PARAMETRIC STUDY FOR NARROW MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH

WALLS
Gihan E. Abdelrahman, Professor Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Fayoum
University, Fayoum, Egypt
Youssef G. Youssef, Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Fayoum
University, Fayoum, Egypt
Mohamed M. Kamel, Demonstrator, Construction Engineering Department, Misr University for Science &
Technology, Giza, Egypt

Abstract:
Previous studies defined Narrow Mechanically Stabilized Earth, NMSE, walls as a retaining
wall with aspect ratio (wall width to its height, L/H) less than 0.70 as in traditional walls.
Some studies investigated its behavior and its failure planes compared to those of
traditional walls. In this paper, parametric study using finite element analysis PLAXIS, 8.2
has been introduced to discuss global factor of safety, FS, maximum horizontal
displacement, Ds, maximum tension force of reinforcement element, Tmax, and active earth
pressure coefficient, ka, as a function of different aspect ratio of NMSE wall, L/H, reinforcing
elements spacing, S, elastic axial stiffness of reinforcement element, EA, wall batter, 1/m,
soil friction angle, , and wall height, H. The results indicated that increasing aspect ratio
increases the factor of safety, maximum horizontal displacement, maximum tensile force
and active earth pressure. Increasing elastic axial stiffness increases factor of safety,
maximum tension force of reinforcement element while decreasing the maximum
horizontal displacement.
Keywords: Narrow Mechanically Stabilized Earth (NMSE) walls, Earth pressure, Finite
element.
Introduction
Reinforced earth is a composite geo-construction
material, which embodies two basic components;
namely engineering fill and reinforcing elements.
The latter one is responsible for improving the
tensile and shear resistance of the soil. The soilreinforcement technique has been in use for
many geotechnical applications especially MSE
walls.

m= wall batter
S= spacing between reinforcing elements
Stable face

G.S
Reinforcing elements

A narrow wall system is referred to as a MSE wall

with an aspect ratio, L/H, below 0.70 that is placed
in front of a stabilized wall. An example of a
narrow wall system with its dimensions is
illustrated in Fig. 1.
Where:
H= height of NMSE wall
L= width of NMSE wall

Figure 1: Illustration of NMSE wall in front of a

stable face
Although the FHWA design guidelines for shored
mechanically stabilized earth wall systems are
suggested for the design of MSE walls with

aspect ratios from 0.3 to 0.7, (i.e. NMSE wall)

several important characteristics of NMSE walls
are not considered in these guidelines. For
example, the guidelines make no allowances for
a reduction in earth pressure due to arching
effect. Besides, the shored mechanically
stabilized earth wall guidelines also suggest
neglecting to check the external stability. The aim
of this study is to better understand the behavior
of narrow walls especially in active earth pressure
conditions.
Furthermore,
understand
the
sensitivity of the behavior NMSE wall for different
wall parameters by the numerical simulations.
The stability of NMSE walls was addressed by
many researchers (Frydman and Kelssar, 1987;
Take and Valsangker, 2001; Woodraff, 2003;
Leshchinskg and Hu, 2003; Lawson and Yee,
2005) for at rest earth pressure conditions. They
all concluded that, due to arching effect, the earth
pressure coefficient decreased as wall aspect
ratio, (ratio of wall width to wall height), L/H,
decreased. This implies that the traditional
method of design using conventional earth
pressure equations to estimate the factor of safety
against breakage and pullout is not appropriate
for NMSE walls design. Moreover, the effect of
aspect ratio still requires further in-depth
investigations especially for active earth pressure
conditions.
This paper presents parametric study based on
finite element analysis to model NMSE walls to
investigate the effect of different wall parameters
on
safety
factor,
maximum
horizontal
displacements, maximum axial force and
coefficient of earth pressure. The finite element
model has been developed using PLAXIS V.8.2
program.
Finite element modeling
In the current study, the analysis was performed
using the finite element program Plaxis software
package (Bringkgreve and Vermeer, 1998).
Plaxis is capable of handling a wide range of
geotechnical
problems
such
as
deep
excavations, tunnels, slopes, and earth structures
such as retaining walls. Two dimensional plain
strain model was used in the analysis.

Geometry and boundary conditions

As shown in Fig. 2, the finite element mesh is
composed of 15-node isoparametric triangular
elements. The mesh coarseness was set as Very
fine. Horizontal fixities (rollers) were applied to
the stable face. This allowed the wall to settle in
the vertical direction but prohibited the nodes
along the boundary from moving laterally. Total
fixities were placed at bottom of the foundation.
Plane strain was assumed to solve the threedimensional problem with a two-dimensional
analysis. To simulate the real construction
process of NMSE walls, the wall was constructed
with a stage construction procedure in this
analysis.

Figure 2: Finite Element Model for Narrow

Mechanical Stabilized Earth Wall
Backfill Model Properties
Hardening Soil model was selected to simulate
the nonlinearly plastic response. The Hardening
Soil model is a stress-dependent hyperbolic
model based on the flow rule and plasticity theory.
It was believed that Hardening Soil model had
better ability to match the stress-strain curves of
granular soil at working stress conditions than the
Mohr-Coulomb model, a linear elastic and perfect
plastic model. Angle of dilatancy, was used to
account for the dilatation of sand during shearing.
The value was calculated by the empirical
equation ( - 30), (Bolton, 1986). The
adapted hyperbolic model parameters for the
backfill soil are shown in Table 1. These
parameters were selected to simulate the
properties of compacted clean medium to coarse

sand which often used in construction of MSE

walls.
Table 1: Hyperbolic Model Parameters for the
Backfill Soil
Parameter
Value
17.00
Unit Weight, (kN/m3)
35
Peak Friction Angle, (deg.)
Cohesion, c, (kPa)
5
5
Angle of Dilatancy, (deg.)
Secant Stiffness, E50ref, (kPa)
35000
Reinforcement properties
The reinforcement elements were modelled as
line elements with a normal stiffness but with no
bending stiffness. In addition, line elements could
only sustain tensile forces but no compression.
An elasto-plastic model was selected to model the
breakage of reinforcement. The input parameters
for the reinforcements were the elastic axial
stiffness, EA, and maximum axial tension force
Np. The reinforcement properties used in the
modelling is assumed according to typical values
of geo-grid elements used in reinforcement of
MSE walls. These parameters were summarized
in Table 2.
Table 2: Reinforcement properties
Parameter
Axial Stiffness, EA, (kN/m)
Maximum Axial
Np,(kN/m)

Tension

Force,

Bending Stiffness, EI, (kNm2/m)

A numerical study was carried out on plane strain

model of NMSE walls. The effect of aspect ratio,
L/H, on the factor of safety, maximum horizontal
displacement, maximum tensile force and active
earth pressure coefficient, ka, was investigated. In
addition, the effect of angle of friction of reinforced
soil on maximum horizontal displacement was
studied. The effect of spacing between reinforcing
elements, S, and its elastic axial stiffness, EA, on
factor of safety and maximum horizontal
displacement was introduced. Furthermore, the
effect of wall face batter, m, and wall height, H, on
factor of safety and maximum horizontal
displacement was studies. Table 4 summarizes
all parametric study series performed in this
paper. The behavior of the NMSE wall were
investigated and studied through these
parametric studies.

1800

Parameters affecting Factor of Safety, F.S

The factor of safety is defined as the ratio of
available soil strength to strength at failure which
can be used to evaluate the stability of MSE walls.
Effect of wall aspect ratio, spacing between
reinforcing elements, axial stiffness of reinforcing
elements and wall batter on safety factor of NMSE
wall were investigated. Results and discussion of
this study were introduced in the following
sections.

120

Effect of aspect ratio, L/H

Value

Facing properties
Plate elements were used to represent the
stabilized and MSE wall faces. Plates are
structural objects composed of beam elements
with bending stiffness, EI, and normal stiffness,
EA. The facing parameters are listed in Table 3.
Table 3: Facing properties
Parameter
Wall Face
Axial Stiffness, EA, (kN/m)

Results and Discussion

Value
8.4x106
11.2 x104

Stable Face
Axial Stiffness, EA, (kN/m)

109

Bending Stiffness, EI, (kNm2/m)

1011

The effect of varying aspect ratio on the factor of

safety has been studied. A height of narrow
mechanical stabilized earth wall 10m with slope
1H: 10V and 0.50m spacing was kept constant
but wall aspect ratio was varied. Typical variations
of aspect ratio were assumed against factor of
safety as shown in Fig. 3. Results demonstrate
that the factor of safety increases significantly
with increasing the aspect ratio from 0.2 to 0.7 in
nonlinear relationship. For walls with aspect ratio
less than 0.25, the wall become unstable (i.e.
safety factor is less than 1). This result is
consistent with Woodruffs observation (2003)
that wall become unstable when the wall aspect
ratio decreased below 0.3. The increase in factor
of safety may be attributed to reinforcement
mechanism which derived from the friction
resistance in both faces along length of
reinforcing elements. Also, the reinforcing
elements length increases with increasing of the
aspect ratio which leads to increase of the friction
resistance.

Table 4: Parametric study series

H
(m)

Factor of Safety

Maximum horizontal
Displacement

Maximum Tension
Force
Earth Pressure
Coefficient

Constant wall parameters

1: m
S
EA
(m)
(kN/m)

FS =

0.5
-

1800
1800

0.50

10

1H: 10V

0.5

0.60

10
10
10

1H: 10V
1H: 10V

0.5
0.50
0.50

1800
1800
1800

0.60
0.60

10

1H: 10V

0.50

0.60

10

1H: 10V
1H: 10V

0.50
0.50

1800
1800

0.60
-

10

1H: 10V

0.50

0.60

10

1H: 10V

0.50

1800

Factor of Safety, FS.

+ 10.319(L/H) - 0.45
R = 0.999

1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

Figure 3: Relationship between aspect ratio, L/H,

and Safety Factor for 0.5m reinforcing elements
spacing.
between

L/H =0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7

Figure of
Results
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

significantly with increasing the spacing between

reinforcing elements as a linear relationship. The
decrease in factor of safety can be attributed to
reinforcement mechanism which derived from the
friction resistance in both faces along length of
reinforcing elements. The number of reinforcing
elements decreases with increasing the spacing
between reinforcing elements and that lead to
decreasing of friction resistance and increases
lateral earth pressures. This is consistent with the
recommended spacing between reinforcing
elements reported by Yang, Kniss, Zornberg and
Wright, 2008 who showed that decreasing the
spacing of the reinforcement was observed to
increase the stability of the walls with very short
aspect ratios.
1.50

Aspect Ratio, L/H

Effect of spacing
elements, S

L/H =0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7

S = 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0m
EA=1200, 1400, 1600, 1800kN/m
(for reinforcing elements)
1.: m = 1:10, 1:12, 1:14
L/H =0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7
= 31, 33, 35, 37 deg.
EA=1200, 1400, 1600, 1800kN/m
(for reinforcing elements)
H = 4, 6, 8, 10, 12m
L/H =0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7
EA=1200, 1400, 1600, 1800kN/m
(for reinforcing elements)

1H: 10V
1H: 10V

22.263(L/H)2

2.00

Variable Wall parameters

10
10

2.20
18(L/H)3

L/H

reinforcing

F.S = -0.263S + 1.5239

R = 0.999

1.45
1.40

Factor of safety, FS

Study

1.35
1.30

The effect of varying the spacing between

reinforcing elements on the factor of safety for
narrow MSE walls has been studied in case that
the wall height is 10m with slope 1H: 10V and
aspect ratio, L/H=0.5while the spacing between
reinforcing elements was varied. Variations of
factor of safety were plotted against spacing
between reinforcing elements as shown in Fig. 4.
It is noticed that the factor of safety decreases

1.25
1.20
0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Spacing between reinforcing elements, S (m)

Figure 4: Relationship between reinforcement

element spacing and safety factor, for 0.50m
aspect ratio

1.70
1.60
1.50

1.7
(1H: 10V)
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3

(1H: 12V)

1.2
(1H: 14V)

1.1

F.S = 439.71(1/m)2 - 56.5(1/m) + 2.85

R = 1

1.40

Factor of safety, FS

0.9
0.06

1.30

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0.11

Wall batter, 1/m

1.20

Figure 6: Relationship between wall batter and

Factor of safety, for Aspect ratio, L/H=0.6 and
Spacing =0.5m.

1.10
F.S = 0.0009(EA) - 0.0679
R = 0.991

1.00
0.90
1100

batter equals zero (i.e. vertical wall face) so that

there is no critical wall batter for this case of wall.

Factor of safety, F.S

Effect of elastic axial stiffness of reinforcing

elements, EA
As shown in Fig. 5, linear proportional relationship
between the elastic axial stiffness of reinforcing
elements and wall safety factor. All variable
parameters were kept constant with varying only
the elastic axial stiffness of reinforcing elements.
It should be notice that increasing the elastic axial
stiffness of reinforcing elements increases project
cost.

1300

1500

1700

Maximum Horizontal Displacement, Ds

1900

Elastic axial stiffness, EA (kN/m)

Figure 5: Relationship between elastic axial

stiffness, EA, and Factor of safety, for Aspect
ratio, L/H= 0.6 and spacing between reinforcing
elements, S=0.5m.
Effect of wall batter, m
The effect of varying the wall face batter of NMSE
walls, on the factor of safety was studied. In case
of ordinary and MSE retaining walls increasing
the wall batter increases the factor of safety. It can
be attributed to reinforcement mechanism which
derived from the friction resistance in both faces
along length of reinforcing elements and Length
of reinforcing elements increases with increasing
the wall batter of NMSE walls. A height of NMSE
wall 10m with aspect ratio equal to 0.6 and
reinforcing elements length, location, spacing,
was kept constant but the slope was varied.
Typical variations of slope were assumed against
factor of safety as shown in Fig. 6. This figure
shows that the factor of safety increases
significantly with increasing wall batter, m. The
increase in factor of safety of narrow MSE wall
increases from 1.0556 to 1.595 when wall batter
changes from 1H: 14V to 1H: 10V. It is noted that
the factor of safety is more than unity for wall

Maximum horizontal displacement is defined as

the largest horizontal displacement occurred at
wall facing due to mobilization of active earth
pressure conditions. This maximum displacement
is occurred almost at the mid height of wall facing
as shown in Fig. 7. Effect of wall aspect ratio,
friction angle of backfill soil, axial stiffness of
reinforcing elements and wall height on maximum
horizontal displacement of NMSE wall were
investigated. Results and discussions of this
study were presented in the following sections.

Figure 7: Displacement of NMSE Wall

Effect of wall aspect ratio, L/H

64

Ds = 148.7(L/H)3 - 181.71(L/H)2 + 106.93(L/H) + 26.862

R = 0.993

62
60
58
56
54
52

29

31

33

35

37

Friction Angle ()

Figure 9: Relationship between friction angle and

Maximum horizontal displacement, for 0.60m
aspect ratio, L/H and 0.50m reinforcing elements
spacing

60

Wall height of 10m with slope 1H: 10V and

reinforcing elements length, location, spacing,
was kept constant but the elastic axial stiffness of
reinforcing elements was varied. The figure
showed
that
the
maximum
horizontal
displacement decreases significantly with
increasing the elastic axial stiffness of reinforcing
elements. The decrease in maximum horizontal
displacement can be attributed to decreases of
lateral earth pressure.

55

50

45

40
0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Aspect Ratio, L/H

Figure 8: Relationship between aspect ratio, L/H

and Maximum horizontal displacement, for 0.5m
reinforcing elements spacing

69

Maximum horizontal displacement, Ds

(mm)

Max. horizontal displacement, Ds (mm)

65

Ds = 0.07442 - 6.34 + 187.46

R = 0.991

Maximum horizontal displacement, Ds,

(mm)

In order to study the effect of varying the aspect

ratio of NMSE walls, maximum horizontal
displacement. The height of NMSE wall 10m with
slope 1H: 10V and reinforcing elements length,
location, spacing, was kept constant, only the
aspect ratio was varied. As shown in Fig. 8, the
result of analysis demonstrates that the maximum
horizontal displacement increases in nonlinear
relationship with increasing the aspect ratio in
rang 0.2 to 0.7. The increase in maximum
horizontal displacement may be attributed to the
width of wall increases with increasing the aspect
ratio and that leads to increasing of lateral earth
pressure consequently horizontal displacement
increases.

67

Ds = 2E-05(EA)2 - 0.0659(EA) + 123.25

R = 0.993

65
63

Effect of friction angle of backfill soil,

Fig. 9 showed that the maximum horizontal
displacement decreases with increasing friction
angle. The decrease in maximum horizontal
displacement can be attributed to decrease in
lateral earth pressure force. Shear strength of soil
increases significantly with increasing of friction
angle which leads to a decrease in active earth
pressure coefficient, Ka, consequently a
decrease in earth pressure force.
Effect of elastic axial stiffness of reinforcing
elements, EA
The effect of varying the elastic axial stiffness, EA,
of reinforcing elements on the maximum
horizontal displacement is presented in Fig. 10.

61
59
57
55
1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

Elastic axial stiffness, EA (kN/m)

Figure 10: Relationship between elastic axial

stiffness and Maximum horizontal displacement,
for Aspect ratio, L/H=0.6 and Spacing between
reinforcing elements, S=0.5m.

Effect of wall height, H

Increasing narrow MSE wall height, H, with limited
wall width, decreases the factor of safety. Typical
variations of height of wall were assumed as
shown in Fig. 11. The figure demonstrates that the
maximum horizontal displacement increases
significantly with increasing the height of wall as a
linear relationship. The increase in maximum
horizontal displacement can be attributed to
increase of lateral earth pressure. As shown in
Fig. 12, Horizontal displacement increases from
40 to 80mm when wall height increased from 8 to
12m.

Maximum horizontal displacement, Ds

90
80
70
60
50
40
30

Effect of wall aspect ratio and elastic axial

stiffness elastic tensile stiffness of reinforcing
elements, EA, on maximum tension force in
reinforcing elements of NMSE wall was studied.
Results and discussions of this study were
presented in the following section.
Effect of aspect ratio, L/H
Study of the effect of varying the aspect ratio of
NMSE walls on the maximum tension force in
reinforcing elements are plotted in Fig. 13. The
variable parameters were kept constant with
varying only the aspect ratio. Proportional linear
relationship between maximum tension forces
with aspect ratio. The increase in axial tension
force is small; it is increase from 27 to 34kN.m
when wall aspect ratio changes from 0.2 to 0.7.
The increase in maximum tension force may be
attributed to increase of lateral earth force. Lateral
earth pressure increases with increasing the
aspect ratio which leads to increasing of lateral
earth force. So that tension force in reinforcing
elements increases with increasing wall aspect
ratio.

FOR(L/H=.6)

20

35

FOR(L/H=.8)

10

33
2

7
12
Height of wall, H (m)

17

Figure 11: Relationship between Height of wall, H,

and maximum horizontal displacement, for aspect
ratio, L/H= 0.6 and spacing between reinforcing
elements, S=0.5m.

Max. Tension Force, Tmax (KN.m)

31

29

27
Tmax = 13.926(L/H) + 24.023
R = 0.994
25
0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

Aspect Ratio (L/H)

Figure 13: Relationship between aspect ratio,

L/H, and Maximum tension force, for 0.5m
reinforcing elements spacing.

Figure 12: Displacement for NMSE walls: (a):

Displacement contour for wall with 12 m height;
(b): displacement contour for wall with 8m height.
Maximum Tension
Elements, Tmax

Force

in

Reinforcing

Effect of elastic axial stiffness of reinforcing

elements, EA
As shown in Fig. 14, the maximum tension force
in reinforcing elements increases slightly with
increasing the elastic axial stiffness. Maximum
tension force increases from 28.2 to 32.3kN when
elastic axial stiffness increased from 1200 to
1800kN/m'. It is clear that elastic axial Stiffness

has insignificant effect on the tension force in

reinforcing elements
33

Max Axial Load (KN.m)

32

from numerical analysis. From equilibrium, total

earth pressure force on the wall is equal to the
summation of forces in the reinforcing elements.
Furthermore, assuming linear earth pressure
distribution on the wall. Thus, earth pressure may
be estimated using the following equation:
2

= 2

31

. (1)

Where:

30

kn: Coefficient of earth pressure for NMSE wall

29

E: Summation of tension force in all reinforcing

elements

28
27
1100

: Unit weight of backfill soil (l 7kN/m3)

Tmax= 3E-06(EA)2 - 0.0037(EA) + 27.81
R = 0.99
1300

1500

1700

H: Height of wall (10 m)

1900

1.00

Figure 14: Relationship between, elastic axial

stiffness, EA, and maximum tension force, for
0.5m reinforcing elements spacing
Earth Pressure Coefficient
All the parametric study in this research
considered the active earth pressure condition
while the previous study by other researchers on
NMSE wall considered earth pressure at rest
condition. Earth pressure coefficient ratio, R, is
defined as the ratio between earth pressure
coefficient for NMSE walls obtained from
numerical analysis, kn, and Rankines active earth
pressure coefficient, ka. Effect of wall aspect ratio
on earth pressure coefficient for NMSE wall was
studied.

Earth pressure coefficient ratio, R

Elastic Axial Stiffness, EA (kN/m)

0.90

0.80

0.70
R = 0.3529(L/H) + 0.6237
R = 0.991
0.60
0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

Aspect Ratio (L/H)

Figure 15: Relationship between aspect ratio,

L/H, and earth pressure coefficient ratio, R

Effect of aspect ratio, L/H

CONCLUSION
Study the effect of varying the aspect ratio of
NMSE wall on active earth pressure coefficient is
investigated for wall height of 10m with slope 1H:
10V and reinforcing elements length, location,
spacing, were kept constant while the aspect ratio
was varied. Typical variations of aspect ratio were
assumed versus earth pressure ratio, R, as
shown in Fig. 15.The figure illustrates that ratio of
earth pressure coefficients increases significantly
with increasing wall aspect ratio as a linear
relationship. This increase in ratio of earth
pressure coefficients can be attributed to increase
of lateral earth pressure with increase of wall
aspect ratio. Numerical earth pressure coefficient
for NMSE wall was obtained by back-calculated

Finite element study was carried out by

conducting a series of plane strain analyses to
model parametric
studies,
which
allow
understanding the mechanism and behavior of
NMSE wall. This paper investigated factors
affecting factor of safety of narrow MSE wall and
maximum horizontal displacement. It is concluded
that increasing the aspect ratio, reinforcement
element stiffness, and wall batter increases the
factor of safety while it is decreases with
increasing reinforcement element spacing. NMSE
walls become unstable for wall aspect ratio less
than 0.20. In addition, friction angle has significant
effect on maximum horizontal displacement of

NMSE walls. Maximum horizontal displacement

decreases with increase of angle of friction, and
reinforcement element stiffness. While it is
increase with increases the aspect ratio and wall
height. Increase aspect ratio of the wall and
reinforcement element stiffness increases
maximum tension force. Furthermore, earth
pressure coefficient increases with increasing the
wall aspect ratio and decreases with increasing
spacing between reinforcing elements

REFERENCES
Bolton, M. D., 1986. The strength and dilatancy of
sands. Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Bringkgreve, R., Vermeer, P., 1998. PLAXIS:
finite element code for soil and rock analysis.
Version 7 Plaxis, B.V., Netherlands.
Frydman, S. and Keissar, I., 1987. Earth pressure
on retaining walls near rock faces. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No.
6, June, pp. 586-599.
Lawson, C. R., and Yee, T. W., 2005. Reinforced
soil retaining walls with constrained reinforced fill
zones. Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers 2005.
ASCE Geo-Institute Conference, pp. 2721-2734.
Leshchinsky, D., Hu, Y., and Han, J. 2003. Design
implications of limited reinforced zone space in
SRW's. Proceedings of the 17th GRI Conference
on Hot Topics in Geosynthetics IV, Las Vegas,
Nevada.

PLAXIS, 2005. Plaxis finite element code for soil

and rock analyses, Version 8.2, P.O. Box 572,
2600 A Delft, The Netherlands.
Woodruff, R. 2003. Centrifuge modeling of MSEshoring composite walls. Master Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Colorado, Boulder.
Yang, K. H., Kniss, K., Zornberg, J.G., Wright, S.
2008. Finite Element Analyses for Centrifuge
Modelling of Narrow MSE Walls. First Pan
American Geosynthetics Conference, Cancun,
Mexico.
Take, W. A. and Valsangkar 2001. Earth
pressures on unyielding retaining walls of narrow
backfill width. Canadian Geotech. Journal, Vol.38,
pp.1220-1230.