtained by the most influential value.

Constitutive model Coulomb Coulomb Coulomb

sliding sliding sliding
Initial apparent friction 1.2 1.5 2.5 of the panel) is permitted. This small variation allows to reduce the
coefficient at the soil/strip horizontal deformation of the wall facing.
interface “f*0”
At the base of the wall, the settlement is equal to 5 mm. The
Minimum apparent friction 0.6 0.727 1
coefficient at the soil/strip maximum vertical displacement of the wall is equal to 53 mm. So it
interface “f*1” means that the settlement at the base of the wall is ten times less
Shear stiffness at the soil 0.22 1.6 0.25 than the maximum settlement of the wall.
strip interface kb (MN/m2/m)
Concerning the stability of the wall, the Fs calculation shows
a high stability for the MSE Wall.
At failure, one can observe a sliding at the vicinity of the base,
initial strength accompanied with a rupture of adherence of the bottom rein-
Fs ¼ (5)
strength at failure forcement layers (Fig. 7a).
The maximum shear strain is observed in three zones of the
This stability criterion offers a measurement of the mixed
model (Fig. 7b). The first zone starts at the bottom of the reinforced
stability of the structure. It does not represent the levels of internal
backfill (between the first and third strip level) and forms an angle
stability as required by the current standard (long-term breaking
of 30 . The second zone is a continuation of the first one in the
strength and adherence of each reinforcement layer).
retained backfill with a high angle (45 ). Finally, the third zone is
localised at the end of the strips, at the interface between the
2.4. Results (reference case) reinforced backfill and retained backfill.

The maximum displacement calculated on the MSE Wall using 3. Parametric study
reference parameters with synthetic strips (G50) is equal to 78 mm
(Table 6). This high value is due to the fact that the synthetic strips The influence of several parameters (soil/strip interface param-
present a low stiffness. In a real work, this high horizontal eters, strips parameters and reinforced soil parameters) on the
displacement (61 mm) can be corrected at each construction step. A behaviour of the MSE walls is studied. This study is based on the first
small variation of the concrete panel batter (about 2% on the height modelling using reference parameters.

Fig. 7. Behaviour of the MSE Wall (6 m height) at ULS.

122 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129

Fig. 8. Influence of the soil friction angle on the wall behaviour.

3.1. Influence of the soil parameters settlement in the reinforced soil by synthetic strips is lower
compared to the results obtained with metallic reinforcements.
The influence of the soil parameters is assessed by applying Concerning the failure mode, as in the case of strips GS 50, it can
variations to the five parameters of the constitutive model. The be described as sliding on the base, with the inference of the very
results of the calculation show that the friction angle and bottom reinforcement levels.
the cohesion present a high influence on the deformation and on
the safety factor of MSE Walls (Table 7). A decrease of 16% (36e30 ) 3.2.2. Elastic modulus of the reinforcement
of the friction angle leads to a deformation increase of 45% and A virtual variation of the strip elastic modulus from 1.5 to
reduces the safety factor by 6% (Fig. 8a and b). 210 GPa has been studied, based on the cross-sectional geometry of
An increase of cohesion from 0 to 20 kPa decreases the defor- the steel strips (i.e., 50 mm  4 mm). The calculation results show
mation by 84% and increases the safety factor by 7%. For cohesion that, between 1.5 and 10 GPa, this parameter presents an important
higher than 20 kPa, no more influence is observed (Fig. 9a and b). influence on the wall deformation and small influence on the safety
factor. Above 10 GPa, the modulus increase seems to have no
3.2. Influence of the strip parameters influence on the calculation results (Fig. 10a and b). This threshold
value can be converted into reinforcement axial stiffness per unit
3.2.1. Strip type area facing: 3500 kN/m2.
The influence of the strip type is studied using the metallic strip
and the new synthetic strip (GS HA) presented in Table 4. 3.3. Influence of the constitutive models
The analysis of the results (Table 8) shows that the synthetic strips
GS 50, which offer twice as much frictional width as the metallic To highlight the influence of the soil constitutive model in the
strips per connection point (100 mm versus 50 mm), exhibit a higher numerical modelling, the DuncaneChang and CJS2 soil constitutive
safety level. The effect of the synthetic extensibility is compensated models were used for different cases of reinforcement (GS 50, GS
by a higher adherence capacity. However, the use of the new HA and metallic HA).
synthetic strips GS HA leads to a higher stability (þ2.6% on Fs). The parameters of these soil constitutive models were defined
The displacements observed for the reinforced wall by synthetic by calibration on triaxial tests carried out under confinement of
strips GS 50 are 6 times higher than those observed in the case of 30 kPa, 60 kPa and 90 kPa (Tables 9 and 10).
metallic strips (83% of deformation in the metallic strips case) and
1.1 time higher than those observed on strips GS HA (6 % of 3.3.1. Duncan & Chang Hyperbolic model (D&C)
deformation in the case of GS HA). These high displacements are The Duncan & Chang Hyperbolic constitutive model permits to
observed in the horizontal and vertical directions. Reduction of take into account the nonlinearities of the soil before the failure. The

0 1.8

-20 1.6
U / Uref (%)

-40 1.4

1.2
Fs

-60

-80 1

-100 0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40

Cohesion (kPa) Cohesion (kPa)

a Influence on the deformation b Influence on the safety factor
Fig. 9. Influence of the cohesion on the wall behaviour.
 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129 123

Table 8 Table 9
Comparison of the calculation results for the three strip types. Parameters of Duncan & Chang constitutive model.

Strip Fs DFs/Fsr (%) jUj (mm) Ux (mm) Uy (mm) DjUj=jUr j (%) Parameter Value
GS 50 1.51 0 78 61 53 0 Atmospheric pressure (kPa) 100
Metallic HA 1.48 2 13.5 7.7 12 83 KY 500
GS HA 1.55 þ2.6 73 57.8 49 6 nY 0.55
Failure Ratio 0.7
Cohesion (kPa) 0
KB 600
nB 0.5
version used in the present study is able to model the very small Dilatancy angle ( ) 6
strain and the nonlinear pre-failure soil behaviour. The nonlinear Friction angle ( ) 36
elastic part of the implemented model can be defined by stiffness
parameters (Atkinson and Sallfors, 1991) and the degradation shape
of these parameters. A slight alteration to the original model has
been made and the plastic part of the model is defined by the
Table 10
MohreCoulomb failure criterion. Parameters of CJS2 constitutive model.
Stiffness parameters are given by the equations:
Parameter Value
 nY
P0 Shear modulus: G0 (MPa) 20
Ei ¼ KY :Pa (6) Volumetric modulus: K0 (MPa) 40
Pa Material parameters: n 0.6
Dilatancy slope: b 0.176
 n B Size of the characteristic surface: Rc 0.15
P0
Ki ¼ KB :Pa (7) Deviatoric slope: A 0.0003
Pa Size of the failure surface: Rm 0.3
Shape of the failure surface: g 0.83
Which represent, respectively, initial values of the Young’s p
Plastic bulk modulus for the reference pressure Pa: K0 (MPa) 55
modulus (Janbu, 1963) and Bulk’s modulus (Duncan et al., 1980). KY
and nY are the Young’s modulus parameters; KB and nB are the
Bulk’s modulus parameters. Pa is the atmospheric pressure used for
existence of dilatancy before the failure for dense or over-
normalization of the stress input and P0 is the average effective
consolidated materials (Maleki et al., 2000). The use of this model
confining pressure.
requires the determination of two elastic parameters, five devia-
Under small strain, the nonlinear shape is described by the
toric mechanism parameters and one isotropic mechanism
hyperbolic relationship of Duncan and Chang (1970):
parameter (Table 10). The description of the model (Jenck et al.,
3 2009) and its parameters are given in Appendix A.
s1  s3 ¼ (8)
1 1
þ
Ei ðs1  s3 Þult 3.3.3. Comparison between the different constitutive models
3.3.3.1. Case of standard synthetic straps GS 50. The numerical
The stressestrain dependence is defined implicitly by the Failure calculations show that the simulated wall behaviour using the
Ratio (Rf coefficient) which represents the failure vicinity. three different constitutive models is slightly different (Fig. 11aec).
The values of the different parameters taken into account in the The maximum displacements observed at the wall face are located
modelling are reported in Table 9. between the second and the third strip levels for MC, between the
third and the fifth strip levels for D&C and CJS2. The CJS2 (more
3.3.2. CJS2 model complex model) leads to a highest deformation area. So it seems
CJS2 model is an improved version of the CJS model developed necessary to correctly model the soil nonlinearity to better model
by Cambou and Jafari (1987) for cohesionless soils. It is based on an the wall deformation.
elastic nonlinear part and two mechanisms of plasticity: a devia- The analysis of the soil/strip shear displacements confirms the
toric mechanism and an isotropic mechanism. It allows to take into slight difference between the results of the three models (Fig. 12a).
account the nonlinearity of the behaviour at low stress level and the The maximum shear displacement is underestimated by the MC

40 1.60
U / Uref (%)

20 1.56
0
1.52
-20
Fs

-40 1.48

-60 1.44
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
E (GPa) E (GPa)

a Deformation b Safety factor

Fig. 10. Influence of the strip elastic modulus on the wall behaviour.
124 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129

Fig. 11. Comparison of horizontal displacements for the three soil constitutive models (reference case).

Fig. 12. Comparison of the results of the three soil constitutive models (reference case).

constitutive model (15% less than with CJS2 at the fourth strip). dilatancy before the failure reduces the shear displacement
The D&C contitutive model overestimates the maximum shear compared to D&C.
displacement (10% more than with CJS2 at the fourth strip). So, the The maximum tensile forces on the strips (Fig. 12b) are
nonlinear models lead to a highest shear displacement. On the observed between the second and the third strip levels for the
other hand, the fact that CJS2 take into account the existence of three models. The maximum tensile force value (second and

Fig. 13. Tensile loads along the strips (reference case).

 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129 125

Fig. 14. Comparison of the maximum soil/strip shear displacement for three soil constitutive models.

6 6
MC
Height of the wall (m)

Height of the wall (m)

5 5 MC
D&C
D&C
4 CJS2 4
CJS2
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 30
Maximum tensile force (kN) Maximum tensile force (kN)
a GS HA straps b Metallic strips
Fig. 15. Comparison of the maximum tensile force for three soil constitutive models.

third strips) for the D&C model is in good agreement with the Fig. 13 shows that the MC model underestimate the tensile loads
CJS2 value. However, for the other levels (at top part of the wall), along the strips in two important zones: at the 1st strip level (up to
it seems that the MC and the D&C constitutive models under- 30%) and at 2nd strip (up to 6%). So, at least a nonlinear soil
estimate the tensile loads. So, considering the existence of constitutive model (as D&C) is necessary to correctly model the
dilatancy before the failure by CJS2 model leads to higher tensile tensile loads on the strips at the important zones of the wall.
loads on the strips at the top part of the wall. These results seem
to be more realistic knowing that the dilatancy is important 3.3.3.2. Case of new synthetic straps GS HA and metallic strips. The
under low stresses. calculations carried out on the GS HA straps and metallic strips

60
1.6
40
U / Uref (%)

1.4
20
1.2
Fs

0
1.0
-20

-40 0.8
0.1 0.6 1.1 1.6 2.1 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.6

Interface shear stiffness (MN/m2/m) Interface shear stiffness (MN/m2/m)

a Deformation b Safety factor

Fig. 16. Influence of the interface shear stiffness on the wall behaviour.
126 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129

Table 11 parametric study shows that the influence of this parameter is

Results of calculation with and without simulation of compaction. important for the safety factor but very low for the deformation. The
Strip Fs jDFsj/Fsr jUj jUxj jUyj jDUj/ maximum calculated variation from the reference value is 7% for the
(%) (mm) (mm) (mm) jUrj (%) safety factor and 2% for the deformation. However, the interface
GS 50 without compaction 1.51 e 78 61 53 e shear stiffness (kb) variations lead to an important variation of the
GS 50 compaction 8 kPa 1.51 0 96 71 66 23 wall deformation. The deformation increases by factor of 2 for
GS 50 compaction 10 kPa 1.51 0 100 73 70 30
a reduction of the interface shear stiffness from 1.6 to 0.1 MN/m2/m.
GS 50 compaction 16 kPa 1.53 1.3 118 86 85 51
For the safety factor, the influence is less important (4%) (Fig. 16).

6 6
Height of the wall (m)

Height of the wall (m)

5 5 Without compaction
4 4 With compaction
3 Without compaction 3

2 With compaction 2

1 1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Shear displacement (mm) Maximum tensile force (kN)
a Soil/reinforcement shear displacement b Maximum tensile force on the straps
Fig. 17. Effect of the compaction (vertical stress of 10 kPa).

confirm the results obtained in the case of GS 50 straps. They show The experimental pullout tests results showed that the interface
that the use of three different constitutive soil models leads to parameters vary versus the confinement stresses. A modelling of
differences. The maximum shear displacement is underestimated the MSE Wall was made using the interface shear stiffness values
by the MC soil constitutive model in the cases of GS HA straps and (kb) which varies from the top to the bottom of the wall in order to
Metallic strips (Fig. 14). This underestimation is more important in highlight the influence of this variation. The value of this parameter
the case of the metallic strips (up to 70%). (pullout test results) at each strip level is, from top to bottom:
Concerning the tensile force on the strips (Fig.15), the CJS2 model
leads to higher values compared to D&C and MC models. The MC  1st and 2nd strips level: kb ¼ 0.6 MN/m2/m;
model gives the lower values especially in the case of metallic strips  3rd and 4th strips level: kb ¼ 0.4 MN/m2/m;
(up to 30%). These results confirm that a nonlinear soil constitutive  5th and 6th strip level: kb ¼ 0.2 MN/m2/m;
model (as D&C) is necessary to correctly model the shear displace-  7th and 8th strip level: kb ¼ 0.15 MN/m2/m.
ment and the tensile loads on the strips. The maximum difference
obtained between CJS2 and D&C is equal to 22%. The results show that taking into account the evolution of the
The analysis of the tensile forces on the strips in the important shear stiffness versus the confinement, presents an influence on
zones of the wall and the shear displacement at the soil/rein- the deformation of the wall (þ15%) but almost no influence on the
forcement interfaces, show that contrary to the conclusions stability of the wall (<þ1%).
deduced by Huang et al. (2009) and Ling and Liu (2009), the use of
models with different level of complexity, leads to different results.
3.5. Influence of the soil compaction

3.4. Influence of the soil/reinforcement interface parameters To study the influence of the compaction in the numerical
simulations, we have adopted the process defined by Hatami and
The interface friction coefficient f*0 and f*1 were, respectively, Bathurst (2006). These authors consider this effect as a vertical
varied between 3e0.6 and 0.6e0.3 in the reference model. This stress applied at the top of the soil. Comparing between predicted

Fig. 18. Behaviour of the MSE Wall (10.5 m height) at ULS.

 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129 127

Table 12 S1
Definition of four categories of influence.

Variation of Fs% Variation of U% Symbol Yield surface, size R

0e5 0e10 
5e10 10e25 þ Characteristic surface, size Rc
10e20 25e50 þþ
>20 >50 þþþ Failure surface, size Rm

and measured wall response (for two types of sand), they have S3 S2
determined that the value of the vertical stress is equal to 8 kPa
Fig. 19. Deviatoric mechanism of the CJS2 model in the deviatoric stress (S1, S2, S3)
(respectively, 16 kPa) for sand with a Young’s modulus of 40 MPa
plane.
(respectively, 80 MPa).
In our case, the sand has a Young’s modulus of 50 MPa, by linear
interpolation a vertical stress of 10 kPa has been deduced. 3.6. Influence of the wall height
To study the influence of the compaction, three different
calculations have been performed by introducing a stress load on To study the influence of the wall height, a model of 10.5 m
each soil layer at its set up. The loads simulated in the first, second height was simulated. It is made of 7 superimposed panels and
and third calculations are, respectively, 8 kPa, 10 kPa and 16 kPa. In reinforced by 14 levels of 8 m long reinforcements. The reference
this numerical modelling, the stress load is removed immediately parameters are used in this numerical model.
after the introduction of the next layer in all stages of construction. The failure analysis shows that the behaviour of the 10.5 m high
The modelling results show that the displacements calculated wall is the same as that for the 6 m high wall. It occurs by sliding of
on the MSE wall in the reference case are more important when the the unstable ground zone (Fig. 18a). The maximum shear strain is
compaction is simulated (Table 11). An increase of 23%, 30% and 51% observed in three zones as in the reference case (Fig. 18b).
are, respectively, measured for stress loads of 8 kPa, 10 kPa and
16 kPa. Concerning the stability of the wall, the safety factor Fs
3.7. Influencing parameters
increased slightly (þ1.3%) for a load of 16 kPa but does not change
for loads of 8 kPa and 10 kPa. The deformation difference shows
A scale has been made to present the influence of each
that it is necessary to estimate with accuracy the loading stress in
parameter. Two results are presented: the safety factor and the wall
order to simulate the compaction.
deformation. For each of the parameter the scale is divided in four
The analysis of the shear displacement between the soil and
categories and each category is defined by a symbol (see Table 12).
reinforcement shows a slight difference in results between the
Table 13 analysis allows to define the parameters that influence
calculation taking into account a loading stress of 10 kPa and the
the wall behaviour. Concerning the safety, the soil friction angle, the
calculation performed without simulation of compaction (Fig. 17a).
soil cohesion and the interface friction coefficient present the most
The maximum shear displacement between the soil and rein-
important influence.
forcement are slightly overestimated by the calculation that does
For the wall deformation, the soil cohesion and the strip elastic
not take into account the compaction (about 10% in most of rein-
modulus are the most important influencing parameters. The
forcement levels). Concerning the tensile force on the straps
interface shear stiffness, the soil friction and the dilatancy angle
(Fig. 17b), they are slightly underestimated by the calculation when
present a significant influence but that is low compared to the strip
the soil compaction is not taken into account (about 2% in most
elastic modulus and the soil cohesion.
reinforcement levels).
These results infer that soil compaction needs to be taken into
account in numerical modelling in order to estimate with accuracy 4. Conclusions
the deformation of the structure. However, it is difficult to define
with accuracy the value of the equivalent loading stress allowing The results of this numerical study allowed to deduce in one
to simulate the real compaction in the calculations. A bad esti- hand, interesting conclusions concerning the behaviour of the MSE
mation of this stress can induce an overestimation of the wall structures, and in the other hand, to highlight the importance of
deformation. This approximate way to take into account the each parameter in the numerical modelling. The importance of this
effects of compaction is questionable because it is not able to study lies in the fact that the method and the parameters taken into
simulate all the effects of compaction (density change, partial account in the modelling are as realistic as possible. Indeed, the
tension of reinforcement). construction stages are reproduced as in actual conditions, the
reference parameters of the synthetic strips were validated by
Table 13 calibration on pullout tests and nonlinear constitutive models
Parameters influence on the wall behaviour. validated on triaxial test are used to reproduce with accuracy the
Parameter Degree of influence
soil behaviour.
The first modelling carried out using reference parameters
ULS SLS
allows to draw two important results:
Interface Interface shear stiffness  þþ
Friction coefficient þ 
 The synthetic strips parameters lead to high horizontal
Strip Strip elastic modulus  þþþ displacements of the facing wall in the numerical calculation.
Soil Young modulus    The ULS analysis shows that failure occurs by sliding of MSE
Poisson’s ratio   blocks, accompanied with adherence rupture of the bottom
Friction þ þþ reinforcement layers. Maximum shear strain shows that the
Cohesion þ þþþ
Dilatancy  þ
unstable part is localised on a slightly inclined plane at the-
bottom of the reinforced block. This plane is prolonged into
128 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129

the retained backfill by another plane with a higher inclination. corresponding to the size of the failure surface and related to the
Another shearing plane is localised at the interface between friction angle:
the reinforced backfill and retained backfill.
f R ¼ sII ,hðqÞ  Rm ,I1 (12)
The parametric study allows to define the parameters that
The characteristic state is taken into account, which makes it
influence the wall behaviour and the importance of each param-
possible to simulate dilatancy before failure for dense materials.
eter. The conclusions deduced from this study are:
The characteristic surface is given by Equation (13), Rc is a model
parameter:
 The soil shear strength parameters present the higher influ-
ence on the stability and the deformation of the MSE Walls. f c ¼ sII ,hðqÞ  Rc ,I1 (13)
 It seems necessary, at least, to use a nonlinear soil constitutive
model (as D&C) to correctly model the wall deformation and The isotropic hardening of the deviatoric mechanism involves the
the tensile loads on the strips, especially in the case of large model parameters Rm, Rc and an additional parameter A (Cambou
strains. If experimental data is sufficient, using a model which and Jafari, 1987).
take into account the existence of dilatancy before the failure The isotropic mechanism yield surface is a plane perpendicular
(as CJS2) allow to better estimate the shear displacement and to the hydrostatic axis in the principal stress space (Equation (14),
the tensile loads on the strips. Q being the hardening variable, determined by the isotropic hard-
 The use of synthetic strips two times larger than metallic strips ening mechanism, Cambou and Jafari, 1987). Isotropic hardening of
p
leads to higher wall stability and increases the adherence this mechanism is governed by the model parameter K0 (the plastic
capacity. This stability is even higher using the newly devel- bulk modulus for the reference pressure Pa).
oped High Adherence synthetic strips. Concerning the failure
modes, they are similar for the three strip types. I1
fi ¼ Q (14)
 The parametric study on the strip elastic modulus shows that 3
this parameter presents an important influence on the stability
and the wall deformation for axial stiffness values lower than
3500 kN/m2 of wall face.
 The study of the interface parameters shows that the variations References
of the interface shear stiffness leads to an important variation
AASHTO, 2002. Standard specifications for highway bridges, Seventeenth ed.,
of the wall deformation. A good estimation of this parameter Washington, D. C.
(e.g., by laboratory pullout test) for each reinforcement type Abdelouhab, A., Dias, D., Freitag, N., 2009. Physical and analytical modelling of geo-
seems to be essential for proper assessment of the structure synthetic strip pullout behaviour. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (1), 44e53.
Al Hattamleh, O., Muhunthan, B., 2006. Numerical procedures for deformation calcu-
displacements. lations in the reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (1), 52e57.
Allen, T.M., Bathurst, R.J., Berg, R.R., 2002. Global level of safety and performance of
geosynthetic walls: a historical perspective. Geosynthetics International 9
Appendix A (5e6), 395e450.
Atkinson J.H., Sallfors G., 1991. Experimental determination of stressestrainetime
characteristics in laboratory and in situ tests. In: Proceedings of the 10th
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Florence,
CJS2 model is based on an elastic nonlinear part and two vol. 3, pp. 915e956.
mechanisms of plasticity: a déviatoric mechanism and an isotropic Anon., 2009. Nf P 94-270: Renforcement des Sols. Ouvrages en Sol Rapporté Ren-
mechanism: forcé Par Armatures ou Nappes Extensibles et Souples. Dimensionnement.
Editions AFNOR.
The elastic part is given by the shear and the bulk modulus G Anon, 1998. Nf P 94-220: Renforcement des Sols. Ouvrages en Sol Rapporté Ren-
and K. forcé Par Armatures ou Nappes Peu Extensibles et Souples. Dimensionnement.
Editions AFNOR.
 n Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M., Walters, D.L., 2005. Reinforcement loads in geosynthetic
I1
G ¼ G0 , (9) walls and the case for a new working stress design method. Geotextiles and
3,Pa Geomembranes 23 (4), 287e322.
Bergado, D.T., Teerawattanasuk, C., 2008. 2D and 3D numerical simulations of
 n reinforced embankments on soft ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26,
I 39e55.
K ¼ K0 , 1 (10) Cambou, B., Jafari, K., 1987. A constitutive model for granular materials based on
3,Pa
two plasticity mechanisms. In: Saada, A.S. (Ed.), Constitutive Equations for
Where G0, K0 and n are material parameters for the reference Granular Non-Cohesive Soils. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 149e167.
Duncan, J.M., Chang, C.Y., 1970. Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain in soils. Journal
pressure Pa (usually 100 kPa). I1 is the first stress invariant. of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE 96 (SM5), 1629e1653.
The deviatoric mechanism (for deviatoric stresses) is described Duncan, J.M., Byrne, P., Wong, K.S., Mabry, P., 1980. Strength, StresseStrain and Bulk
by three surfaces in the deviatoric stress space (Fig. 19). Modulus Parameters for Finite Element Analysis of Stress and Movements in
Soil Masses. UCB/GT/80-01. College of California, Berkeley, California.
The expression of the yield function of the deviatoric mecha- Elias, V., Christopher, B., Berg, R.R., 2001. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
nism (fd) is given by Eq. (11), where sII is the deviatoric stress tensor Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines. FHWA-NHI-00-043.
second invariant and h is a function of the Lode angle q (g is a model Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D. C.
Flavigny, E., Desrues, J., Palayer, B., 1990. Le sable d’Hostun RF. Note technique.
parameter). The size of the surface R varies during the loading Revue Française de Géotechnique 53, 67e70.
according to isotropic hardening: Gay, O., 2000. Modélisation physique et numérique de l’action d’un glissement lent
sur des fondations d’ouvrages d’art. Thèse de doctorat en Mécanique, Labo-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f d ¼ sII ,hðqÞ  R,I1 ; with sII ¼ sij sij and hðqÞ ratoire 3S, Grenoble 1.
Hatami, K., Bathurst, R.J., 2006. Parametric analysis of reinforced soil walls with
!1=6 different backfill material properties. In: NAGS’ 2006 Conference, Las Vegas,
pffiffiffiffiffiffi detsij Nevada, USA, pp. 1e15.
¼ 1  g, 54, 3 (11) Ho, S.K., Rowe, R.K., 1994. Prediction behavior of two centrifugal model soil walls.
sII
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 120 (10), 1845e1873.
Huang, B., Bathurst, R.J., Hatami, K., 2009. Numerical study of reinforced soil
Failure occurs when the deviatoric stress state reaches the segmental walls using three different constitutive soil models. Journal of
failure surface (Equation (12)), Rm is a model parameter, Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 135 (10), 1486e1498.
 A. Abdelouhab et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 116e129 129

Itasca Consulting Group. FLAC2D. User’s guide. 2006. Quang, T.S., Hassen, G., De Buhan, P., 2008. Modélisation multiphasique appliquée à
Janbu, N., 1963. Soil compressibility as determined by oedometer and triaxial tests. l’analyse de stabilité d’ouvrage en sols renforcés avec prise en compte d’une condition
In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foun- d’adhérence sol-armatures. Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica XXX (No. 1e2).
dation Engineering, vol. 1, Wiesbaden, Germany. pp. 19e24. Schlosser, F., Elias, V., 1978. Friction in Reinforced Earth, A.S.C.E. Convention, Pitts-
Jenck, O., Dias, D., Kastner, R., 2009. Three-dimensional numerical modeling of burgh, April 24e28.
a piled embankment. International Journal Of Geomechanics, ASCE 9, 102. Sieira, A.C.C.F., Gerscovich, D.M.S., Sayão, A.S.F.J., 2009. Displacement and load
Khedkar, M.S., Mandal, J.N., 2009. Pullout behaviour of cellular reinforcements. transfer mechanisms of geogrids under pullout condition. Geotextiles and
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27, 262e271. Geomembranes 27 (4), 241e253.
Koerner, R.M., Soong, T.Y., 2001. Geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls. Skinner, G.D., Rowe, R.K., 2005. Design and behaviour of a geosynthetic reinforced
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (6), 359e386. retaining wall and bridge abutment on a yielding foundation. Geotextiles and
Leshchinsky, D., 2009. On global equilibrium in design of geosynthetic reinforced Geomembranes 23 (3), 235e260.
walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135, 309. Su, L.J., Chan, T.C.F., Yin, J.H., Shiu, Y.K., Chiu, S.L., 2008. Influence of overburden
Ling, H.I., Liu, H., Mohri, Y., 2005. Parametric studies on the behavior of reinforced pressure on soilenail pullout: resistance in a compacted fill. Journal of
soil retaining walls under earthquake loading. Journal of Engineering Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 134, 1339.
Mechanics 131, 1056. Won, M.S., Kim, Y.S., 2007. Internal deformation behavior of geosynthetic-rein-
Ling, H.I., Liu, H., 2009. Deformation analysis of reinforced soil retaining walls e simplistic forced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (1), 10e22.
versus sophisticated finite element analyses. Acta Geotechnica 4, 203e213. Yoo, C., Jung, H.Y., 2006. Case history of geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining
Maleki, M., Dubujet, P., Cambou, B., 2000. Modélisation hiérarchisée du com- wall failure. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 132,1538.
portement des sols. Revue Française de Génie Civil 4 (No. 7e8), 895e928. Yoo, C., Kim, S.B., 2008. Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic reinforced
Park, T., Tan, S.A., 2005. Enhanced performance of reinforced soil walls by the segmental retaining wall under a surcharge load: full-scale load test and 3D
inclusion of short fiber. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (4), 348e361. finite element analysis. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (6), 460e472.