R 1015

2016110
Reinforced Earth Walls - Inclusion of Advanced

Aspects in Rational Design
Eng. Eitan Normand
Assoc. Prof. Assaf Klar
Copyright 2014 by E. Normand and A. Klar The Israel Ministry of Construction and the
Technion Research and Development foundation, Limited, Haifa
Haifa
December 2014
ABSTRACT
Reinforced soil walls systems are widely used in Israel and around the world as part
of roads embankments, bridge abutments and landscaping. The extensive use of this type of
structures accelerates the development of new and advanced design methods and building
techniques.
This work proceeds a series of previously accomplished works by Baker and Klein
(2004a&b) and Klar and Sas (2009, 2010) where a method for the analysis of reinforced soil
walls which includes the interaction between the three components of the system (i.e. soil,
reinforcement and the wall facing) was introduced. In Baker and Klein (2004) the
indeterminacy was solves using division factor based on relative strength, while in Klar and
Sas (2009) the statically indeterminacy of the system was solved using minimization
requirements on the kinematical compatibility between the reinforcement layers and the wall.
The latter entailed a genetic type algorithm for the solution of the equations system. The
original method had several limitations, among others; it required significant computational
effort, it was limited to inextensible reinforcement only, there was no consideration of friction
at the back of the wall etc.
The current work addresses the aforementioned limitations by improving the method
through the use of an alternative algorithm. This algorithm involves the solution of differential
equations representing the displacements of the reinforcement. This feature, in specific, was
needed in order to account for the behavior of extensible reinforcement layers. The
suggested algorithm involves a repetitive linear solution of the wall's displacements equations
in a matric form, which accelerated the calculation procedure and enabled to support the
inclusion of other advanced aspects headed by the extension to extensible reinforcement. A
main conclusion that arises from this work is that the standards for the design of reinforced
soil systems are over conservative in two ways. First, for most examined cases, the predicted
maximum tensile values at each reinforcement layer are smaller than those obtained using
2
the current standards, unless the wall is very flexible. This can lead to the use of different
types of reinforcement in terms of the material of the reinforcing layers or its characteristics.
Second, the profiles of the tension forces along the reinforcing layers show near zero tension
force values along large portion of the layers. Such advanced design can result in shorter
reinforcement layers, even though the layers' length in the current standards is determined to
be constant and certain.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 8
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 10
2.1 Mechanically stabilized soil retaining walls - overview ................................ 10
2.1.1 The components of the mechanically stabilized earth system ............. 11
2.1.2 Methods of design ......................................................................... 13
2.2 Advanced research ................................................................................. 31
3 FORMULATION............................................................................................. 32
3.1 Brief description of the top-down KC-method............................................ 32
3.1.1 General ......................................................................................... 32
3.1.2 Top-Down procedure ..................................................................... 33
3.1.3 Demand function ........................................................................... 33
3.1.4 Tension function ............................................................................ 34
3.1.5 Shear force profile ......................................................................... 35
3.1.6 Full system of equations ................................................................. 35
3.1.7 Reinforcement's displacement ......................................................... 35
3.1.8 Wall's displacement........................................................................ 36
3.1.9 Solution algorithm ......................................................................... 37
3.2 Alternative iterative solution .................................................................... 37
3.3 Extension to extensible reinforcement ...................................................... 39
3.4 Extension to a non-smooth (rough) facing back ........................................ 44
4 PARAMETRIC STUDY .................................................................................... 47
4.1 Verification with previous formulation ...................................................... 47
4.2 Non dimensional numbers ....................................................................... 48
4.3 Reinforcement layers .............................................................................. 49
4.3.1 Tension profiles ............................................................................. 49
4.3.2 Horizontal to vertical stress coefficient ............................................. 52
4.3.3 Maximum tension values ................................................................ 54
4.4 Wall facing ............................................................................................ 56
4.4.1 Shear forces .................................................................................. 56

4.4.2 Bending moments .......................................................................... 57
4.4.3 Displacements ............................................................................... 59
4.4.4 Effect of soil-reinforcement rigidity profile ........................................ 59
4.5 Friction at the back of the wall ................................................................ 60
4.6 Reinforcement axial rigidity ..................................................................... 64
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY....................... 68
5.1 General ................................................................................................. 68
5.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 69
5.3 Further study ......................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX A: MATRIX FORMULATION FOR HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENTS ........... 72
A.1. Horizontal movements due to shear forces ............................................... 73
A.2. Horizontal movements due to moments ................................................... 74
A.3. Calculation of the moments' profile .......................................................... 75
A.4. Overall horizontal displacement ............................................................... 78
A.5. Example problem ................................................................................... 79
APPENDIX B: MATHEMATICA CODE ................................................................... 83
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 89
NOMENCLATURE
Roman alphabet

- Coefficients matrix
- Width of the interface


- Demand function
- Displacements vector of the interfaces between the blocks

!"
#"
$%
&

'
( )*+
(,
- Displacement of the reinforcement layer at the wall

- Displacement of the interface between the blocks
- Youngs modulus [F/L2]

- Axial rigidity of the reinforcement per unit width of the wall /
- Rotation stiffness of the blocks' interfaces /

- Translation stiffness of the blocks' interfaces /
- Bonding stiffness /
- Length of the reinforcement layer
- Moments profile along the wall
- Number of blocks
- number of reinforcement layers
- Connection force to the wall
- Cover ratio of the reinforcement

- Shear force under the uppermost block
- Shear force profile

- Profile of tension force in the reinforcement
- Thickness of the interface

- Reduced soil wedge weight due to friction between the soil and the block
- Weight of the soil wedge
Greek alphabet
1)
1)*2
1,
13
6
7
83
9:
93
;
;<
Weighted mean factor

Specific weight //
Block height
Horizontal reinforcement displacement
Relative displacement between the reinforcement and the soil
Horizontal soil displacement
Internal friction angle between the soil and the block 45
Rupture plane angle 45
Poissons ratio
Normal stress acting on the block /
Relative pullout resistance /
Shear stress along the block /
Internal friction angle 45
Mobilized internal friction angle 45
1 INTRODUCTION
The principles of MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) were implemented knowingly or
unknowingly for thousands of years in different types of earth structures. The idea of
inserting different materials to earth structures or elements was implemented as early as
4,000 B.C. in the ancient city of Ur (modern Iraq) which was built with bricks made of mud
mixed with straw. Parts of the Great Wall of China located in desert areas are also built with
similar techniques, inserting reeds and willow twigs between layers of compacted gravel and
grit mixed with water.
Even though MSE structures were in use throughout the history, it wasn't until the
early 1960's when the French architect and engineer Henri Vidal laid the foundation to the
modern methods of the design of reinforced soil retaining walls. His research led to the
development of a system in which steel reinforcement strips were used. Today, geosynthetic
reinforcement is more commonly used, such as geogrids and geotextiles made of HDPE, PET,
PP etc. The first wall to be built using Henri Vidal's technology was in the United States, in
1972 on California State Highway 39, northeast of Los Angeles. In the past three decades,
over 70 million => of wall facing built with such techniques have been completed all over the
world.
Although both design approaches and construction methods for MSE structures are
considered to be well established, the main methods still lack consideration of a few key
features that may lead to more cost effective design. This research work focus on those
features, with the aim of providing new analysis and design tools.
The research report is composed of 5 chapters. Chapter 2 presents a literature review
with focus on standard guidelines and previously developed design methods which attempt to
consider the role of the facing in MSE wall behavior. Chapter 3 presents the main
8
development of the current research. Chapter 4 presents a parametric study to evaluate the
advantages of the proposed approach. Chapter 5 summarizes the main conclusion of the
work. The report also includes several appendices detailing the formulation components and
the computer source code.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Mechanically stabilized soil retaining walls - overview
The basic physical concept that mechanically stabilized earth retaining walls are
based upon is inserting a certain type of reinforcement into a soil mass in order to increase
its bearing capacity by allowing development of tension in the reinforcement. Compression
stresses are typically handled and carried by the soil mass itself.
(a)
The reinforcement
layer is pulled out
soil particles
Reinforcement layer
(b)
The grain particle
is interlocked
into the mesh
The reinforcement
layer is pulled out
Figure 2.1: tension bearing mechanisms
The tension bearing capacity of the soil is very limited due to its granular structure
hence another element in the soil is needed in order to do that. There are 2 different
mechanisms that enable the bearing of the tension stresses. The first comes from the friction
between the soil's particles and the face of the reinforcement as shown in Figure 2.1 (a). The
second comes from the passive resistance formed between soil grains and welded mesh
reinforcement (geogrids and geonets, made of any kind of polymer or wire welded mesh)
when the soil is compacted into the mesh. In this case, the grains and the mesh interlock and
add resistance as the reinforcement is pulled out as shown in Figure 2.1 (b).
10
2.1.1 The components of the mechanically stabilized earth system

At its most general layout, the MSE system is composed of 3 components, i.e. [1]
Reinforcement, [2] Soil, [3] Wall (facing element). The 3 components are working together to
stabilize the soil mass, each contributing to the stability of the structure according to its
properties and features.
2.1.1.1 Reinforcement
As mentioned before, the reinforcement helps to stabilize the soil mass by increasing
its bearing capacity. Its ability to resist tension depends on several characteristics:
2.1.1.1.1 Shape
There are different types of reinforcement shapes available and that are in use in
reinforced soil retaining walls such as strips, grids, sheets, welded wire mesh, poles, etc. The
shape of the reinforcement is usually determined by the type of material it is made of. The
shape affects the way the resistance is mobilized. In sheets, strips and poles there is only
friction caused by contact between the soil particles and the reinforcement. In welded wire
mesh, geogrids and geonets there is the above mentioned friction together with passive
resistance caused by interlocking the soil's grains inside the reinforcement's mesh.
2.1.1.1.2 Material
The reinforcement can be made of different types of metals such as aluminum and
steel or different kinds of polymers such as High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Polypropylene
(PP) and Polyester (PET). They differ from one another in the friction coefficients (when
interacting with the soil) that can be mobilized during pullout, in their durability and their
sustainability.
2.1.1.1.3 Layout
When constructing an MSE wall, the reinforcement is usually inserted into the soil in
horizontal layers. The distance between layers, the number of layers and the length of the
reinforcement affects the resistance mobilized to resist pullout. The number of layers is not
necessarily in direct proportion to the tension bearing capacity and to the pullout resistance
11
because of the interaction between the layers. A short distance between the layers can cause
a decrease in the bearing capacity of the system and a decrease in the efficiency of a certain
layer or layers. The length of the reinforcement layers has 2 effects: [1] as long as the layers
are, it is more likely that the end will be located in the anchored area of the soil mass,
beyond the slip surface. [2] longer layer means that overall more friction may be mobilized
and greater tension forces may be carried by the reinforcement (given its tensile strength).
2.1.1.1.4 Rigidity
The reinforcement can be classified as extensible or inextensible. According to the
British standard, a reinforcement layer that sustains the design loads at strains greater than
1% is considered to be extensible (Code of Practice for Strengthened / reinforced soils and
other fills, 1995, BS8006). Since such systems are statically indeterminate in their nature, a
more rigid layer is likely to develop higher values of maximal tension.
2.1.1.2 Soil
In most cases, the soil used to build MSE walls is a granular, non-cohesive soil. This
type of soils has advantages such as drainage capabilities, it is easy to work with in terms of
compaction and application and it is not corrosive for most types of reinforcements. This is
probably the reason that most standards and design methods refer to the soil as such. It is
usually not the natural, local soil; hence it needs to be transported to the site.
2.1.1.3 Wall (facing element)

The MSE structures usually appear outwardly as smooth and uniform walls but this is
not always the case and therefore this element is referred to as "facing element", to include
all possibilities. Even though different types of facing elements are used in MSE walls, they all
have a common basic role which is to prevent fine soil particles from being washed out and
then cause a local destruction of the structure. Moreover, the facing elements can play a
constructive role and support the soil mass. As consequence, the facing elements varies
between rigid elements such as concrete blocks, panels made of different materials and
continuous wall on one hand, and sandbags or no facing element at all on the other hand. It
12
is clear that more rigid facing elements will reduce the need of reinforcement. Flexible facing
or such systems with no facing at all will require reinforcement of greater amount and
strength.
2.1.2 Methods of design

Below are presented several commonly used methods for the design and calculation
of reinforced soil walls, some already applied in codes and standards:
2.1.2.1 The K-stiffness method

2.1.2.1.1 General
The K-stiffness method (T. Allen, Bathurst, Holtz, Walters, & Lee, 2003; R.J.
Bathurst, Walters, Vlachopoulos, Burgess, & Allen, 2000) was developed for flexible and rigid
reinforcement and was improved in 2008 (R J Bathurst, Miyata, Nernheim, & Allen, 2008). It
is an empirical method which enables to find the maximal tensile strength in the
reinforcement layers of the reinforced system. The method refers to the stiffness of the
various components of the system and their influence on the maximal tensile strength in the
reinforcement. The assumption in the base of this method is that the backfill soil is avoided
from reaching a critical state of rupture and is in service conditions at all times. This method
which is basically empirical was achieved using back calculations from strain measurements,
mostly found in the literature of existing walls. The database used for the development of this
method consists of 11 full scale walls with different types of reinforcements, wall facings and
facing batters, suitable for the typical walls currently being built.
13
Figure 1.2: ABCDE distribution according to the k-stiffness method
2.1.2.1.2 Formulation
According to the method, the magnitude of the maximum reinforcement load for
every layer is calculated analytically as follows:
&<FG
= $I
8J K<FG L
(1.1)
where $I
is the tributary area which is equivalent to the vertical spacing of the reinforcement
in the vicinity of each layer, when analyses are carried out per unit length of wall. 8J is the
lateral earth pressure acting over the tributary area. K<FG is a load distribution factor that
modifies the reinforcement load based on the layer's location. is an influence factor that is
the product of factors that account for the effects of: local and global reinforcement stiffness,
facing element stiffness and face batter. is calculated as:
= N 2P"F2 Q, Q:
(1.2)
N is a global stiffness factor that accounts for the influence of the stiffness and
spacing of the reinforcement layers over the entire wall height. It has the general form of:
14
$N2P:F2 U
N = R S
T
!F
(1.3)
where R & - are constant coefficients, !F = 101 !X , is the atmospheric pressure and
$N2P:F2 is the global reinforcement stiffness defined as:

$N2P:F2 =
YFI* [
\] Y
=

where YFI* is the avergae tensile stiffness of all
(1.4)
reinforcement layers over the wall height,
and Y
is the tensile stiffness of an individual reinforcement layer.
2P"F2 is a local stiffness factor that accounts for the relative stiffness of the
reinforcemnent layer with respect to the average stiffness of all reinforcement layers. It is
expressed as:
$2P"F2
2P"F2 = ^
_
$N2P:F2
(1.5)
Y
$2P"F2 = S T
$I
(1.6)
where X is a constant coefficient and $2P"F2 is the local reinforcement stiffness for the ` KJ
reinforcement layer, calculated as:
It is used to quantify the local combined influence of the individual layer stiffness and
spacing on the reinforcement load. Y is the tensile stiffness of the reinforcement and $I is
the tributary area for the reinforcement layer.
15
Q, is a facing stiffness factor that accounts for the influence of the facing stiffness
and the lateral restraint of the wall facing at the wall toe on the loads carried by the soil
reinforcement, especially in geosynthetic reinforced soils walls. It is expressed as:
Q, = abQ c
(1.7)
where & are constant coefficients. Q is a normalized facing column stiffness parameter
that captures the trend in relative facing column stiffness for a range of facing types and
geometries. It is defined here as:
Q =
1.5 i
!
*QQ F
/

(1.8)
where *QQ is the equivalent height of an unjointed facing column that is 100% efficient in
transmitting moments through the height of the facing column. The ratio
Jkll
m
is used to
estimate the efficiency of a jointed facing system to transmit moment throughout the facing
column.
Q: is a facing batter factor. In current practice, the inclination of the wall is taken
into account explicitly using Coulomb earth pressure theory. Still, significant discrepancies
were found between predicted and measured reinforcement loads for the battered walls. The
influence of wall facing batter on maximum reinforcement loads is adjusted using an
empirical facing batter factor expressed as:
Q:
F:J +
=S
T
FIJ
16
(1.9)
where F:J is the horizontal component of the active earth pressure coefficient accounting
for the wall's face batter, FIJ is the horizontal component of the active earth pressure
coefficient assuming the wall is vertical, and is a constant coefficient.
The values of the components of Equation (1.2) are achieved from back calculations,
using measured maximum reinforcement loads from 11 case studies of full scale reinforced
soil walls. It should be noted that this method does not consider explicitly the length of the
reinforcement, which significantly changes the mobilized shear force and consequently the
stresses and displacements in the system. The K-stiffness method was adopted by the
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) and is authorized to use since
1996 (T. M. Allen & Bathurst, 2003).
2.1.2.2 Conventional methods

According to the British Code, BS8006 (Code of Practice for Strengthened / reinforced
soils and other fills, 1995), reinforced soil walls design should follow the principles that are
involved in the design of conventional earth retaining walls, but require adjustments in order
to consider the soil-reinforcement interaction. In general, it should cover internal and external
stability and account for external slip surfaces. Internal stability refers to internal behavior
mechanisms, stresses within the structure and the interaction between the soil and the
reinforcement, as well as arrangement of the reinforcement and backfill properties. External
stability refers to the basic stability of the reinforced earth structure as a whole unit.
17
Figure 1.3: Design procedure for reinforced soil walls by the British standard
The Israeli standard (Reinforced Soils Retaining Walls, 2000) and the British code
offer the same methods for the solution of reinforced soil walls. These methods are the TieBack analysis method and the Coherent gravity method. According to the Israeli standard,
the Tie-Back analysis is applicable for all types of reinforcements. According to the British
standard, this method applies for extensible reinforcement only. The Coherent Gravity
method is applicable only for inextensible reinforcement according to both standards. While
the first method is using basic design principles used in classic and in anchored retaining
18
walls, the latter is based on tracking the behavior of soil structures with inextensible
reinforcement. Both methods mentioned above do not include the wall facing in the
calculation procedure. They will give the same result for a massive wall facing as well as for
one which is only decorative.
Both standards refer to the same methods. This review will follow the British
Standard for the reason of comfort. The scheme for design as it appears in the standard is
shown in Figure 1.3.
2.1.2.2.1 Dimensions of the structure

The first step is to determine the size and dimensions of the structure. The
geometrical size of the structure is based on a concept of mechanical height which is defined
as the vertical distance from the toe of the structure to the point where a line at tan0.3 to
the vertical crosses the upper ground level above the wall, see Figure 1.4. The mechanical
height is defined in more details, for different cases, in the standard.
Figure 1.4: mechanical height for the conventional methods
2.1.2.2.2 External stability

The effect of dead loads and other forces acting on the structure should be taken
into consideration. Stability check should include bearing and tilt failure, forward sliding,
circular slip surface failure, and settlement of the structure. Both short and long term soil
properties should be considered to allow for the construction, as well as the in-service
conditions.
19
Bearing and tilt failure

The bearing pressure imposed by a reinforced soil structure on the foundation strata
should be compared with the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation soil as follows:
r)
rt2K
+ . <
u<,
(1.10)
where rt2K is the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation soil, u<, is a partial material
factor applied to rt2K . . is the soil's specific weight and < is the wall's embedment depth.
r) is the factored bearing pressure imposed by the soil structure. Based upon a Meyerhof
distribution, it may be assumed as:
r) =
#I
24
(1.11)
where #I is the resultant of all vertical load components, is the length of the reinforcement
layer and 4 is the eccentricity of the vertical resultant load about the center line of .
Sliding along the base

The stability between the reinforced soil structure and the subsoil should be
considered. The resistance to movements should be based upon the properties of the two
soils (reinforced soil and the sub soil) in case of soil-to-soil interface and also the properties
of the reinforcement in case of soil-to-reinforcement interface at the base of the structure.
The standard distinguishes between long and short term stability (in terms of un-drained
shear strength for cohesive soils) and between the different interfaces at the base of the
structure. Only the case relevant for comparison is presented, and in its relevant form (only
non-cohesive soil is considered, and with soil-to soil contact. For long term stability, where
there is soil-to-soil contact at the base of the structure:
20
u, #J #I
tan ;xy
u<,
(1.12)
where #J is the horizontal factored disturbing force and #I is the vertical factored resultant
force. u, is the partial factor against base sliding and u<, is the partial material factor applied
to 'X ;xy . ;xy is the peak angle of shearing resistance under effective stress conditions.
Settlement
The total settlement of a reinforced soil structure is composed of the settlement of
the foundation soil and the internal compression of the reinforced backfill. Issues of
differential settlements and settlements during construction may be relevant mostly for
cohesive soils (consolidation) and should be addressed accordingly.
External slip surfaces

All potential slip surfaces should be taken into considerations. Cases where a failure
plane crosses through the reinforced soil structure are considered in the internal stability
check.
2.1.2.2.3 Type of reinforcement

Next, reinforcing material should be chosen. Reinforcing elements should be able to
sustain tensile loads and the displacements developed in the backfill. It is usually made from
materials that have resistance to degradation when buried, e.g. corrosion. Commonly used
reinforcement elements are either metallic or polymeric reinforcement.
2.1.2.2.4 Internal stability

As far as the internal stability of the structure is concerned, the standard
distinguishes between 3 different methods of calculation. However, the focus in the standard
is on two of them (i.e. the Tie-back wedge method and the Coherent gravity). In general the
design should answer both limit state and serviceability limit state, as defined here:
21
[a] Ultimate limit state is the limit state wherein relevant potential collapse mechanisms
are identified and considered together with limit state factors.
[b] Serviceability limit state is the limit state wherein relevant working conditions are
identified and the structure is checked to ensure that it will keep the necessary
characteristics for it to fulfil its function, throughout its life without any special
maintenance.
2.1.2.2.5 Tie-Back wedge method

Local stability of a layer of a reinforcing element
Assuming there are no external loads on the structure, the maximum ultimate limit
state tensile force, &z , to be resisted by the {KJ layer of elements at a depth of z , below the
top of the structure, may be obtained from the following equation:
&z = 8Iz $Iz
(1.13)
where is the horizontal earth pressure coefficient within the reinforced backfill. The British
standard is using the tie back wedge method for extensible reinforcement only. In this case,
a constant value for is suggested, equals to X. The Israeli standard allows using this
method for different types of reinforcements and suggests different profiles for , as shown
in Figure 1.5. $Iz is the vertical spacing of the reinforcement at the { KJ level in the wall. 8Iz
is the factored vertical stress acting on the { KJ level of the reinforcement according to the
Meyerhof distribution:
8Iz =
#Iz
z 24z
(1.14)
where #Iz is the resultant factored vertical load acting on the { KJ layer of the reinforcement,
z is the length of the reinforcement element at the {KJ level and 4z is the eccentricity of the
resultant vertical load at the { KJ level.
22
Figure 1.5: coefficient of horizontal earth pressure profiles
Figure 1.6: determination of adherence capacity of the reinforcement tie back wedge method
Local stability check

A local stability check should be made for the resistance of the reinforcing element
against rupture and adherence failure as follows:
[a] Rupture: The tensile strength of the { KJ layer of the reinforcing element needed to
satisfy local stability considerations is:
23
&|
&z
u[
(1.15)
where &z is the maximum ultimate limit state tensile force calculated in Equation (1.13), &| is
the design strength of the reinforcement and u[ is the partial factor for economic
ramifications of failure.
[b] Adherence: Again, under the assumption that there are no external loads on the
structure and that the soil is non-cohesive, The perimeter !z , of the { KJ layer of
reinforcing element needed to satisfy local stability considerations is:
!z
&z
~*z buQ, .z c
ux u[
(1.16)
where !z is the total horizontal width of the top and bottom faces of the reinforcing element
at the { KJ layer, per meter "run". uQ, is the partial load factor applied to the soil's self-weight.
z is the depth of the element below the top of the structure, ~ is the coefficient of friction
between the fill and the reinforcing elements. *z is the length of the reinforcement in the
resistant zone, outside of the failure wedge, at the { KJ layer of reinforcements, see
Figure 1.6. ux is the partial factor for reinforcement pullout resistance and u[ is the partial
factor applied to economic ramifications of failure.
24
Figure 1.7: Internal wedge stability analysis
Wedge stability check

Wedges are assumed to behave as rigid bodies. Stability of any wedge may be
maintained when friction forces acting on the potential failure plane in conjunction with the
tensile resistance of the reinforcement layers embedded in the fill beyond the plane, is able to
resist the applied loads tending to cause movement. For every layer, potential failure planes,
in different angles should be investigated in order to find the critical angle, -") , which, in
turn, creates the plane with the highest demand for total tensile force in all reinforcement
layers, &
U
. It is then should be examined to withstand the two following conditions:
[a] The tensile strength of the reinforcing elements:

<
z\]
&+z
U
&

u[
where T is the design tensile strength of the { KJ reinforcement layer.
25
(1.17)
[b] The frictional resistance of that part of the layer embedded in the fill beyond the potential
failure plane:
<
z\]
z *z
U
b~ uQ, . z c &

ux u[
(1.18)
2.1.2.2.6 Coherent gravity

Local stability of a layer of reinforcing elements
The local stability check and the maximum tensile force to be resisted by the
reinforcement in an ultimate limit state is calculated similarly as in the Tie-Back wedge
method, according to Equations (1.13) & (1.14) and Figure 1.5.
Figure 1.8: Definition of maximum tension line coherent gravity method
Lines of maximum tension

The Line of maximum tension for a retaining wall may be assumed to follow a log
spiral. For calculation purposes this line may be assumed to be as shown in Figure 1.8. It
divides the structure, again, to an active zone and a resistant zone.
Adherence capacity of the reinforcement

26
The adherence capacity, &z , of each layer of reinforcement is given by:
&z
2~
u 8
ux u[ Q, I
(1.19)
where ux is the partial factor for reinforcement pullout resistance, 2 is for two faces of the
reinforcement, is the width of the reinforcement, is the total length of the reinforcement,
Fz is the length of reinforcement beyond the line of maximum tension, considered at the { KJ
level and ~ is the value of the coefficient of friction. 8I is the vertical stress along length
of the reinforcement, u[ is the partial factor for economic ramifications of failure and u, is the
partial load factor.
Long term rupture

The capacity of the reinforcing element at each layer should satisfy, at the end of its
service life, the following expression:
&|
&z
u[
(1.20)
where &z is the maximum tensile force to be resisted by the { KJ layer of reinforcing element,
&| is the design stress of the reinforcement per meter "run", and u[ is the partial factor for
economic ramifications of failure.
2.1.2.2.7 Serviceability limit state

According to the Standard, reinforced soil structures should be also checked for
serviceability limit state. The potential mechanism of post construction internal movements
should be considered. It should be examined for the following factors:
[a] Post construction internal creep strain of polymeric reinforcement.
27
[b] Post construction internal creep strain of saturated fine grained soils used with reinforced
soil.
It is extremely important and relevant for polymeric reinforcement, where the short
term axial stiffness decreases with time due to procedures related to creep. For metallic
reinforcement, creep is negligible.
2.1.2.2.8 Connections
The reinforcement of the structure, regardless of the type of material it is made of, is
normally connected to the facing.
Table 1.1: Connection loads for the ultimate and serviceability limit states
The loads in the connection to the wall are determined in the standard according to
Table 1.1. It should be mentioned that both methods do not involve the wall in the design
process. As a result, the tension in the reinforcement will be the same whether the system is
built with a massive wall, with a wall which is only decorative or with no wall at all.
Furthermore, as a consequence, there is no information about stresses and shear forces
profiles as well as moments along the wall.
28
2.1.2.3 The Baker and Klein method

This method (Baker & Klein, 2004a, 2004b) suggests solving the reinforced soil wall
problem in a procedure of a built in limiting equilibrium referring to all three components of
the system (soil, reinforcement, wall) explicitly, using a series of local inequalities applied in
every point.
It is based on the principle of spatial distribution of safety factors (Baker &
Leshchinsky, 2001) and the top-down procedure for the design of geosynthetic reinforced
slopes and segmental walls (Leshchinsky, Ling, & Hanks, 1995). The use of the top-down
procedure requires the solution of multiple stability problems, continuously, from the top of
the structure, downwards. Forces calculated from previous steps, get into the calculation in
the current system of equations to be solved, in order to find the force needed in the
reinforcement to stabilize the system. To apply this procedure for this statically indeterminate
system, Baker and Klein offered a series of interaction coefficients, called "participation
factors", az , dividing the required stabilizing force between the wall and the reinforcement
layers:
0
$
az =
K)F /K+
1
z,<FG
`u z,<FG < $K)F /K+

`u z,<FG $K)F /K+
(1.21)
where z,<FG is the maximum value of z which is the net required force at a certain
reinforcement layer to stabilize the system. It is supplied partially by the shear force acting in
the wall and partially by the tensile force in the reinforcement. $K)F is the strength of the
reinforcement and K+ is the required value of K which is, in turn, the local safety factor with
respect to the reinforcement strength.
These coefficients are determined according to the relative strength of the

components (reinforcement versus wall) and form the extra set of equations required for the
global solution of the statically indeterminate system. These coefficients of interaction are
limited to values between 0 and 1. A classical retaining wall with no reinforcement will receive
29
a value of 1 while reinforced soil without a wall facing will receive a value of 0. Any
intermediate situation will get a value within those limits.
A drawback of this method is in the way to achieve the interaction factors. These
factors are depended on the relative strength between the wall and the reinforcement. It is
stated in their paper that the distribution of loads between the elements of this system is in
fact governed by the relative rigidity of these elements. Rigidities play no role in limiting
equilibrium analysis and therefore cannot be reflected in this proposed design procedure.
Baker and Klein claim that in most cases there is a direct relationship between the strength
and the rigidity of an element and therefore, the suggested procedure is expected to lead to
reasonable results. Furthermore, the Baker and Klein method assumes, in practice, that the
three components of the system reach a state of failure all at once, an assumption that is not
obliged. It is possible that the reinforcing layers will be far from failure while the soil will
reach this state for the reason that a limit state of failure in the soil is attributed to very small
displacements.
This method creates a whole picture of stresses and forces in terms of tensile forces
along the reinforcement layers and shear forces and moments at the wall. In their papers,
Baker and Klein present an optimal, economical design of reinforced soil retaining walls. They
concluded that there is a vast variety of optional walls in the area between a classical gravity
retaining wall and a reinforced soil wall where the wall doesn't play a constructive role. Within
this area, the optimal wall is the one which will be designed to meet all the design
requirements and with a minimum cost. Within the entire optional walls, one can make the
tradeoff between the wall, in terms of strength of its materials, and the reinforcement, in
terms of spacing between layers, length and properties. Hence, it is possible to design a rigid
wall with fewer, weaker reinforcement and vice versa. According to Baker and Klein, the cost
of an optimally designed wall in this way can reach up to 47% of the cost of a classical
retaining wall and up to 67% of the cost of a reinforced soil wall where the wall doesn't play
a constructive role. Baker and Klein emphasize the possibility to design a wall with shorter
30
reinforcement layers than required in the standards such design requires less space,
occupies less territory and enables to build such walls in places where today it is not allowed.
2.1.2.4 The KC method

Klar and Sas (2009, 2010) followed Baker and Klein (2004) method and extended the
formulation to incorporate kinematic constraints (or compatibility) into the solution;
effectively, overcoming the drawback of using pre-defined division factor between
reinforcement and the wall facing. Since the current work is a direct extension of their
method, the details of the KC method are provided within the formulation chapter (Chapter
3).
2.2 Advanced research

Throughout the past two decades, the following aspects regarding reinforced soil
retaining walls have been researched, among others: examining the function of such walls
under seismic or dynamic conditions as well as static loads (R. Bathurst & Cai, 1995;
Choudhury & Ahmad, 2008; Madhavi Latha & Murali Krishna, 2008; Narasimha Reddy,
Madhav, & Saibaba Reddy, 2008; Nouri, Fakher, & Jones, 2008); accurate reference to the
contribution of the wall's facing to the stability of the whole system (T. Allen et al., 2003;
Bathurst et al. 2005), correctly forecasting the tensile forces in the reinforcement (Baker &
Klein, 2004a, 2004b) etc. The vast use and construction of reinforced soil systems has led to
a vast research effort in order to enhance the understanding of the behavior of these
systems, under the aforementioned conditions.
31
3 FORMULATION
The formulation developed in this research follows certain aspects of the top-down
KC-method of (Klar & Sas, 2009, 2010), and therefore also includes a brief description of the
main assumptions involved in the method, followed by a suggestion for an alternative
iterative scheme for solution, instead of the minimization procedure previously suggested.
The main effort was invested in the formulation of the equations to deal with extensible
reinforcement. Following this brief description, the formulation is extended to include
treatment of extensible reinforcement.
3.1 Brief description of the top-down KC-method

3.1.1 General
A complete description of the governing equations and assumptions of the KCmethod is given in (Klar & Sas, 2009, 2010). For completeness, several developments are
repeated here.
Figure 3.1: Mechanically Stabilized Earth wall system
32
3.1.2 Top-Down procedure

Figure 3.1 shows the different components of the model that are involved in the
calculation (Wall blocks, Reinforcement Layers and the Soil). The original algorithm involves a
top-down procedure, starting with an investigation of the upper most reinforcement layer
downwards. At each level, the tensile force distribution along the reinforcement is established
by the following few steps, and is later used as a given input in the calculation process of
lower layers. For every level, all possible planar slip surfaces, originating from the ` KJ level,
are examined under a given shear force, $
, at that level. At that stage, complete information
regarding the tensile force distribution, &

, in higher reinforcement layers is already known
from previous stages of the top-down procedure.
&1 S =
`
T
tan6
&{ S = ` + 1 {
6 tan;=
#`
6
T
tan6
` 6
S = tanT
tan6
`1
&{ S = ` + 1 {
{ =1
6 tan;=
T + ` S =
T + $`
tan6
tan6
6
$`
`
6 tan
#`
Figure 3.2: Free Body Diagram
3.1.3 Demand function

Using equilibrium equations (i.e. force polygon, shown in Figure 3.2), the horizontal
force required for equilibrium is defined at every point along the reinforcement (
,
demand function), under the assumption that the soil strength is mobilized. Note that
moment equilibrium is satisfied implicitly by the independency of the location of the normal
force along the planar slip surface.
33
1
> tan ;<

+ $
= .` + 1 >
&z b` + 1 { c
2
+ tan ;<
z\]
(3.1)
where &z represents the tension force profile along every reinforcement layer above the
one being calculated.

represents the force needed in the currently calculated
reinforcement layer to stabilize the examined soil wedge, given the shear force in the
interface at that level, $

. . is the specific weight, is the height of the blocks and ;< is the
mobilized internal friction angle of the soil. Note that Equation (3.1) is relevant only to the
condition of a facing with a smooth back. Later on, this is extended to include a rough
interface between the soil and the facing. Figure 3.3 illustrates the concept of constructing
the demand function of a certain level by screening all possible planner slip surfaces.
$`
Figure 3.3: Construction of the demand function
3.1.4 Tension function

Following the principles of (Baker & Klein, 2004a) for the construction of the tensile
force distribution, derived from the demand function, in inextensible reinforcement, the
tensile force distribution, &

, for the currently calculated layer is established. Note that the
34
approach of constructing &

profiles from
for extensible reinforcement, as presented
later in Section 3.3, is entirely different than that of Baker and Klein 2004, involving the
governing linear differential equation of the reinforcement.
3.1.5 Shear force profile
The values of $
at different levels (i.e. the shear force distribution in the wall) are, in
principle, unknown in the overall problem. The fact that they are taken at first allegedly
arbitrary values in the top-down procedure, is a necessity involved within the indeterminacy
of the problem. Yet, the fact is that their values are determined in the optimization process in
which they constitute the arguments of the minimization function. That is, when the
optimization process is complete, the shear force profile has a correct physical meaning.
3.1.6 Full system of equations

To answer the indeterminacy of the system, the KC-method adds additional terms
which satisfy the kinematic constraints of the problem. That is, for each reinforcement layer
an additional equation is written, which simply states that the relative movement between the
reinforcement and the wall at the connection point is equal to zero. These additional
equations bring the number of unknowns to be equal to the overall number of equations. The
solution scheme aggregates these equations into a single minimization function.
3.1.7 Reinforcement's displacement

The original KC-method is based on two key assumptions regarding the displacement
of the reinforcement: [1] the soil reinforcement is inextensible (i.e. the reinforcement
displaces horizontally as a rigid body); [2] the far end of the reinforcement is located in a
stable, stationary soil. The second assumption infers that the soil movement 1, = 0
and therefore, due to the first assumption, the relative movement at the end of the
reinforcement is equal to the rigid reinforcement movement, 1)*2 = =

. These two
assumptions allow to determine the rigid body movement of the reinforcement at every level,

, using a simple relative pullout model and a knowledge about the bonding stresses
(derived from the tensile force distribution) at the far end of the reinforcement:
35

= 1)*2 |G\ = u ] 9: |G\ = u ] ^
&

| _
G\
(3.2)
where & is the tensile force distribution along the reinforcement, u ] 9: is the inverse
function of the relative pullout resistance 9: = u1)*2 = u1) 1, (where 1)*2 is the local
relative horizontal movement between the reinforcement and the soil, 1) is the horizontal
reinforcement movement, and 1, is the horizontal soil movement). Note that both 1) and 1,
are positive displacements in the opposite direction of the horizontal axis, and a positive 9:
represents positive pullout resistance (stresses are positive in the positive direction of the
axis).
3.1.8 Wall's displacement
The displacement of the segmental block facing,

, may be calculated using the
shear force values, $

, and the bending moment values,
, at the interfaces between the
blocks:

$z
z
= +
{ ` + 1

z\
z\
(3.3)
where and are the representative translation and rotation stiffness values of the
blocks' interfaces, respectively.
One can establish the value of the interface stiffness based on beam-theory, such that:
=

/
; =
21 + 7 '
12'
(3.4)
where ' is the thickness of the interface, is the width of the interface, and and 7 are the
elastic properties of the interface material (Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio).
36
3.1.9 Solution algorithm
In the original formulation, the distribution of the $

y is solved as a minimization
problem:
$] , $> , , $ =
>
argmin b

c
, ,,
\ ]
(3.5)
where $] , $> , , $
is the solution for the system when full compatibility between the
displacements of all reinforcement layers and the wall is achieved. More details about the
tools for optimization may be found in the original publication of Klar & Sas, 2010. Although
the above algorithm utilizes a top-down procedure, the final results are such that upper
reinforcement layers are indeed affected by lower reinforcement layers. The top-down
procedure, as used in the KC-method, may be seen as a type of a numerical shooting
method, rather than a direct algorithm for solution. In this way, the KC-method overcomes
one of the main limitations of the original top-down procedure.
3.2 Alternative iterative solution

Instead of using an optimization technique to solve the problem, one may consider
an iterative scheme which continuously updates the input $

y vector (beginning with an initial
guess) until convergence to an accurate solution is reached.
1
$0 , 0
2
$1 , 1
! {
$`
1 , 1

Figure 3.4: scheme used to calculate wall displacements
37
For this aim, the complete set of wall displacements equations needs to be written as
a function of $
and !" :
= ^
1
>
>
+
_ $ + ^
_ !"

2
2
> $%
_
+^
2
(3.6)
= $ + !" +
(3.7)
where = ] , > , . . . , [] is the profile of the wall displacements at different
levels of the reinforcement (` to
) and is the height of the blocks of the segmental wall.
below
reinforcement,
$ = $], $>, . . . , $[] is the current shear force profile (where $

acts at the interface
the
level
of
the
as
shown
in
Figure
3.4)
! = ! , ! , , ! is a vector representing the connection force
of
and
the
reinforcement strips to the wall. and are the representative translation and rotation
stiffness of the blocks' interfaces respectively, and , , , and are coefficients
matrices, preset according to the geometry of the problem. In this representation, the
bending moments along the wall are calculated implicitly using matrices , and
under the assumption of a uniform horizontal contact stress acting on the back of the block
(it is constant along each block, but different from one block to the other). Matrices ,
and are calculated and shown for clarity and simplification. , , , and are
matrices of integer numbers, with the size
1 by
1 (where
is the number of
reinforcement layers). The matrices and the preset values according to the geometry of the
problem, are developed and presented in APPENDIX A: .
Each top-down procedure results in an updated evaluation of the connection forces
vector, ! , and the displacements profile of the reinforcement,

. The displacements profile
38
is calculated using the tensile forces - see Equation (3.2). Hence, these can be introduced, in
a relaxation scheme into the above mentioned Equation (3.7) to result in an estimation of a
new shear force profile:
$
K*)] = ]
K*) !
(3.8)
where the subscript `'4 represents the values in the end of the iteration, and `'4 + 1
represents the values to be used in the next iteration. is taken as a weighted average of
both the wall and the reinforcement displacements, which may differ from one another
before reaching convergence:

K*) = -
K*)
+ 1 -
K*)
(3.9)

and
where - is a weighted mean factor. Convergence is ensured by demanding that
K*)

K*)
becomes equal, and that $ does not change from iteration to iteration (all within the
defined convergence error). It was verified that this iterative scheme results in the same
solutions as those obtained by the minimization process for all examined cases in the
previous publications. The comparison is presented in Chapter 4.
3.3 Extension to extensible reinforcement

To allow consideration of extensible reinforcement, the original method is extended
by considering the deformability of each reinforcement layer, using the following differential
equation, which represents equilibrium on the differential scale:
^
> 1
_ + 2#" ub1 1 c = 0
>
(3.10)
where is the axial rigidity of the reinforcement per unit width of the wall, 1 and
1 are the displacements of the reinforcement and the soil, respectively. #" is a cover
ratio representing the area that the reinforcement itself occupies of the total area of the layer
39
per unit length. Here, this ratio is considered to be equal to 1 meaning the reinforcement
layer is uniform (not a mesh). Essentially, u is a non-linear function which describes the
relative pullout behavior of the reinforcement, as defined earlier in Equation (3.2). In the
current work, the pullout model is assumed to follow a linear-elastic, perfectly plastic
behavior, such that if full mobilization does not occur, the above equation becomes:
^
> 1
_ + 2#" b1 1 c = 0
>
(3.11)
where is the bonding stiffness. The minus sign in the left hand term originates from the
fact that positive displacement is defined in the opposite direction of the positive axis. By
rearranging the above equation we get:
^
> 1
_ + 2#" 1 = 1
>
(3.12)
Considering the iterative nature of the suggested procedure, the right hand side of
the equation can be continuously updated based on previous iteration values to result in a
linear differential equation. In the current procedure, the soil displacements profile, 1 , is
taken to be similar to that of the wall, with a horizontal layout corresponding to an angle of
6 = 45 +
>
to create a mirror image of the displacements profile of the wall. The
corresponding values from the wall's displacement profile along the relevant reinforcement
layer are used as data for a quartic polynomial curve fitting, resulting in the soil's
displacement profile.
40
45 +
;
2
Figure 3.5: construction of the soil's displacement profile
This roughly resembles rigid blocks sliding, as shown in Figure 3.5. Note that other
translation models may be considered. Equation (3.12) needs to satisfy the boundary
conditions of the reinforcement, in addition to being tangential to the demand function,

. At the far end of the reinforcement, the boundary condition is simply of free tensile
force (free edges). At the connection to the wall, the boundary condition is free to be
determined (displacement or tensile force wise) to answer the tangential requirement with

. In order to obtain this connection load we utilize a closed form solution of two
superimposed linear problems. One of which describes the behavior of the free edge of the
reinforcement to the right hand side of Equation (3.12) and the other is the response of the
reinforcement to an edge load. For this procedure we first divide the total reinforcement
displacement to two components, each of which relevant to one of the aforementioned
conditions:
41

K*)
> 1,]
K*)
= 1
K*)]
1,]
>
(3.13)
K*)
>1,>
K*)
=0
1,>
>
(3.14)

where 1 = 1,] + 1,> . When these two equations are satisfied and the iterative procedure
converges, Equation (3.12) is satisfied.
Equation (3.13) is solved under the condition of free end (zero tensile force at the
reinforcement edges) and Equation (3.14), under the condition of a certain connection force
at = 0. Equation (3.13) is solved by the integration formulation of (Klar & Soga, 2005):
1,] = u, ,% 1
%
= u], ,% 1 + u> , ,% 1,

%
(3.15)
where
cosh cosh = u , 4
]
sinh
u, =
cosh cosh
= u> , 4 >
sinh
(3.16)
where = and is the length of the reinforcement. From the above solution, one
can define a tensile distribution of &] =
& = &] + &> (where &> =
, G
G
. The overall tensile force distribution
,G
G
) should be tangent to the demand
function,
. One may achieve this requirement by finding the suitable boundary value for
Equation (3.14)
42
(i.e. the tensile force at = 0). This may be accomplished based on the closed form solution
of Equation (3.14) with the boundary conditions of &> = 0 = !",

and &> = = 0.
The tangential condition is equivalent to the requirement for a single touch point between the
curve of &] + &> and
, which results in a connection force value of:
!",
= max
G
sinh
b &] c
sinh
(3.17)
Since the solution of Equation (3.13), given by Equations (3.15) and (3.16) results in
zero tensile force at the edges of the reinforcement strips, the superimposed solutions result
in a connection load, !",

, as given in Equation (3.17). The overall tensile force distribution
and displacement in the reinforcement is obtained by the superposition of the two solutions,
for which, at this stage, all boundary conditions are known. Note that the same approach can
also be used to establish the displacement at the wall:
1,> = 0 = max
G
cosh
b &] c
sinh
(3.18)
This displacement should be added to 1,] = 0 to establish the reinforcement

displacement at the connection point to the wall. These reinforcement displacements,
together with their connection loads, are introduced into the iterative procedure suggested in
section 3.2 to result in a global solution of the MSE system.
In principle, if one assumes a certain trend for the displacements profile of the wall,
he may replace the integration terms in Equation (3.16) by a corresponding closed form
solution. In specific, a simple solution may be obtained for polynomial functions. In the
current work, a quartic (4' order) polynomial function was selected.
A two stages process is involved in the global solution for the extensible
reinforcement. First, a solution is obtained using the relaxation scheme under the assumption
of zero soil displacement. Then, the soil's displacements profile (based on the wall's
43
displacements) is gradually introduced into Equation (3.13) while continuing with the
relaxation scheme.
3.4 Extension to a non-smooth (rough) facing back

The formulation described until that point, considered a smooth back of the facing
element of the wall, effectively resulting in a vertical reaction at base of the wall that is equal
to the weight of the blocks above. In reality, the interface between the facing and the soil
would not be smooth, and consequently, shear forces will develop between the two.
Assuming that the soil that is in close vicinity to the wall will yield, the shear stresses may be
said to have the value of 93 = 83 'X 13 , where 13 is the friction angle between the block
and the soil ( 1/3 1/2 of the soil's friction angle).
To include this component into the analysis, let us consider the free body diagrams
as shown in Figure 3.6. The figure shows independently the forces and stresses acting on the
facing and on the soil wedge, together with the corresponding force polygons, and their
relation.
44
WB
#`
! {
! {
WS
`1
{ =1
T
tan6
`
T
tan6
&{ S = ` + 1 {
6 tan;=
6
T
tan6
` 6
S = tanT
tan6
$`
`
&{ S = ` + 1 {
&1 S =
` S =
T
tan6
6 tan;=
#`
! { $`
(`
1 + tan2 1(
$`
6
! {
Figure 3.6: free body diagram for a system with friction at the back of the wall
It can be shown (and this is illustrated in the force polygons) that the effect of wall
friction can be translated into a reduced weight of the soil wedge for the solution of Equation
(3.1), using general formulation. In other words, one may consider the force polygon shown
in Figure 3.2 with ( )*+ = (, !" z + $
tan1 , instead of the original (, . Instead of
the equilibrium relation presented in Equation (3.1), the following equation emerges:
45
1

+ $
= .` + 1 > $
+ !z tan13
2
z\]
tan ;<
&z b` + 1 { c
+ tan ;<
(3.19)
z\]
The use of the suggested global iterative scheme for solution, allows involvement of
the !z from the previous iteration. Otherwise, other local, iterative approaches need to be
established in order to solve the implicit equation (since !z depends on the demand function
at level ` ) as part of the top-down procedure. The extent of the effect of friction at the back
of the facing elements is examined in Chapter 4.
46
4 PARAMETRIC STUDY
This chapter presents both verification results and extended parametric study. First,
the new iterative methods is evaluated against the results of the minimization procedure of
Klar & Sas (2009) and validated to produce the same results. Secondly, the extended
formulation for inclusion of extensible reinforcement is evaluated through a parametric study.
In all of the presented cases, the examined walls are 10 m high, built of 10, 1 m
length blocks, with 9 reinforcement layers in total. The length of the layers is the same for all
layers and equals to 0.7 of the total height of the wall. The internal friction angle is ; = 30.
For each wall, the translation and rotation rigidities of the interfaces between the blocks
( , ) are kept constant along the wall. The selected model for the soil-reinforcement
rigidity is 9 = 1)*2 . Here, two cases are considered: first case where is kept constant;
and the second, where varying linearly with the depth. The latter probably better
describes the accumulating effect of the soil body in terms of the normal stress acting on
different reinforcement layers, and the horizontal stresses that develop along the layers when
they are pulled out, as a consequence. Note that not every soil or wall's characteristic, in this
work and in the previous one, are identical (for example, different soil-reinforcement rigidity
value). Furthermore, the new formulation considers several effects that were not addressed
in the previous work, such as soil displacements profile along each reinforcement layer, and
therefore these cases cannot be compared in a direct manner.
4.1 Verification with previous formulation

In order to validate the new iterative scheme for the solution of reinforced soil
systems, all of the cases presented in the parametric study of Klar & Sas (2009) were reran
using the new formulation. It was verified that the calculation process converges and that it is
47
indeed converges to the results obtained using the minimization process of calculation.
Table 4.1 shows the comparison of the sum of maximal tensile forces in the two formulations.
As can be seen, a perfect match exists in the results, down to the precision provided in Klar
and Sas (2009).
Table 4.1: Validation of iterative scheme by comparison to Klar & Sas (2009) results
max&

0.5.>
Case in
Klar and Sas
Iterative
Minimization
scheme
scheme
UA1
0.384075
0.384
UA2
0.384021
0.384
UA3
0.384015
0.384
UB1
0.368877
0.369
UB2
0.368279
0.368
UB3
0.368218
0.368
UC1
0.326535
0.326
UC2
0.321813
0.322
UC3
0.321317
0.321
UD1
0.268017
0.268
UD2
0.24403
0.244
UD3
0.241222
0.241
(2009)
4.2 Non dimensional numbers

The results are normalized using the following non dimensional numbers:
=

; =
; = / ; =
.

(4.1)
where is the height of the wall, is the length of the reinforcement layer and . is the
specific weight of the soil. Values of the non-dimensional numbers are presented with the
48
results. For the cases at which the soil-reinforcement rigidity changes linearly with the depth,
the value considered is the average value, at the midst of the wall.
All examined cases are marked with 3 characters. First character indicates whether
the soil-reinforcement rigidity is uniform or changes linearly ("U"/"L"). Second character
indicates different values of ("A","B","C","D"). Third character indicates different values of
("1","2","3"). The following table summarizes the values of the non-dimensional numbers
for these runs:
Table 4.2: Non Dimensional numbers for the parametric study
3.33 10i 9.9
LA2
150
150 3333.3 3.33 10i 9.9
33.3
150
333.3
150
33.3
150
333.3
150
33.3
3.33 10i 9.9
3.33 10/ 9.9

3.33 10/ 9.9
150 3333.3 3.33 10/ 9.9

150
333.3
150
33.3
3.33 10> 9.9

3.33 10> 9.9
150 3333.3 3.33 10> 9.9

150
333.3
3.33 10] 9.9

3.33 10] 9.9
150 3333.3 3.33 10] 9.9
150 3333.3 3.33 10i 9.9
LB2
2
1
3
1
3
LA3
LB1
2
33.3
150
3
LA1
150
333.3
150
33.3
150
333.3
150
33.3
3.33 10i 9.9

3.33 10i 9.9
3.33 10/ 9.9
3.33 10/ 9.9
150 3333.3 3.33 10/ 9.9

150
333.3
150
33.3
3.33 10> 9.9

3.33 10> 9.9
150 3333.3 3.33 10> 9.9

150
333.3
3.33 10] 9.9

3.33 10] 9.9
150 3333.3 3.33 10] 9.9
4.3 Reinforcement layers

4.3.1 Tension profiles
Figure 4.1 through Figure 4.4 show a general layout of the forces profiles being
investigated. The tensile force distribution is normalized in the figures such that the maximum
value, for each reinforcement layer, is position at 0.8 of the height of the block, giving the
impression that all maximum values between the reinforcement are equal. Hence, the
49
description of the tensile force distribution is qualitative and actual values cannot be drawn
from these figures. Note that only representative figures are presented. Figures 2 2
are similar to 1 1 and so on and therefore not presented. On the left hand side of
each figure describing the system, there is a banner indicating the percentage of the force at
the connection to the wall, out of the maximum force obtained along the reinforcement.
Generally, the connection load in the flexible walls is smaller than that in the rigid walls (for
example, A versus D). The dashed line presents a planar slip surface at an angle of 45 +
;/2, exiting from the bottom of the bottommost block. Let us refer to this plane as the
global rupture plane, considering there are other internal slip surfaces.
The profile of tension forces along the reinforcement layers is obtained from the
solution of the system. Unlike previous works, there are no assumptions regarding the trend
of this profile, but only the requirement of tangential condition to the demand function, free
stress at the end of the reinforcement and compatibility with the wall's displacement. The
obtained profiles show that for flexible wall facing, the maximum tension value is obtained at
a position which is far from the wall. When the facing becomes more rigid, the position of the
maximum value shifts towards the facing. Yet, the maximum value for all cases is obtained
within the border of the wall and the line representing the "global rupture" plane.
In more flexible wall facings, a larger part of the reinforcement is used (that is, the
tensile force spreads over a greater length of the reinforcement), especially in the upper
layers. The length of the reinforcement is uniform and equals to 0.7 of the height of the wall
as required by the design standard. It is evident that in the majority of the cases, the end of
the reinforcement that is far from the wall is unexploited. In cases UD1 & LD1 for example,
every layer has an area where the tensile force is very close to zero. In fact, for these cases,
50% of the layers show near zero values along 50% or more of the length of the layer. This
clearly indicates that the design guidelines may lead to excessive, unnecessary, reinforcement
length, especially in the case of extensible reinforcement. Significant savings may be achieved
by specific analysis and design, resulting in different lengths of reinforcing layers at each
level.
50
When considering rigid wall facing, the wall takes significant portions of the loads,
and the tension loads in the reinforcement layers are low. In such cases, the tension profiles
obtained are almost constant or with minimal slope at the area close to the wall. This means
there is almost no relative movement between the layer and the soil in the active area, and
that the reinforcement resistance is mostly dependent of the behavior in the stable zone
(pull-out).
The figures also show that for relatively flexible walls, the maximum tensile force is
obtained close to the "global rupture" plane, distant from wall facing. This location becomes
closer to the wall with increasing wall rigidity. Furthermore, the tensile force becomes small
at a location outside the "global rupture" plane. This phenomenon is more significant in lower
layers where almost 50% of the reinforcing layer is unexploited.
In terms of the force at the connection to the wall, for the most flexible wall
examined, the ratio between the force at the connection and the maximum value along the
reinforcement is as low as 13-15%. For the most rigid wall examined, 100% of the maximum
force goes to the wall in all reinforcement layers.
Figure 4.1: General forces layout acting in the system (Cases LA1-UA1)
51
Figure 4.2: General forces layout acting in the system (Cases LB1-UB1)
Figure 4.3: General forces layout acting in the system (Cases LC1-UC1)
Figure 4.4: General forces layout acting in the system (Cases LD1-UD1)
4.3.2 Horizontal to vertical stress coefficient

Two quantifying parameters were calculated. One is the sum of the maximum tensile
force from all layers, divided by the total horizontal force under hydrostatic condition (in
cantilever walls this will results in the coefficient of lateral earth pressure). The second is the
sum of the maximum value of the demand function at each layer, divided by the same
expression.
52
max&

0.5. >
(4.2)
max

0.5. >
(4.3)
These expressions can be compared with F =
]
where ;
]
= 30. The values
achieved when considering the maximum tension forces are much higher than F for flexible
walls (up to 202%) and very low for the rigid ones (14%). When considering the maximum
values of the demand function, it is 84% and 13% respectively. Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 show
the values of the two parameters.
The comparison factor based on the maximum tension values is not necessarily
expected to correlate with F . The demand function based factor is calculated based on
equilibrium considerations, while the comparison factor that is calculated based on values
obtained from the tension function is in turn, obtained from the independent solution of the
differential equation representing the displacements of the reinforcement. Meaning, the
values used to calculate this factor include many other factors except equilibrium and hence
may not correlate directly to equilibrium limit state (F ). When examining the values obtained
from the demand functions, they are always lower than F , which is reasonable considering
the demand function represents the force needed in each reinforcement layer for equilibrium.
Yet, the values of this factor for rigid walls are relatively low, implying that in these cases, the
reinforcement layers carry very little of the load and that the majority of the load is carried by
the wall.
In terms of soil-reinforcement rigidity, there is a difference between the walls with
flexible and rigid facing. For the walls with flexible facing, both coefficients present lower
values when the soil-reinforcement rigidity profile is uniform, than the values obtained when
the profile is linear. For the walls with more rigid facing, the values of these coefficients are
53
similar. This is another indication that the majority of the loads are carried by the wall and
that the soil-reinforcement interaction in this case is negligible.
Table 4.3: Comparison factors for the forces figures (rigidity is uniform) + Legend
max&

max&

UA1
0.674
0.279
UB1
0.377
UC1
UD1
Case
Legend
max&

max&

UA2
0.674
0.279
0.228
UB2
0.376
0.161
0.144
UC2
0.048
0.045
UD2
0.5. >
0.5. >
Case
Legend
max&

max&

UA3
0.674
0.279
0.229
UB3
0.375
0.229
0.160
0.144
UC3
0.160
0.144
0.045
0.043
UD3
0.045
0.042
0.5. >
0.5. >
Case
Legend
0.5. >
0.5. >
Table 4.4: Comparison factors for the forces figures (rigidity changes linearly) + Legend
max&

max&

LA1
0.634
0.271
LB1
0.355
LC1
LD1
Case
Legend
max&

max&

LA2
0.633
0.271
0.223
LB2
0.355
0.162
0.146
LC2
0.049
0.045
LD2
0.5. >
0.5. >
Case
Legend
max&

max&

LA3
0.633
0.271
0.223
LB3
0.354
0.223
0.161
0.145
LC3
0.161
0.145
0.046
0.042
LD3
0.045
0.042
0.5. >
0.5. >
Case
Legend
0.5. >
0.5. >
4.3.3 Maximum tension values

Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.5: Normalized maximum tension force distribution for uniform rigidity
profileFigure
4.6 show normalized maximum tension force distributions for uniform and linearly
varying soil-reinforcement rigidity profiles, respectively. The normalized force presented is
associated with every layer at a normalized height, . The maximum tension value at each
layer is normalized with F . in order to compare with suggested values using tie-back
design method. The dashed line represents the maximum tension values obtained using the
54
tie-back method for extensible reinforcement, considering a constant value of F . For

inextensible reinforcement or welded wire mesh, the maximum tension values suggested by
the standards, are higher at the top 6 meters (considering up to 2.5F for the calculation).
Case
Legend
Case
Legend
Case
UA1
UA2
UA3
UB1
UB2
UB3
UC1
UC2
UC3
UD1
UD2
UD3
Legend
max&`
X .
Figure 4.5: Normalized maximum tension force distribution for uniform rigidity profile
Case
Legend
Case
Legend
Case
LA1
LA2
LA3
LB1
LB2
LB3
LC1
LC2
LC3
LD1
LD2
LD3
Legend
Figure 4.6: Normalized maximum tension force distribution for linear rigidity profile
It should be noted that in the considered model there is neither a limit on the
bonding stresses between the reinforcement and the soil, nor consideration of slippage
55
between the two in terms of pullout capacity. Hence, some of the normalized solution may
represent nonrealistic cases. For example, one can evaluate the bonding stress from the
normalized results of the UA1 wall; the uppermost reinforcement layer has a maximum
tensile force of &<FG = 1.07 F . . It roughly reduced linearly to the end of the
reinforcement leading to a bonding stress of 9 =
>%.>m
].% m
>%.>m
= 1.87F . . This can be
compared against a pullout stress to define a factor of safety, $ =

].
= ].
= 0.92. This low factor of safety (below 1) indicates that the high values from the
normalized solutions may not be realistic and may explain the difference from the suggested
values in the standards.
It can be inferred from these graphs that the rigidity for translation of the wall has
little effect on the maximum values of the forces in the reinforcement and that it is effectively
controlled by the rigidity for rotation. Evidently, the figures show 4 groups of graphs, each
has the same non-dimensional number, and each group is composed of 3 graphs that
differ from one another in .
4.4 Wall facing

The figures shown below represent the shear, moments and displacements profiles
which develop in the wall facing. Figure 4.7 represents the cases involving the most flexible
wall facing, cases UA1-3 and LA1-3. Figure 4.8 shows the results of cases UB1-3 and LB1-3,
Figure 4.9 for cases UC1-3 and LC1-3 and Figure 4.10 represents the most rigid wall facing,
cases UD1-2 and LD1-3. The profiles associated with uniform soil-reinforcement rigidity are
black dotted and the ones associated with linearly varying rigidity are thin blue.
4.4.1 Shear forces

The shear forces profiles along the wall facing are normalized using the following
expression: F . > . When examining the most rigid wall facing, the normalized value at the
]
bottom of the wall is approximately >. This is the maximum possible value and is obtained for
cantilever, gravity, retaining wall, fixed at the bottom and with a horizontal stresses profile
56
growing linearly, as expressed as in Equation (4.5). This is an indication that the wall is acting
like a gravity retaining wall while the reinforcement layers in this case have little effect on the
loads in the system. For the most flexible wall facing case, this value is approximately 0.3
which means that in case of flexible wall facing, significant part of the load is indeed carried
by the reinforcement.
4.4.2 Bending moments

The moments profiles along the wall facing are normalized using the following
expression: F . / . When examining the most rigid wall facing, the normalized value at the
]
bottom of the wall is approximately . This is the maximum possible value and is obtained in
the same circumstances as mentioned above in subsection 4.4.1 and expressed as in
Equation (4.4). More precisely, this specific wall develops under the bottommost block, up to
84% of the maximum possible tension value.
Figure 4.10 which represents the most rigid wall facing, shows profiles which, in fact,
resemble a classic gravity retaining wall with linearly growing load profile at the back of the
wall where the shear forces profile grows quadratically and the moments profile grows
cubically.
In the flexible wall facing cases, the moments at the upper interfaces tends to zero,
as expected. This is not dictated explicitly by the model and, in effect, obtained freely. In
cases where the resistance for rotation is low, the moment in the interface must be close to
zero. This is in order to keep the demand for kinematic compatibility between the
displacements of the wall and the reinforcement.
<FG =
F . /
6
(4.4)
$<FG =
F .>
2
(4.5)
57
Similar indication for the little contribution that the reinforcement layers have on the
stability of such reinforced soil systems when considering rigid wall facing is also evident
here, in terms of moments values.
1

X . 3
$
X .2
Figure 4.7: Normalized moment, shear and displacement profile of the wall, Cases UA-LA
1

X .3
$
X .2
Figure 4.8: Normalized moment, shear and displacement profile of the wall, Cases UB-LB
58

X . 3
$
X .2
Figure 4.9: Normalized moment, shear and displacement profile of the wall, Cases UC-LC

X .3
$
X .2
Figure 4.10: Normalized moment, shear and displacement profile of the wall, Cases UD-LD
4.4.3 Displacements
The displacements profiles show similar trends to the ones discussed in sections 4.4.1
& 4.4.2. Cases UC/LC & UD/LD show a displacements profile similar to that of a rigid body. In
more flexible cases, there is a bigger rotation of the blocks which form a displacements
profile that is more parallel to the wall. The relative movement between the upper blocks is in
effect, very small.
4.4.4 Effect of soil-reinforcement rigidity profile

Differences in shear and moments profiles between cases of linear varying or uniform
soil-reinforcement rigidity profiles for rigid wall facings are not significant. There is an evident
difference though between the displacements profiles of the 2 most flexible cases (UA/LA &
UB/LB). The displacements profiles obtained for linear soil-reinforcement rigidity profile show
59
greater values than the values obtained for the uniform profile in the upper part of the wall.
This may be due to the little confinement exist in the upper layers (and hence lower
representative stiffness), compared with the bottom layers because of the linear profile.
4.5 Friction at the back of the wall

All the examined cases consider walls that have a smooth back, ignoring resistance of
the facing to relative vertical movement soil downwards. This is clearly an engineering
simplification, as the facing blocks will never be completely smooth. The assumption of a
smooth back is equivalent to a situation where the facing is only pushed by the soil and the
soil does not lean on the facing.
It is obvious that friction at the back of the wall will increase the vertical load on the
facing but may reduce the stressing in the reinforcement layers. This was presented in the
formulation chapter, including the force polygons and the revised formulas. This component,
which is commonly overlooked in design, is evaluated here for the aim of understanding the
trends and magnitude of its effect on wall-soil-reinforcement system. The current
examination of this feature is limited to inextensible reinforcement. However, it is believed
that the effects will be similar in extensible reinforcement as well, due to the fact that it is
incorporated in the equilibrium equations and not in the deformability equation.
Table 4.5: Maximum tension force . in the reinforcement for uniform rigidity profile (with
and without friction, = /)
Case
UA1
UA2
UA3
Layers
No Friction
9.89
12.35
21.37
29.85
39.12
49.46
61.28
75.7
85.06
With Friction
9.3
11
19.48
27.24
35.71
45.18
56.03
69.28
77.63
Difference
6.00%
10.90%
8.80%
8.80%
8.70%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.70%
No Friction
9.9
12.34
21.37
29.85
39.12
49.46
61.28
75.7
85.01
With Friction
9.3
11
19.49
27.24
35.71
45.18
56.03
69.28
77.58
Difference
6.00%
10.90%
8.80%
8.80%
8.70%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.70%
No Friction
9.9
12.34
21.37
29.85
39.12
49.46
61.28
75.7
85
With Friction
9.3
11
19.49
27.24
35.71
45.18
56.03
69.28
77.57
Difference
6.00%
10.90%
8.80%
8.80%
8.70%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.70%
60
Average
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
Case
UB1
UB2
UB3
UC1
UC2
UC3
UD1
UD2
UD3
Layers
No Friction
9.34
13.23
21.03
29.69
39.12
50.25
63.98
76.28
65.96
With Friction
8.73
11.93
19.12
27.08
35.71
45.93
58.52
69.73
60.2
Difference
6.50%
9.90%
9.10%
8.80%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.60%
8.70%
No Friction
9.37
13.21
21.02
29.68
39.11
50.27
64.03
76.21
65.36
With Friction
8.76
11.91
19.11
27.07
35.71
45.94
58.56
69.66
59.66
Difference
6.50%
9.90%
9.10%
8.80%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.60%
8.70%
No Friction
9.37
13.21
21.02
29.68
39.11
50.27
64.03
76.2
65.3
With Friction
8.76
11.91
19.11
27.07
35.71
45.94
58.57
69.66
59.6
Difference
6.50%
9.90%
9.10%
8.80%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.60%
8.70%
No Friction
7.42
14.12
22.2
31.94
43.1
54.14
61.05
57.04
35.54
With Friction
6.86
12.86
20.23
29.15
39.37
49.47
55.77
52.07
32.43
Difference
7.50%
8.90%
8.90%
8.70%
8.60%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
8.70%
No Friction
7.5
14.11
22.25
32.12
43.38
54.25
60.43
55.07
32.71
With Friction
6.94
12.86
20.27
29.31
39.63
49.58
55.19
50.28
29.86
Difference
7.50%
8.90%
8.90%
8.70%
8.60%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
8.70%
No Friction
7.51
14.11
22.25
32.14
43.41
54.27
60.36
54.87
32.41
With Friction
6.94
12.86
20.27
29.33
39.66
49.59
55.13
50.09
29.59
Difference
7.50%
8.90%
8.90%
8.70%
8.60%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
8.70%
No Friction
11.52
19.52
27.46
34.73
40.3
42.79
40.65
32.59
18.46
With Friction
10.64
17.9
25.12
31.74
36.8
39.04
37.06
29.73
16.77
Difference
7.70%
8.30%
8.50%
8.60%
8.70%
8.80%
8.80%
8.80%
9.10%
No Friction
13.71
21.11
28.23
34.27
38.07
38.32
33.91
24.57
11.83
With Friction
12.66
19.37
25.84
31.32
34.75
34.95
30.9
22.41
10.75
Difference
7.60%
8.20%
8.50%
8.60%
8.70%
8.80%
8.90%
8.80%
9.10%
No Friction
14.02
21.36
28.37
34.25
37.83
37.8
33.13
23.65
11.08
With Friction
12.9
19.55
25.92
31.26
34.5
34.46
30.17
21.56
10.08
Difference
8.00%
8.40%
8.60%
8.70%
8.80%
8.80%
8.90%
8.80%
9.10%
Average
. in the reinforcement for uniform rigidity profile with and without friction, = /)Table
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.70%
4.5 shows
the maximum tensile force values for every reinforcement layer in all the examined cases.
The difference between the maximum forces obtained when considering and when not
considering friction, in a specific reinforcement layer, for all cases, ranges between 6% and
10.9%. The average difference for all cases is 8.6-8.7%.
61
Max[Tj] Comparison - U
Maximum Tension Force in the Reinforcement [kN/m]
20
40
60
80
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UA1 No Friction
UA1 With Friction
z [m]
z [m]
Average Difference in
overall force: 8.6%

20
40
60
80
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UB1 No Friction
UB1 With Friction
overall force: 8.6%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

0
20
40
60
80
100
UC1 No Friction
UC1 With Friction
z [m]
z [m]

0
20
40
60
80
100
overall force: 8.6%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UD1 No Friction
UD1 With Friction
overall force: 8.6%
Figure 4.11: The effect of friction at the back of the wall uniform rigidity profile
Accounting for the effect of friction at the back of the facing, reduces, as expected,
the maximum tensile forces in the reinforcement layers. This is shown in Figure 4.11 for 4
test cases, where the soil-reinforcement rigidity is uniform (UA1, UB1, UC1, UD1). In the
figure, in calculated from the top of the wall downwards.
Table 4.6: Maximum tension force . in the reinforcement for linear rigidity profile (with
and without friction, = /)
Case
LA1
LA2
LA3
LB1
Layers
No Friction
9.68
12.76
21.16
29.85
39.13
49.47
61.18
75.11
87.01
With Friction
9.08
11.43
19.26
27.24
35.72
45.19
55.94
68.74
79.42
Difference
6.20%
10.40%
9.00%
8.70%
8.70%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.70%
No Friction
9.69
12.76
21.16
29.85
39.13
49.47
61.18
75.11
86.96
With Friction
9.09
11.43
19.26
27.24
35.72
45.19
55.94
68.74
79.37
Difference
6.20%
10.40%
9.00%
8.70%
8.70%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.70%
No Friction
9.69
12.76
21.16
29.85
39.13
49.47
61.18
75.11
86.95
With Friction
9.09
11.43
19.26
27.24
35.72
45.19
55.94
68.74
79.37
Difference
6.20%
10.40%
9.00%
8.70%
8.70%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.70%
No Friction
8.74
14.17
20.98
29.53
39.04
49.72
62.6
76.71
74.3
With Friction
8.12
12.88
19.07
26.91
35.64
45.43
57.26
70.15
67.84
Difference
7.10%
9.10%
9.10%
8.90%
8.70%
8.60%
8.50%
8.60%
8.70%
62
Average
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
Case
LB2
LB3
LC1
LC2
LC3
LD1
LD2
LD3
Layers
No Friction
8.76
14.17
20.98
29.53
39.04
49.73
62.63
76.69
73.7
With Friction
8.14
12.89
19.04
26.94
35.58
45.52
57.17
70.29
67.1
Difference
7.10%
9.00%
9.20%
8.70%
8.90%
8.50%
8.70%
8.30%
9.00%
No Friction
8.76
14.17
20.97
29.52
39.04
49.73
62.64
76.69
73.64
With Friction
8.14
12.87
19.07
26.87
35.7
45.36
57.41
69.97
67.44
Difference
7.10%
9.10%
9.10%
9.00%
8.60%
8.80%
8.40%
8.80%
8.40%
No Friction
7.48
14.5
21.94
30.61
40.96
52.63
63.11
65.26
46.67
With Friction
6.87
13.25
20
27.92
37.4
48.09
57.65
59.6
42.6
Difference
8.10%
8.60%
8.80%
8.80%
8.70%
8.60%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
No Friction
7.53
14.54
21.97
30.69
41.15
52.84
62.83
63.5
43.12
With Friction
6.93
13.29
20.03
27.99
37.57
48.27
57.4
58
39.38
Difference
8.10%
8.60%
8.80%
8.80%
8.70%
8.60%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
No Friction
7.54
14.55
21.97
30.7
41.17
52.86
62.8
63.31
42.74
With Friction
6.93
13.3
20.03
28
37.59
48.29
57.37
57.82
39.04
Difference
8.10%
8.60%
8.80%
8.80%
8.70%
8.60%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
No Friction
8.38
16.77
25.21
33.59
41.34
47.2
48.95
43.49
27.65
With Friction
7.67
15.34
23.04
30.67
37.74
43.07
44.64
39.64
25.17
Difference
8.40%
8.50%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
8.80%
8.80%
8.80%
9.00%
No Friction
9.18
17.93
26.3
34.06
40.46
44.02
42.59
34.08
18.23
With Friction
8.41
16.41
24.03
31.1
36.93
40.15
38.83
31.04
16.58
Difference
8.40%
8.50%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
8.80%
8.80%
8.90%
9.00%
No Friction
9.28
18.08
26.44
34.12
40.35
43.62
41.81
32.93
17.11
With Friction
8.5
16.54
24.16
31.16
36.83
39.79
38.11
30
15.58
Difference
8.40%
8.50%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
8.80%
8.80%
8.90%
9.00%
Average
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.60%
8.70%
8.70%
8.70%
Table 4.6 is associated with the cases where the soil-reinforcement rigidity profile is
linear. These cases show similar results to those obtained for the cases where the soilreinforcement rigidity profile is uniform. The maximum tensile forces obtained when
considering and when not considering friction, in a specific reinforcement layer, for all cases,
ranges between 6.2% and 10.4%. The average difference for all cases is again 8.6-8.7%.
63
Max[Tj] Comparison - L
20
40
60
80
100
LA1 No Friction
LA1 With Friction
z [m]
z [m]
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
overall force: 8.6%
LB1 No Friction
LB1 With Friction
overall force: 8.6%

20
40
60
80
100
LC1 No Friction
LC1 With Friction
z [m]
z [m]
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

20
40
60
80
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
overall force: 8.6%

20
40
60
80
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
LD1 No Friction
LD1 With Friction
overall force: 8.7%
Figure 4.12: The effect of friction at the back of the wall linear rigidity profile
In resemblance to the uniform rigidity profile, also when the soil-reinforcement

rigidity profile is linear, the maximum forces in the reinforcement are reduced. It is reduced in
similar values. This is shown in Figure 4.12, again, for 4 test cases (LA1, LB1, LC1, LD1).
Same as in Figure 4.11, z in calculated from the top of the wall downwards.
This aspect of friction at the back of the wall facing is commonly overlooked and
considered as a safety margin for the overall calculation. For this analysis, a conservative
value of 1 = ;/3 for the soil-facing internal friction angle was considered. Depending on the
type of the facing, a larger value for 1 can be considered which will lead to a more significant
influence on the tensile loads developed in the reinforcement layers.
4.6 Reinforcement axial rigidity

In essence, the main goal of this work is to account for the effect of extensible
reinforcement layers rationally in the reinforced soil wall system. The rational approach for
the design of such systems was established for inextensible reinforcement layers. Now, there
is a need to check the generality of the proposed calculation procedure and to verify that the
new formulation is capable of dealing also with different axial rigidities of the reinforcement
64
layers. Furthermore, there is a need to examine whether the solutions obtained from this new
approach and formulation, are similar to those achieved using the original KC-method with its
a priori assumption (made by Baker and Klein, 2004) regarding the nature of the tensile force
distribution along the reinforcement. For this aim, several walls were examined. These walls
have the same properties as the other walls examined in the work in terms of translation and
rotation rigidity, soil properties, and dimensions. These walls were examined for different
values of elastic modulus of the reinforcement, attempting to show that as rigid as the
reinforcement layer is, it behaves more like an inextensible, infinitely rigid reinforcement.
The cases examined are the most flexible and most rigid walls in terms of rotation
and translation rigidities in the interfaces between the blocks ("A" represents the flexible walls
and "D", the rigid ones). The walls were examined for uniform and linear soil-reinforcement
rigidity profiles ("U" & "L" respectively). As it was earlier discussed, the translation rigidity has
little effect on the results, thus a representative value was selected and hence the number
"1". The different values for the rigidity of the reinforcement itself were introduced through
changes in to values other than 9.9, where and were kept constant. In specific, the
additional cases of = 3.13 and = 0.99 were considered. When considering of 150
together with . of 20 /=/ , the resulting reinforcement stiffness for of 9.9, 3.13 and
0.99, for a 10 m high wall, are = 1,500
<
, = 15,000 /=, and = 150,000 /=,
respectively; the first of which is a commonly used value for geogrids.

Figure 4.13 represents case "UA1", Figure 4.14 represents case "UD1", Figure 4.15
represents case "LA1", and Figure 4.16 represents case "LD1". In every figure, on the right
hand side, the tensile force profiles associated with the 3 different reinforcement rigidities are
superimposed, each of which normalized by their maximum value. This graph is qualitative
and aims to show the differences in the profiles' trends. There are no absolute or normalized
values on this graph. On the left hand side, there is a quantitative comparison of the
normalized maximum tension value in the reinforcement, for every rigidity of the
reinforcement, as mentioned above.
65
The following trends can be associated with the most rigid reinforcement: the tensile
force distribution is composed of a linear section at the far end of the layer, which reaches a
maximum value relatively close to the "global rupture" plane, and kept constant along the
remaining length of the reinforcement, up to the facing. The main difference in the
characteristics of the tensile force distributions, of the most rigid reinforcements in the
current work, from that used in Klar and Sas (2009) (which were based on the model of
Baker and Klein, 2004), is that the linear section does not start at the peak of the demand
function, but rather close to the "global rupture" plane.
The observed behavior of the most rigid reinforcement roughly corresponds to a tieback assumption in which all the wall stresses are tied back to the stable soil. This infers
that the profiles of the maximum tensile force with depth should tend to that of a tie-back
analysis. This is evidently the trend from the distributions in the figures. It can be seen, that
both for the flexible and rigid facing cases, the distribution with depth tends towards the
dashed line (tie-back) with increasing reinforcement stiffness (with decreased ), whether
from above or below.
It can be concluded that as the rigidity of the reinforcement increases, the tensile
force distribution tends towards that of a tie-back analysis, in which there is linear increase of
tension from the far end of reinforcement towards a maximum value at a position where the
"global rupture" plane roughly crosses the reinforcement layer. This maximum tensile force is
kept constant up to the connection to the wall. In fact, this characterization infers that the
apriori assumption regarding the tensile force distribution in extensible reinforcement as
made by Baker & Klein (2004), and also used in the work of Klar & Sas (2009), may be
erroneous.
66
Figure 4.13: Tension profiles for inextensible reinforcement with different axial rigidities Case UA1
Figure 4.14: Tension profiles for inextensible reinforcement with different axial rigidities Case UD1
Figure 4.15: Tension profiles for inextensible reinforcement with different axial rigidities Case LA1
Figure 4.16: Tension profiles for inextensible reinforcement with different axial rigidities Case LD1
67
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER

STUDY
5.1 General
This work presented a new calculation framework, and a new approach for the
solution of reinforced soil systems. The work proceeds a previously accomplished study done
by Klar & Sas, 2009. In this study, a rational approach for the solution of a complete
stabilization system that includes the three components: soil, wall and reinforcement, was
developed. The solution approach is based on matching kinematic requirements between the
wall's and the reinforcement's displacements. The previous work was limited to a few key
conditions such as inextensible reinforcement layers, no friction at the back of the wall,
planar failure surfaces, rigid based wall, static mode only (without any reference to
earthquakes or other dynamic loads).
The current work aimed, first and foremost, in enhancing the calculation procedure
to be able to support the added features. The new algorithm addresses two key features
missing from the previous formulation. In specific, it enables the inclusion of extensible
reinforcement which was the major effort in this work, and the consideration of a nonsmooth back of the wall. The work also addressed the topic of the solution scheme, and
suggested an iterative procedure instead of the genetic type minimization algorithm involved
in the original work. The new iterative solution scheme may facilitate an easy implementation
of the other suggested features that are not included (e.g. non-rigid base, dynamic loads,
etc.).
68
5.2 Conclusions
The recursive type analysis developed in this work provided identical results to those
obtained based on the genetic type algorithm solution of Klar & Sas (2009). The new
algorithm aimed at enhancing and accelerating the calculation process in order to include
other advanced aspects that require longer run time. In this verification process, the systems'
components, characteristics and properties were the same and the difference was only in the
method for solution.
The parametric study revealed that in many cases significant parts of the
reinforcement layers are unexploited, resulting in near zero tension values along large
portions of the reinforcing layers. This is more significant and noticeable in cases of rigid wall
facing where 50% of the layers show near zero values along 50% or more of the length of
the layer, when extensible reinforcement was considered. In current standards, the length of
the reinforcement layers is determined only by the height of the wall which may lead to
unnecessary reinforcement length, especially in the case of extensible reinforcement.
Advanced and specific design of reinforced soil systems may lead to great savings in terms of
the length of reinforcement layers being used.
Translation rigidity between the blocks of the wall facing has little effect if any on the
stability of the system. The parametric study showed that in the considered systems, different
values of the bending stiffness ( ) resulted in different profiles in terms of tension force
along the reinforcement, shear forces and bending moments along the wall facing etc. The
shear stiffness ( ) had negligible effect as the aforementioned profiles obtained for different
shear stiffness values were almost identical. This is simply because the wall's displacements
were governed by the bending stiffness and not the shear stiffness.
As the wall facing rigidity increases, the solution of the wall in terms of shear forces
and bending moments profiles tend to that of a classic gravity wall under similar conditions
(no reinforcement layers involved). Meaning, the shear forces and moments profiles grow
quadratically and cubically respectively. The values at the bottom of the wall, in terms of
69
normalized values
tend to the maximum possible for a classic gravity wall (0.5
and 0.16 respectively).

It can be concluded that for the more rigid walls examined, as the axial rigidity of the
reinforcement increases, the tensile forces grow and smaller forces are carried by the wall.
For the flexible walls examined, an opposite trend can be observed. We would expect the
forces in the reinforcement also to grow, in the same manner they grow in the
aforementioned case. This phenomenon occurs probably due to the fact that in reality, the
layer would be pulled out and won't develop the mentioned forces. It can be seen that as the
axial rigidity grows (and decreases), so are the absolute values of the tensile forces. It
may be said that the results tends to those obtained by the inextensible formulation of Klar
and Sas (2009).
As one may expect, when considering friction at the back of the wall between the
facing and the soil, the tension forces in the reinforcement layers are reduced. The difference
is of about 6-10% for a specific layer and around 8.6% in average. The inclusion and the
examination of this aspect revealed that the average percentage of reduction is the same for
all the examined cases. Whether the wall was flexible or rigid, linear or uniform soilreinforcement rigidity and for every examined combination of shear and moment rigidity
taken, the average percentage of reduction in the maximum tension values was in all cases
between 8.6-8.7%.
5.3 Further study

One may consider the interaction between the reinforcement layers in terms of
stiffness model. That is, bonding stresses depend not only on the local relative
deformation but also the displacements at other points, including of other reinforcement
layers.
This research involved certain assumptions regarding the soil's displacements
behind the deforming wall. More research should be invested in this aspect, as it is an
70
important input to the differential equation of the reinforcement behavior, especially if an

interaction model between the reinforcement layers is considered.
The current approach utilizes planner slip surfaces, though most likely log-spiral
slip surfaces would better describe the actual rupture. Further research is advised on this
aspect.
As this type of walls is widely used for the construction of roads and railways,
they ought to be tested for the type of dynamic loads coming from these kinds of traffic.
In this framework, it should also be tested for dynamic loads such as earthquakes for a
complete analysis that will support the design of reinforced soil walls in earthquakes
prone areas.
71
APPENDIX A: MATRIX FORMULATION FOR HORIZONTAL

DISPLACEMENTS
The following appendix presents the procedure of construction of matrices that
formulate a system of equations used to describe the horizontal displacement profile along a
reinforced soil retaining wall. These displacements are obtained at the interfaces between the
blocks.
The wall is built using a certain number of concrete blocks, placed one on top of the
other and connected together using an interface which has defined properties such as shear
modulus and flexural rigidity. In this model, the strips of reinforcement are connected to the
top of each block. Assuming the number of blocks is , the number of reinforcement layers
will be 1. This will also be the size of the matrices 1 1). The displacements at
the wall are calculated in order to find compatibility with the adjacent displacements of the
reinforcement layers at the end that is connected to the wall. Therefore, only the relevant
displacements are calculated. The displacement at the top of the uppermost block is
irrelevant to the calculation procedure and the displacement at the bottom of the bottommost
block is negligible and hence ignored. A general scheme of the wall is presented in
Figure A.1.
$0 , 0
$1 , 1
1 , 1
1
2

Figure A.1: The reinforced soil system + annotations
72
The horizontal displacement is composed of two different horizontal movements: [a]
due to translation of the interface caused by the shear forces acting at the interface bd c
and [b] due to rotation of the blocks caused by the moment acting at the interface bd c.
The width of the interface is assumed to be very small compared with the height of the block
and therefore neglected. The displacements are calculated at the top of each block, where
the reinforcement layer is connected.
A.1 Horizontal movements due to shear forces
Figure A.2: Horizontal translation of the blocks
Assuming the rigidity is constant for all interfaces, the shear force induced
displacement, as shown in Figure A.2, can be described as follows:
3, =
$z

(A.1)
where S is the shear force acting on the interface at the j level and K is the interface's
translation stiffness. Equation (A.2) can be rewritten to include different stiffness values for
every interface.
The horizontal displacement due to shear force of the bottommost block of the wall
depends only on the shear force developed in the interface beneath it. Displacements in any
other upper blocks depend on the displacements of all other blocks beneath it. Therefore, the
system of equations to describe the displacements due to the shear forces profile acting on
the interfaces is:
73
$[]

$[> $[]
3, =
+

$z
$] $>
$[]
=
+ + + +

3, =

3,
(A.2)
This system of equations can also be written in a short matric form as:
3,
$]
1 1 1 1 1

3
1 1 1 1
,
>
1 1 1 1
1 1 $z
3,
0

1 $[]
3,
3 =
1
$

(A.3)
(A.4)
A.2 Horizontal movements due to moments
Figure A.3: Rotation of the blocks
Assuming the rigidity for moment is constant for all interfaces, the moment induced
displacement, as shown in Figure A.3, can be described as follows:
3,
m
= sin 6z 6z
3, = m 6z =
m

z
(A.5)
(A.6)
where M is the moment acting on the interface at the j level and K is the interface's
rotation stiffness. The angle of rotation, , is assumed to be small such that sin . It is
74
shown in Figure A.3 and obtained from the value of the moment and the rotation stiffness.
Equation (A.6) can be rewritten to include different stiffness values for every interface.
The horizontal displacement due to moment of the bottommost block of the wall
depends only on the moment developed in the interface beneath it. Displacements in any
other upper blocks depend on the displacements of all other blocks beneath it. Moreover, the
rotation in the bottommost block, for example, has a different effect on the displacements in
every level above it. Even though the rotation angle is kept constant, the arm changes, hence
the displacement increases. Therefore, the system of equations to describe the displacements
due to the moments profile acting on the interfaces is:

3,
m
[]

m
m
3, =
[> + 2
[]

m
m
m
m
=
] + 2
> + + {
z + + 1
[]

3, =
(A.7)
3,
1 2
1
3,

m
=

3

,

0

3,
3 =
3
2
1
4
3
2
1

m

]
1
2 >
3
z
2
1 []
(A.8)
(A.9)
A.3 Calculation of the moments' profile

Eventually, the system of equations used to obtain the horizontal displacements
should be comprised, of the same variables as in the general system of equations. Hence, let
us describe the profile of the moments as a function of the shear forces ($z ) and the tension
forces in reinforcement strips acting at the connection to the wall (! ). A typical scheme of a
shear forces profile, used for the calculation of the moments profile, is shown in Figure A.4.
75
Figure A.4: Typical shear force profile + annotations
The bending moment along the wall are calculated under the assumption of a
uniform horizontal contact stress acting on the back of the block (a constant value for each
block, and varying from block to block). Thus, the shear forces profile will be linear.
Integrating this profile will yield a quadratic profile for the moments. The very top of the wall
is not constrained so the moment there equals to zero. The moment at the level of the first
reinforcement (% ) is developed due to the shear force profile acting on the uppermost block
and is calculated as:
% =
$% m
2
(A.10)
where m is the height of the block, and $% is the shear force at the interface beneath the
uppermost block. Its value is independent of the systems' characteristics ; The length of the
block (m ), the soil's specific weight (.) and the internal friction angle (;) are excluded. It is
calculated as:
76
$% =
.m> 1 $` ;
2 1 + $` ;
(A.11)
The moment at the next level will be calculated as follows:
] = %
] b! $% c $] m ]
+
2
2
] =
m b! $%c
! + $] $%
(A.12)
(A.13)
where $ and ! are the appropriate values of the shear force and the tension force in the
reinforcement at the connection to the wall, respectively. ] is a relative length of the first
block. This is further explained through its general form in the next paragraph. is the part of
the block at which the moment is reduced due to the negative shear force. In its general
form, z and z will be calculated as:
z =
z = z]
m ! $z]
! + $z + $z]
z ! $z]
2
$z bm z c
2
where z] , $z] and ! are the values of the moment, shear force and tension at the
(A.14)
(A.15)
connection to the wall, at the {KJ level, respectively. z is the relative length of the block at
which negative moment is accumulating.
Substituting Equations (A.10) & (A.14) into Equation (A.15) will yield:
77
z =
m
2 $% + 2 $] + + 2 $z] + $z !" !" !"
2
(A.16)
]
1

> 2
m 2
=

z
2

[]
2
0
1
1
1
=

1
2 1
2 2
2 2

0
1 0
1 1
1 1
$]
$>

$z

2 1 $[]
0
! ]
2
2
!
0
>
+
$
% 2
! z

2
1 0 ! []
m
$ ! + $%
2
(A.17)
(A.18)
A.4 Overall horizontal displacement

The total horizontal displacement of the interface is combined of the two above
mentioned displacements, due to shear force and due to moment:
3 = 3 + 3
3 =
1
m
$ +

(A.19)
(A.20)
In order to describe the displacements using the shear forces and the forces in the
reinforcement only, let's substitute Equation (A.18) into Equation (A.20):
78
3 =
1
m
$ +

^
m
$ ! + $% _
2
(A.21)
Rearranging this equation will give:
1
m>
m>
3 = ^ +
_ $ ^
_ !

2
2
m> $%
_
+^
2
3 = $ + ! +
(A.22)
(A.23)
where , , , & are coefficients matrices of integer numbers, with the size
by
1 (where is the number of reinforcement layers). The values of the matrices are
preset according to the geometry of the problem and physical properties of the interface.
, & are matrices that are calculated and shown for clarity and simplification of the
overall system of equations.
A.5 Example problem

All matrices can be determined prior to the run of the calculation process. In the
following example, only the geometry of the problem will be taken into consideration. The
properties of the interface will be noted as variables. For example, for a 10 meters high wall,
with 10 blocks of 1 meter high each, and 9 reinforcement layers, the abovementioned
matrices will appear as:
79
)(A.24
)(A.25
)(A.26
)(A.27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
80
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0 =
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0 =
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2 =
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1 =
1
1
1
1
2
2
2

2
2 =
2
2
2
2
)(A.28
)(A.29
)(A.30
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
26
23
20
17
14
11
8
5
2
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
>m
+1
2
1
1
1
1
41
36
31
26
21
16
11
6
2
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
1
54
47
40
33
26
19
12
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
65
56
47
38
29
20
12
6
2
30
26
22
18
14
10
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
74
63
52
41
30
20
12
6
2
35
30
25
20
15
10
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
81
68
55
42
30
20
12
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
39
33
27
21
15
10
6
3
1
81
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
86
71
56
42
30
20
12
6
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89
72
56
42
30
20
12
6
2
42
35
28
21
15
10
6
3
1
1
0
0
0 1
=
0

0
0
0
0
44
36
28
21
15
10
6
3
1

45
36
28
21 >m
=
15
2
10
6
3
1
)(A.31
90
72
56

42 m> $%
=
30
2
20
12
6
2
82
APPENDIX B: MATHEMATICA CODE

B.1 General
The calculations and were made using Wolfram Mathematica 9.0. Shown below is the source
code in its most general form. Still, different aspects and effects that were examined in this
work required slight modifications to the code that are not presented here. The code, in
general, is divided into two parts; [a] Functions and Definitions and [b] run. The first part
defines the functions used in the program and initializes the variables and the second, runs
the formulation. These are shown here separately.
B.2 Functions and Definitions

H=10.0; (*Total Height of the Wall*)
L=0.7H; (*Total Length of the Reinforcement*)
=30 ; (*Internal Friction Angle of the Soil*)
=30; (**)
=20; (*Soil's Specific Weight*)
=1; (*Height of Block, BH*)
tt=0.02; (**)
EA=1500;
k1=3000;
(*=(k/EA)^0.5*)
kL[ind_]:=(2k1)/H*h[[ind]];
L[ind_]:=(kL[ind]/EA)0.5;
Boffset=0; (**)
BL=1; (**)
dx=0.01; (**)
Rc=1.0; (**)
n=IntegerPart[H/]; (*Number of Blocks*)
NR=500; (**)
NS=10; (**)
NM=100000; (**)
KR=*NR; (**)
KBS=NS*H*KR; (*Stiffness for Shear*)
KBM=KBS*H2/NM; (*Stiffness for Moment*)
(*KRh[place_]:=KR(*2000place*);*)
Fsd=1.0; (*Factor of Safety*)
Fad=1.0; (**)
Ftd=1.0; (**)
Stra=70; (**)
Tcon[z_]:=1(*0.75+(z(1-0.75))/H*); (*Percent of Dimax at the
Wall*)
m=ArcTan[Tan[]/Fsd]; (**)
Loc=Table[H- i,{i,1,n}]; (*Distance from Bottom*)
h=Table[ i,{i,1,n}]; (*Distance from Top*)
83
DDj=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
Xc=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}]; (*'x' Ordinate of tangent at anchored
side*)
Xb=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}]; (*'x' Ordinate of tangent at active
side*)
Xmaxloc=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}]; (*'x' Ordinate of maximum tensile
force*)
Tj=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
Ftjval=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
Fejval=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
Pcj=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}]; (* Connection force to the wall *)
Sa=Table[0,{i,1,n}];
Qjnetmax=Table[0,{j,1,n-1}];
gadol=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
Tgraph=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
Tgraph2=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
Tgraph3=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
AA=Table[If[i<j+1,1,0],{i,1,n-1},{j,1,n-1}];
(*Print["AA: ",MatrixForm[AA]]
Print[Dimensions[AA]]*)
BB=Table[If[ji,j-i+1,0],{i,1,n-1},{j,1,n-1}];
(*Print["BB: ",MatrixForm[BB]]
Print[Dimensions[BB]]*)
CC=Table[If[i==j,1,If[ij,2,0]],{i,1,n-1},{j,1,n-1}];
(*Print["CC: ",MatrixForm[CC]]
Print[Dimensions[CC]]*)
DD=Table[If[ij,-1,0],{i,1,n-1},{j,1,n-1}];
(*Print["DD: ",MatrixForm[DD]]
Print[Dimensions[DD]]*)
S0=(2)/2(1-Sin[m])/(1+Sin[m]);
FF=Table[2,{i,1,n-1}];
(*Print["FF: ",MatrixForm[FF]]
Print[Dimensions[FF]]*)
GG=1/KBS AA+2/(2KBM) (BB.CC);
(*Print["GG: ",MatrixForm[GG]]*)
(*Print[Dimensions[GG]]*)
HH=2/(2KBM)(BB.DD);
(*Print["HH: ",MatrixForm[HH]]*)
(*Print[Dimensions[HH]]*)
II=(2 S0)/(2KBM) (BB.FF);
(*Print["II: ",MatrixForm[II]]*)
(*Print[Dimensions[II]]*)
=0.1;
aj[j_]:=2**Rc**j*Tan[];(*Related to the friction at the
back of the wall*)
Qcc[j_,x_]:=1/2 h[[j+1]]2 (x(-x Tan[m]))/(( Tan[m]+x));
(*Overall Horizontal Force that Requires stabilizing for j
level crossing at x, Part of Eq. 3.1 *)
Qjnet[j_,x_]:=Qcc[j,x]-If[j>1,
j1
Tj@@k DDB
k=1
x
Hh@@j + 1DD h@@k DDLF
,0] (*Net Force that

requires Stabilizing*)
Dj[j_,x_]:=Max[Qjnet[j,x]-Sprev[[j+1]],0];
84
dDDj[j_,x_]:=1/(2 dx) (Qjnet[j,x+dx]-Qjnet[j,x-dx]);

(*Numerical Evaluation of the Derivative of Subscript[D, i]*)
Dmaxj[j_]:=FindMaximum[DDj[[j]][x],{x,1}][[1]]; (* maximum
tensile force *)
Xmax[j_]:=FindMaximum[DDj[[j]][x],{x,1}][[2,1,2]]; (* location
of maximum tensile force *)
(* Defines soil displacement for interaction analysis, can be
changed to include a mixed wall reinforcement value, index
from top to down *)
DefSoilDisp[index_]:=(
DispSoil=Table[{((i-1)*)*Tan[/4-m/2],DispWSFS[[index+(i1)]]},{i,1,n-index}];
DispSoil=Append[DispSoil,{(n-index)*Tan[/4-m/2],0.0}];);
(*Defines coefficients of polynomial fit to the wall
displacement as defined above *)
GetPoly[index_]:=(
base=Table[xi,{i,0,Min[4,n-index]}];
DefSoilDisp[index];
poly = Fit[DispSoil, base, x];
polyres={0,0,0,0,0};
Do[polyres[[i]]=poly[[i]]/base[[i]],{i,1,Min[4,n-index]+1}]
(*polyres=Table[poly[[i]]/base[[i]],{i,1,Min[4,nindex]+1}]*));
(* when x < x0*)

yxsx0[a0_,a1_,a2_,a3_,a4_,x0_,x_,ind_]:=1/(EA L[ind]6) kL[ind]
Csch[L L[ind]] (Cosh[(L-x) L[ind]] (6 a3 L[ind]+a1 L[ind]3L[ind] (6 (a3+4 a4 x)+(a1+x (2 a2+x (3 a3+4 a4 x))) L[ind]2)
Cosh[x L[ind]]+(24 a4+2 (a2+3 x (a3+2 a4 x)) L[ind]2+(a0+x
(a1+x (a2+x (a3+a4 x)))) L[ind]4) Sinh[x L[ind]])+Cosh[x
L[ind]] (L[ind] (24 a4 x+(a1+2 a2 x+4 a4 x3) L[ind]2+3 a3
(2+x2 L[ind]2)) Cosh[(L-x) L[ind]]-L[ind] (24 a4 x0+(a1+2 a2
x0+4 a4 x03) L[ind]2+3 a3 (2+x02 L[ind]2)) Cosh[(L-x0)
L[ind]]+(x2 (a2+a3 x) L[ind]4+L[ind]2 (2 a2+6 a3 x+(a0+a1 x)
L[ind]2)+a4 (24+12 x2 L[ind]2+x4 L[ind]4)) Sinh[(L-x)
L[ind]]-(x02 (a2+a3 x0) L[ind]4+L[ind]2 (2 a2+6 a3 x0+(a0+a1
x0) L[ind]2)+a4 (24+12 x02 L[ind]2+x04 L[ind]4)) Sinh[(L-x0)
L[ind]]));
(* To obtain the tensile force we -EA D[] the above function
*)
Txsx0[a0_,a1_,a2_,a3_,a4_,x0_,x_,ind_]:=1/L[ind]5 kL[ind]
Csch[L L[ind]] (-L[ind] (-6 a3-a1 L[ind]2+((a1+2 a2 x)
L[ind]2+3 a3 (2+x2 L[ind]2)+4 a4 x (6+x2 L[ind]2)) Cosh[x
L[ind]]) Sinh[(L-x) L[ind]]+Sinh[x L[ind]] (-L[ind] ((a1+2
a2 x) L[ind]2+3 a3 (2+x2 L[ind]2)+4 a4 x (6+x2 L[ind]2))
Cosh[(L-x) L[ind]]+L[ind] ((a1+2 a2 x0) L[ind]2+3 a3 (2+x02
L[ind]2)+4 a4 x0 (6+x02 L[ind]2)) Cosh[(L-x0) L[ind]]+(a4
(24+12 x02 L[ind]2+x04 L[ind]4)+L[ind]2 ((a0+a1 x0)
L[ind]2+a2 (2+x02 L[ind]2)+a3 x0 (6+x02 L[ind]2))) Sinh[(Lx0) L[ind]]))
85
(* when x > x0*)

yxlx0[a0_,a1_,a2_,a3_,a4_,x0_,x_,ind_]:=1/(EA L[ind]6) kL[ind]
Cosh[(L-x) L[ind]] Csch[L L[ind]] (6 a3 L[ind]+a1 L[ind]3L[ind] (6 (a3+4 a4 x0)+(a1+x0 (2 a2+x0 (3 a3+4 a4 x0)))
L[ind]2) Cosh[x0 L[ind]]+(24 a4+2 (a2+3 x0 (a3+2 a4 x0))
L[ind]2+(a0+x0 (a1+x0 (a2+x0 (a3+a4 x0)))) L[ind]4) Sinh[x0
L[ind]]);
Txlx0[a0_,a1_,a2_,a3_,a4_,x0_,x_,ind_]:=1/L[ind]5 kL[ind]
Csch[L L[ind]] Sinh[(L-x) L[ind]] (6 a3 L[ind]+a1 L[ind]3L[ind] (6 (a3+4 a4 x0)+(a1+x0 (2 a2+x0 (3 a3+4 a4 x0)))
L[ind]2) Cosh[x0 L[ind]]+(24 a4+2 (a2+3 x0 (a3+2 a4 x0))
L[ind]2+(a0+x0 (a1+x0 (a2+x0 (a3+a4 x0)))) L[ind]4) Sinh[x0
L[ind]])
G[sheari_]:=(Sprev=sheari;
DispRSff=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
Do[(*Start main loop / Top-Down Procedure*)
templist=Table[Qjnet[ind,(i-1)dx],{i,1,L/dx}];(*Evaluates
the Net Force along 'x'. Different Layer in Every Iterartion*)
maxloc=(Ordering[templist][[Dimensions[templist][[1]]]]1)dx;(*Finds the Distance From the Wall Where Maximun Value of
Qjnet is Situated*)
Xmaxloc[[ind]]=maxloc;
Qjnetmax[[ind]]=Max[templist];
DDj[[ind]]=Interpolation[Prepend[Append[Table[{dx(i1),Dj[ind,dx(i-1)]},{i,1,L/dx}],{100,0}],{1,0}],InterpolationOrder1];(*Continous Form of the Function
Subscript[D, i](x)*)
GetPoly[ind];
x0v=(n-ind)*Tan[/4-m/2];
a0v=polyres[[1]];a1v=polyres[[2]];a2v=polyres[[3]];a3v=polyres
[[4]];a4v=polyres[[5]];
T1=Table[If[dx(i1)<x0v,Txsx0[a0v,a1v,a2v,a3v,a4v,x0v,dx(i1),ind],Txlx0[a0v,a1v,a2v,a3v,a4v,x0v,dx(i-1),ind]],
{i,1,L/dx+1}];
Pcjval=Max[Table[Sinh[L L[ind]]/Sinh[(L-dx(i-1))L[ind]]
(DDj[[ind]][dx(i-1)]-T1[[i]]),{i,2,L/dx+1-1}]];
Pcj[[ind]]=Pcjval;
templist=Table[{dx(i-1),T1[[i]]+Pcjval Csch[L L[ind]]
Sinh[(L-dx(i-1)) L[ind]]},{i,1,L/dx+1}];
templist=Append[templist,{100,0}];
Tj[[ind]]=Interpolation[templist,InterpolationOrder1];
DispRSff[[ind]]=yxsx0[a0v,a1v,a2v,a3v,a4v,x0v,0,ind];
(*Constructing the Continous Function of Tj,
end of main loop*),{ind,1,n-1}];
(*============================================================
========================*)
Sprev[[1]]=S0;(*Shear Force Under First Block*)
86
ShortSprev=Delete[Sprev,1];
DispRS=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
(*Do[DispRS[[ind]]=1/
KRh[h[[ind]]](DDj[[ind]][Xc[[ind]]]/(L-Xc[[ind]])),{ind,1,n1}];*)
Do[DispRS[[ind]]=DispRSff[[ind]]+Pcj[[ind]]*Coth[L
L[ind]]/(EA L[ind]),{ind,1,n-1}];
(* Defining Pcj, R at wall *)
(*************************************************************
*******************
****************************)
DispWS=GG.ShortSprev+HH.Pcj+II;
DispWSFS=Table[(1)*DispWSFS[[i]]+Max[DispRS[[i]],0]+0.000*Max[DispWS[[i]],0],
{i,1,n-1}];
Snext=Inverse[GG].((0.001DispRS+0.999DispWS)-HH.Pcj-II);
Snext=Prepend[Snext,Sprev[[1]]];
(*Print["Snext: ",MatrixForm[Snext]];*)
ci=Table[((DispRS[[i]]DispWS[[i]])/(DispRS[[i]]+0.0000000001))2,{i,1,n-1}];
ci2=Table[((DispWSFS[[i]]DispWS[[i]])/(DispWSFS[[i]]+0.0000000001))2,{i,1,n-1}];
(*ci=Table[((Sprev[[i]]Snext[[i]])/Sprev[[i]])^2,{i,1,n}];*)
(*Snext=0.1*Snext+0.9*Sprev;*)
Sright=Table[0,{i,1,n}];
Sleft=Table[0,{i,1,n}];
Sright=Snext;
Do[
Sleft[[ind]]=Sright[[ind]]-Pcj[[ind]]
,{ind,1,n-1,1}];
Sher=Table[0,{i,1,2n}];
Sher[[1]]={H,0};
Do[
If[ EvenQ[ind]True,Sher[[ind]]={Loc[[ind/(2
)]],Sright[[(ind/2)]]},Sher[[ind]]={Loc[[(ind-1)/(2
)]]-0.0001,Sleft[[((ind-1)/2)]]}]
,{ind,2,2n,1}];
Shearfunc=Interpolation[Sher,InterpolationOrder1];
(*Print[ParametricPlot[{Shearfunc[x],x},{x,0,H},AspectRatio0.
8]];*)
mom=Table[{0,0},{i,1,H/dx+1}];
mom[[1]]={H,0};
Do[mom[[ind]]={H-dx(ind-1),(mom[[ind-1]][[2]]+1/2
((Shearfunc[H-dx(ind-2)]+Shearfunc[H-dx(ind-2)-dx ])dx))}
,{ind,2,H/dx+1}];
Momentfunc=Interpolation[mom,InterpolationOrder1];
87
(*Print[ParametricPlot[{Momentfunc[x],x},{x,0,H},AspectRatio0
.8]];*)
aval=Total[ci];
bval=Total[ci2];
{aval,bval,aval+bval});
=0;
Sprev=Table[0,{i,1,n}];
Snext=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
ShortSprev=Table[0,{i,1,n-1}];
Sini=Table[h[[i]]2/2(1-Sin[m])/(1+Sin[m])/2,{i,1,n}];
Print["Sini: ",MatrixForm[Sini]]
Print[Dimensions[Sini]]
Print["ShortSprev: ",MatrixForm[ShortSprev]]
Print[Dimensions[ShortSprev]]
B.3 Run
DispWSFS=Table[0.0000000000001,{i,1,n-1}];
G[Sini];
count=0;
Print["Iteration= "];
Print[Dynamic[count]];
Print["Compatability (ci)= "];
Print[Dynamic[Total[ci]]];
Print["Compatability (ci2)= "];
Print[Dynamic[Total[ci2]]];
Print["Snext= "];
Print[Dynamic[Snext]];
Print["Pcj= "];
Print[Dynamic[Pcj]];
=0;
While[G[Snext][[1]]>0.01,count=count+1;]
splot=Print[ParametricPlot[{Shearfunc[x],x},{x,0,H},AspectRati
0.8]]
mplot=Print[ParametricPlot[{Momentfunc[x],x},{x,0,H},AspectRat
io0.8,PlotRangeAll]]
dtplot=Show[Table[Plot[
ind,{x,0,L}],{ind,1,4}],Table[Plot[0.8**DDj[[ind]][x]/Abs[Tj[
[1]][0]]+H- ind,{x,0,L},PlotRangeAll],{ind,1,n1}],Table[Plot[0.8**Tj[[ind]][x]/Abs[Tj[[1]][0]]+H-
ind,{x,0,L}],{ind,1,n-1}],PlotRange{0,H}]
EmitSound[Sound[Table[SoundNote[0,0.1,i],{i,15}]]];
88
REFERENCES
Allen, T., Bathurst, R. J., Holtz, R. D., Walters, D., & Lee, W. F. (2003). A new working stress
method for prediction of reinforcement loads in geosynthetic walls. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 40(5), 976994. doi:10.1139/T03-051
Baker, R., & Klein, Y. (2004a). An integrated limiting equilibrium approach for design of
reinforced soil retaining structures: Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 22(3), 151177.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2003.10.003
Baker, R., & Klein, Y. (2004b). An integrated limiting equilibrium approach for design of
reinforced soil retaining structures: Part Iformulation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
22(3), 119150. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2003.10.002
Baker, R., & Leshchinsky, D. (2001). Spatial Distribution of Safety Factors. Journal of
Geotechnical
and
Geoenvironmental
Engineering,
127(2),
135145.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:2(135)
Bathurst, R., Allen, T., & Walters, D. (2005). Reinforcement loads in geosynthetic walls and
the case for a new working stress design method. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
23(4), 287322. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.01.002
Bathurst, R., & Cai, Z. (1995). Pseudo-static seismic analysis of geosynthetic reinforced
segmental retaining walls. Geosynthetics International, 2(5), 787830.
Bathurst, R. J., Miyata, Y., Nernheim, A., & Allen, A. M. (2008). Refinement of K-stiffness
method for geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geosynthetics International, 15(4), 269
295.
Bathurst, R. J., Walters, D., Vlachopoulos, N., Burgess, P., & Allen, T. M. (2000). Full Scale
Testing of Geosynthetic Reinforced Walls. In Full Scale Testing of Geosynthetic
Reinforced Walls (pp. 117). Denver.
Choudhury, D., & Ahmad, S. (2008). Stability of Waterfront Retaining Wall Subjected to
Pseudodynamic Earthquake Forces. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean
Engineering, 134(4), 252260. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(2008)134:4(252)
Klar, A., & Sas, T. (2009). Rational approach for the analysis of segmental reinforced soil
walls based on kinematic constraints. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(5), 332340.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.02.003
Klar, A., & Sas, T. (2010). The KC method: Numerical investigation of a new analysis method
for reinforced soil walls. Computers and Geotechnics, 37(3), 351358.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2009.12.001
Klar, A., & Soga, K. (2005). The effect of ground settlements on the axial response of piles:
some closed form solutions (Vol. 341). doi:CUED/D-SOILS/TR 341
Leshchinsky, D., Ling, H. I., & Hanks, G. (1995). Unified design appraoch to geosynthetic
reinforced slopes and segmental walls. Geosynthetics International, 2(5), 845881.
Madhavi Latha, G., & Murali Krishna, A. (2008). Seismic response of reinforced soil retaining
wall models: Influence of backfill relative density. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
26(4), 335349. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.11.001
89
Narasimha Reddy, G. V., Madhav, M. R., & Saibaba Reddy, E. (2008). Pseudo-static seismic
analysis of reinforced soil wallEffect of oblique displacement. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 26(5), 393403. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.02.002
Sugimoto, M., & Alagiyawanna, a. M. N. (2003). Pullout Behavior of Geogrid by Test and
Numerical Analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 129(4),
361. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:4(361)
90
4.4.3 59 ....................................................................................................
4.4.4 59 .............................................................
4.5 60 ....................................................................................
4.6 64..
5 68 ................................................................................
5.1 68 ..............................................................................................................
5.2 69 .........................................................................................................
:A 72 ..........................................................
.A.1 73 .........................................................................
.A.2 74 .............................................................................
.A.3 75 ...................................................................................
.A.4 78 ......................................................................................
.A.5 79 ....................................................................................................
:B 87......................................................................................................
92...................................................................................................................

1 8 .......................................................................................................................
2 10 ........................................................................................................
2.1 10 ............................................................
2.1.1 11 .................................................................
2.1.2 13 ...........................................................................................
2.2 15 .................................................................................................
3 32 ...............................................................................
3.1 32 ....................................................
3.1.1 32 .....................................................................................................
3.1.2 33 ................................................................................... Top down-
3.1.3 33 ....................................................................................
3.1.4 34 ....................................................................................
3.1.5 35 ...................................................................................
3.1.6 35 .....................................................................
3.1.7 35 ........................................................................................
3.1.8 36 ............................................................................................
3.1.9 37 ...................................................................................
3.2 37 ................................................................................
3.3 39 ............................................................................
3.4 44 ...........................................................
4 47 ........................................................................................................
4.1 47 .........................................................................
4.2 48 ........................................................................................
4.3 49 .................................................................................................
4.3.1 49 ................................................................................
4.3.2 52 ...............................................................................
4.3.3 54 .........................................................................
4.4 56 .......................................................................................................
4.4.1 56 ...........................................................................................
4.4.2 57 ........................................................................................

. ,
.
"
.
" , .

. , ,
,
.

, . , ,

, )
(.
,
.
, ,
.
,
. ,
.
,
. ,
)( ,
)
.(BOTDR/A

>
45 + " " . ,

" ) .(tie-back

.
, .

. .

.
. ,
)
( . ,
.
,
. , ,
, ,
.
,
. , .
6% 10% - .
.8.6% -
, ,
.
, .
.
.
( . . ,
.
.
) ( .

. , .

.

, .Klar & Sas, 2009
"
.
.

. , 10'
1' " .
7' 0.7 .
30 .
.
. : ,
, .
.
, ,
. ,
. , 50%,
50% . ,
, ,
,

, , ' .
.
)
( ),(Baker & Klein, 2004; Klar & Sas, 2009

) (.
.
) Baker and Klein (2004 " Klar and Sas (2009) ,
"
. " .
;
, ,
.
4 "
. ,
, .
, , .

) (top-down
.
, , .
)
" / , "
, / / / ,
, / , ,
" / ' , / "
. ,
".
2016110

'
"
:' ' '

4500599874 .
Copyright 2014 by E. Normand and A. Klar The Israel Ministry of Construction and the
Technion Research and Development foundation, Limited, Haifa
"
2014

R 1015

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

R 1015

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2016110

Reinforced Earth Walls - Inclusion of Advanced

Eng. Eitan Normand

Assoc. Prof. Assaf Klar

4.4.1 Shear forces .................................................................................. 56

- Width of the interface 

- Displacement of the reinforcement layer at the wall 

- Youngs modulus [F/L2]

- Rotation stiffness of the blocks' interfaces / 

- Cover ratio of the reinforcement

- Shear force profile 

- Thickness of the interface 

Weighted mean factor

Figure 2.1: tension bearing mechanisms

2.1.1 The components of the mechanically stabilized earth system

2.1.1.3 Wall (facing element)

2.1.2 Methods of design

2.1.2.1 The K-stiffness method

Figure 1.2: ABCDE distribution according to the k-stiffness method

$N2P:F2 is the global reinforcement stiffness defined as:

where YFI* is the avergae tensile stiffness of all

reinforcement layers over the wall height,

reinforcement layer, calculated as:

2.1.2.2 Conventional methods

2.1.2.2.1 Dimensions of the structure

Figure 1.4: mechanical height for the conventional methods

2.1.2.2.2 External stability

Bearing and tilt failure

distribution, it may be assumed as:

Sliding along the base

External slip surfaces

2.1.2.2.3 Type of reinforcement

2.1.2.2.4 Internal stability

2.1.2.2.5 Tie-Back wedge method

&z = 8Iz $Iz

resultant vertical load at the { KJ level.

Figure 1.5: coefficient of horizontal earth pressure profiles

Local stability check

reinforcing element needed to satisfy local stability considerations is:

Figure 1.7: Internal wedge stability analysis

Wedge stability check

. It is then should be examined to withstand the two following conditions:

[a] The tensile strength of the reinforcing elements:

where T is the design tensile strength of the { KJ reinforcement layer.

2.1.2.2.6 Coherent gravity

Figure 1.8: Definition of maximum tension line coherent gravity method

Lines of maximum tension

Adherence capacity of the reinforcement

The adherence capacity, &z , of each layer of reinforcement is given by:

partial load factor.

Long term rupture

2.1.2.2.7 Serviceability limit state

2.1.2.3 The Baker and Klein method

`u z,<FG < $K)F /K+

These coefficients are determined according to the relative strength of the

2.1.2.4 The KC method

2.2 Advanced research

3.1 Brief description of the top-down KC-method

Figure 3.1: Mechanically Stabilized Earth wall system

3.1.2 Top-Down procedure

regarding the tensile force distribution, &

from previous stages of the top-down procedure.

Figure 3.2: Free Body Diagram

- Width of the interface

- Displacement of the reinforcement layer at the wall

- Rotation stiffness of the blocks' interfaces /

- Shear force profile

- Thickness of the interface

&z = 8Iz $Iz

`u z,<FG < $K)F /K+

reinforcement is equal to the rigid reinforcement movement, 1)*2 = =

The displacement of the segmental block facing,

= $ + !" +

vector, ! , and the displacements profile of the reinforcement,

= u], ,% 1 + u> , ,% 1,

& = &] + &> (where &> =

This displacement should be added to 1,] = 0 to establish the reinforcement

These expressions can be compared with F =

tie-back method for extensible reinforcement, considering a constant value of F . For

= 1.87F . . This can be

compared against a pullout stress to define a factor of safety, $ =

differ from one another in .