Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No.

Effect of foundation yielding on performance of two-

tier geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls:
a numerical investigation
C. Yoo1 and A. R. Song2
1
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 300 Chun-
Chun Dong, Jan-An Gu, Suwon, Kyong-Gi Do, Korea 440-746, Telephone: +82 31 290 7518, Telefax:
+82 31 290 7549, E-mail: csyoo@skku.edu
2
Graduate student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 300
Chun-Chun Dong, Jan-An Gu, Suwon, Kyong-Gi Do, Korea 440-746, Telephone: +82 31 290 7644,
Telefax: +82 31 290 7549, E-mail: hobak1017@nate.com.

Received 8 February 2006, revised 3 July 2006, accepted 11 July 2006

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of an investigation into the effect of foundation
yielding on the performance of two-tiered geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls using a
calibrated plane-strain finite element model. Variables considered in this study include the offset
distance and reinforcement distribution. The results indicate among other things that an unexpected
foundation yielding may affect both the internal and external stability of the lower tier owing to
the absence of toe resistance. Also revealed is the finding that the upper-tier reinforcement length
has a significant influence on the lower-tier lateral deformation. Design implications and findings
from this study are discussed.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Wall, Reinforcement, Multi-tiered wall, Finite element method,

Geogrid, Foundation

REFERENCE: Yoo, S. & Song, A. R. (2006). Effect of foundation yielding on performance of

two-tier geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls: a numerical investigation. Geosynthetics
International, 13, No. 5, 181–194

1. INTRODUCTION given foundation condition is implicitly checked in terms

Geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls (GR-
SRWs) have been well accepted in practice as alternatives
to conventional retaining walls; their benefits include
sound performance, aesthetics, cost and expediency of
construction. This is especially true in Korea since their
first appearance in the early 1990s. Although many
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls have been safely con-
structed and are still performing well, there are many
areas that need in-depth studies in order to better under-
stand the mechanical behaviour of SRW systems under
more aggressive and harsh environments.
Currently available design approaches (Collin 1997;
Elias and Christopher 1997) require that GR-SRWs be
constructed on a competent foundation. There are, how-
ever, many instances in which an unanticipated foundation
yielding has caused excessive lateral wall deformation
and/or settlement during the construction of GR-SRWs
(Yoo 2004). A situation of unanticipated foundation yield-
ing can arise when the stress–strain–strength character-
istics of the foundation soil are improperly estimated
during the design stage. Although the appropriateness of a
1072-6349 # 2006 Thomas Telford Ltd
of the external stability against the bearing capacity
failure, the effect of foundation yielding on GR-SRWs is
not explicitly addressed in the current design approaches.
There have been a few studies on the effect of
foundation yielding on GR-SRWs (Rowe and Skinner
2001; Skinner 2002; Yoo and Kim 2002; Yoo 2004;
Skinner and Rowe 2005a, 2005b). Yoo and Kim (2002)
in particular demonstrated that foundation yielding can
significantly increase both wall deformation and reinfor-
cement tensile forces. Recently Skinner and Rowe
(2005a) have presented the results of a numerical
investigation into the bearing capacity stability of geo-
synthetic-reinforced retaining walls constructed on yield-
ing foundations. In particular they focused on the effect
of an extended and stiffened bottom reinforcement layer
on the bearing capacity stability. Skinner and Rowe
(2005b) also performed a numerical investigation into
the effect of long-term foundation yielding on a geosyn-
thetic-reinforced retaining wall and bridge abutment, to
examine both the internal and external stability of the
wall. Although the aforementioned studies provide valu-
181

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 182 Yoo and Song

able information on the effect of foundation yielding on

GR-SRWs, they are however focused mainly on a single
wall, and studies of the effect of foundation yielding on
the wall deformation behaviour of multi-tiered (super-
imposed) GR-SRWs are scarce. As a result, the potential
problems that can arise from an unanticipated foundation
yielding and its effect on multi-tiered walls have not
been well understood. Multi-tiered GR-SRWs situated on
yielding foundations need special attention, because the
degree of interaction between the upper and lower tiers
can increase substantially, as several case histories have
been reported. For example, Yoo (2004) reported a case
history in which unanticipated foundation yielding re-
quired a major design modification during construction
of a two-tier GR-SRW. In this regard, there is an urgent
need to investigate the short-term and long-term effects
of foundation yielding on GR-SRWs in a tiered config-
uration.
In this study, a series of plane strain finite element (FE)
analyses using a calibrated FE model were carried out to
investigate the effect of foundation yielding on the per-
formance of two-tiered GR-SRWs. The primary objective
of this study was to examine the short-term effect of
unanticipated foundation yielding on two-tiered GR-SRWs
with various boundary conditions. The results of the FE
analyses were analysed so that the fundamental interaction
mechanism between the upper and lower tiers when
subject to an unanticipated foundation yielding can be
identified. The practical implications of the findings are
discussed in detail.
2. REVIEW OF DESIGN APPROACHES
FOR TIERED WALLS
This section presents current design approaches for a two-
tier wall as adopted in the NCMA (Collin 1997) and
FHWA (Elias and Christopher 1997) design guidelines.
No design approach is explicitly addressed in BS 8006
(British Standards Institution 1995). The fundamental
features of each design approach are discussed below.
2.1. NCMA design approach
The NCMA design approach replaces the upper tier with
an equivalent surcharge with a magnitude determined
according to the offset distance D (Figure 1). External and
internal stability calculations of the lower tier are per-
formed, treating the lower tier as a single wall under the
equivalent surcharge (qeq ). The upper wall is designed as a
single wall, without considering possible interaction be-
tween the upper and lower tiers. As for a single wall, the
local stability calculations for connection failure, local
overturning, and internal sliding should be performed for
both tiers. Details of the design procedure are available in
the NCMA document (Collin 1997).
2.2. FHWA design approach
The FHWA design guideline (Elias and Christopher 1997)
requires determination of the reinforcement length L that
satisfies external stability requirements based on the
following criteria (Figure 2).

qeq 5 f(D)
H2
D

H1 á

H1
á

L1

L1

Figure 1. Equivalent surcharge model (NCMA)

ö
D D < H1 tan ì45° 2 ü ói 5 ãH2
î 2þ
H2
D < H1 tan(90° 2 ö) ói 5 0
ói ö
ö
ãH2 H1 tanì45° 2 ü , D < H1 tan(90° 2 ö)
æi æ1 î 2þ
ój òj 2 ò 1
H1 óf 5 ò 2 ò ãH2
æj ãH2 2 1
óf
ö
where: ò1 5 D tanö, ò2 5 D tanì45° 2 ü
î 2þ
ö
æ2 45° 1
2

Figure 2. Calculation model for vertical stress increase due to upper tier (FHWA)
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 183

• D . H1 tan(90

): No interaction. Each tier is 3. PROBLEMS INVESTIGATED

independently designed.
• D < (H1 + H2 )/20: Design for a single wall with a
height of H ¼ H1 + H2 .
• D . (H1 + H2 )/20: For lower tier, L1 > 0.6H1 ; for
upper tier, L2 > 0.7H2 .
where H1 ¼ lower-tier height, H2 ¼ upper wall height, L1
and L2 ¼ reinforcement length of lower and upper tier,
respectively, and
¼ internal friction angle of backfill.
For internal stability calculations, additional vertical
stresses at depths due to the upper tier are computed based
on the criteria shown in Figure 2. The location of the
potential failure surface required for the pullout capacity
calculation is selected based on the offset distance D
(Elias and Christopher 1997). Note, however, that these
criteria are geometrically derived and empirical in nature.
As for the NCMA approach, no provision is made to take
into account the possible interaction between the upper
and the lower tiers in the event of foundation yielding.
Connection failure should also be checked for both tiers
as part of internal stability checks based on the procedure
for a single wall (Elias and Christopher 1997).
3.1. Description of wall investigated
The geometry and reinforcement distribution of the two-
tiered GR-SRW considered in this study are shown in
Figure 3 for the baseline case. The total exposed wall
height is 10 m (5 m each for the upper and lower tier),
with an offset distance of D ¼ 0.25H, i.e. 2.5 m. The
offset distance as well as the upper and lower reinforce-
ment lengths, UL and LL, respectively, varied in the
analysis, as shown in Table 1. A geogrid with an axial
stiffness of J ¼ 1000 kN/m was assumed for the reinforce-
ment. The reinforcement was installed at vertical spacing
of 0.6–0.8 m so as to satisfy the minimum design require-
ments specified in the NCMA and FHWA design guide-
lines.
3.2. Backfill and foundation
A decomposed granite soil was assumed as select fill for
the reinforced and retained zones. This is the most
abundant type of on-site material available in Korea, and
is typically classified as SP-SM using the USCS classifi-
cation system. Based on Korean design practice and local
experience concerning the shear strength properties of

4.4 m
Concrete masonry facing
blocks 200 mm 3 300 mm 3 300 mm
(height 3 width 3 length) 3.6 m
Length 5 variable
H2 5 5 m

2.8 m
Elevations
2.0 m above exposed
level
D 5 2.5 m
1.2 m

0.6 m
0.4 m

0.0 m

4.6 m

3.8 m Geogrid
J 5 1000 kN/m
Length 5 variable
H1 5 5 m

3.0 m
Elevations
2.4 m above exposed
level
1.8 m

1.2 m

0.6 m
0.4 m

20.2 m

Figure 3. Wall considered

Table 1. Cases analysed

D (times H) LL (times H) UL (times H) Baseline case
0.05, 0.25 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 D ¼ 0.25H
0.5, 1.0 0.8, 1.0, 1.2 0.7, 0.8, 1.0 LL ¼ 0.6H, UL ¼ 0.4H

Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 184
compacted backfill (Yoo 2004), an internal friction angle
of
¼ 328 with no cohesion was assumed for the
reinforced and retained soils.
A foundation condition encountered in an actual GR-
SRW construction site (Yoo 2004) was assumed for the
yielding foundation case, in which a 4.0 m thick alluvial
sand deposit with an average SPT blow count (N) of 15 is
followed by a slightly weathered granite rock stratum.
Based on local experience, and from the average SPT
blow count N, the shear strength parameters for the
foundation soil were estimated as being
¼ 328. The
estimation of the internal friction angle is based on the
SPT blow count N value using the relationship by Peck et
al. (1974):

¼ 27:1 þ 0:3ð N 1 Þ60
0:00054ð N 1 Þ260
where (N1 )60 is the value of N60 (N corrected for field
conditions) corrected to a standard value of  09 ¼ 100 kPa.
4. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
A series of plane strain finite element analyses were
performed on various cases involving different boundary
conditions in terms of the offset distance and reinforce-
ment length. Selected cases with a rigid foundation were
also analysed for comparison.
4.1. Finite element modelling
The commercial finite-element code ABAQUS (Hibbitt,
Karlsson, and Sorensen 2002) was used for analysis.
ABAQUS was used in this study to take advantage of its
robustness in numerical solution strategy for soil non-
linearity. In the finite element modelling, the wall facing,
the backfill soil and the foundation were discretised using
8-node plane-strain elements (CPE8R) with reduced inte-
gration, and the reinforcement was modelled using 3-node
truss elements (T3D2) with no significant compressive or
bending strength.
A finite element mesh (Figure 4), consisting of over
20,000 nodes and 7000 elements, respectively, was adopted
to account fully for the construction procedure and to
minimise the effect of mesh dependence on the results of
the finite element analyses. The lateral and bottom bound-
aries were placed at locations with sufficient distance. For
the right side boundary in particular, no significant effect
on the wall displacement was evident: it was less than 3%
in terms of the maximum lateral wall facing displacement,
when located at a distance beyond 1.5 times the total wall
height from the upper wall facing. The interface behaviour
between the wall facing and the backfill soil was modelled
using a layer of thin interface elements (Desai et al. 1984).
Although ABAQUS provides a surface-based interface
modelling option using ‘contact pair’, the contact pair was
not adopted in modelling the interface in this study,
because significant numerical instabilities were encoun-
tered when activating contact pairs during block and fill
placement. No interface was introduced between the soil
and the reinforcements, assuming no slip between the
backfill and the reinforcements. This is justified because
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Yoo and Song
2.5H
H2 5 5 m
H 5 10.4 m
H1 5 5.4 m
(a)
Wall Interface
facing element Backfill
(1)
Reinforcement
(b)
Figure 4. (a) Finite element model; (b) interface modelling
pullout tests on many soils show that slip occurs in the soil
and not at the interface of the geogrids, unless the confin-
ing stress is extremely small.
The backfill and the foundation soil were assumed to
follow the modified version of the hyperbolic stress–strain
and bulk modulus model proposed by Duncan et al.
(1980), and the wall facing block and the reinforcement
were assumed to behave in a linear elastic manner. In the
hyperbolic model, the stress increments (d) are related to
the strain increments (d) based on the tangential Young’s
modulus Et and/or unloading–reloading modulus Eur , and
the bulk modulus B, which is computed using the Mohr–
Coulomb soil strength parameters c9 and
9 in conjunction
with the hyperbolic model parameters listed in Table 2.
Note that, in choosing the hyperbolic parameters for the
foundation soil, for simplicity the foundation and backfill
soils were assumed to have similar deformation character-
istics. Considering the free-draining characteristic of typi-
cal decomposed granite soils in Korea, a fully drained
condition was assumed. The hyperbolic parameters for the
backfill soil were the ‘best estimate’ parameters based
both on local experience and on the database provided by
Duncan et al. (1980). In addition, the interface behaviour
between the wall facing block and the backfill soil was
modelled by assigning a relatively low shear modulus with
a high bulk modulus to permit relative movement between
the two media. The constitutive laws for the soil and the
interface were implemented in ABAQUS with the help of
the built-in ‘User Subroutine’ capability (Hibbitt,
Karlsson, and Sorensen 2002).
In modelling the modular block wall facing, no inter-
face was introduced between the blocks. Considering the
discrete nature of the modular block, however, a reduced
Young’s modulus of E ¼ 1.0 GPa was used. A preliminary
analysis using the FE model of the RMC wall (Hatami
 Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 185

Table 2. Hyperbolic parameters for backfill and foundation soils

Hyperbolic parameter Backfill Foundation
Yielding Rigid
Cohesion, c (kPa) 0 0 100
Internal friction angle,
(degrees) 32 32 40
Stiffness modulus number for primary loading, K 300 300 1000
Stiffness modulus number for unloading–reloading, Kur 350 350 1500
Bulk modulus number, Kb 175 175 800
Stiffness modulus exponent, n 0.5 0.5 0.7
Bulk modulus exponent, m 0.2 0.2 0.2
Failure ratio, Rf 0.8 0.8 0.9
Note: For all materials, unit weight ª ¼ 18 kN/m3 and Poisson’s ratio  ¼ 0.3.

and Bathurst 2006) conducted by the authors indicated
that the introduction of interface elements between the
blocks has an insignificant effect on the wall performance
for the reported block interface properties (Hatami and
Bathurst 2006). In terms of modelling the construction
sequence, the initial geostatic stress condition in the
foundation was first created based on the unit weight and
effective coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest (K0 ¼
0.45) for the foundation soil. The detailed construction
sequence was then carefully simulated by adding soil
layers, 0.2 m thick each, blocks, and the reinforcement at
designated steps. Note that the addition of respective
elements for soil layers and blocks automatically turns on
their self-weights. The non-linear analysis of wall con-
struction was performed in sufficiently small increments
to ensure numerical stability of the solution.
4.2. Verification
The finite element modelling approach adopted in this
study was validated against the measured results of the
Royal Military College (RMC) test wall 3.6 m high
(Hatami and Bathurst 2006). The RMC wall is a modular
block wall with a target facing batter of 88 from the
vertical and seated on a rigid foundation (Figure 5). The
wall facing was constructed using solid masonry concrete
blocks 300 mm wide by 150 mm high by 200 mm long. A
clean, uniform size, rounded beach sand (SP) with D50 ¼
0.34 mm, coefficient of curvature Cc ¼ 3.35 and coeffi-
cient of uniformity Cu ¼ 1.09 was used as backfill. Upon
completion of the wall construction, a uniform surcharge
load was applied using a system of airbags placed across
the entire soil surface. Among the different test results
reported by Hatami and Bathurst (2006), the results of the
control wall, reinforced with six layers of a weak biaxial
polypropylene (PP) geogrid reinforcement having an initial
tangential stiffness J0 ¼ 115 kN/m, were used in this
study. In this wall, the 2.52 m long reinforcement layers
were placed at a vertical spacing of 0.6 m. Details of the
RMC test wall and instrumentation are reported by Hatami
and Bathurst (2006).
The RMC wall was analysed in this study based on the
modelling approach given in the previous section using
the hyperbolic model implemented in ABAQUS in this
study. The same modelling procedure as reported by
Hatami and Bathurst (2006) was adopted, including
modelling of the compaction effect by applying a uniform

Modular
0.3 m
blocks
Backfill
3.6
Retained soil
3.3 6
ù 5 8°
Reinforcement layer
5
Wall height above base (m)

2.7

2.1 4
Reinforced soil 3.6 m
1.5 3
0.6 m
0.9 2

0.3 1

0
Concrete foundation

2.52 m
5.95 m

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of RMC wall (from Hatami and Bathurst 2005)
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 186 Yoo and Song
4.0
vertical pressure equal to 8 kPa to the entire surface of
each new soil layer. Thin layers of interface elements were
placed between the facing blocks, as in Hatami and 3.5 q 5 40 q 5 60 q 5 70 kPa
Bathurst (2006), although no significant effect of the
interface modelling of the block interaction was apparent.
The same hyperbolic parameters for the backfill soil and 3.0

interface properties were used as given in Hatami and

Bathurst (2006) except for the reinforcement. Note that 2.5
the reinforcement was modelled as elastic-plastic material

Elevation (m)
with strain-dependent tangent tensile stiffness in their
study, whereas a linear elastic behaviour with a constant 2.0
tensile stiffness of J ¼ 100 kN/M was assumed in this
study. No significant effect on the results was evident, as
1.5
the axial tensile stiffness varies only in the range J 
115–90 kN/m over the range of strains in the reinforce-
Predicted
ment measured during the test. 1.0
Figures 6a and 6b compare the predicted results from Measured*
this study with the measured data for the wall displace- (Hatami & Bathurst, 2006)
ment and the reinforcement strains, respectively, at se- 0.5

lected load levels. Excellent agreement between the two *Average value
sets of data is seen in Figure 6a in terms of the wall 0
displacements. Although there seem to be some discrepan- 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
cies between the predicted and the measured reinforce- (a)
ment strain distributions in Figure 6b, especially in the
Measured Predicted
region immediately behind the wall facing, the predicted 1.0
results generally tend to capture the range of measured Layer 6
0.5
strains well. 0
As illustrated, the predicted wall performance was in 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
reasonable agreement with the measured performance, 1.5
1.0 Layer 5
which suggests that the numerical modelling approach 0.5
adopted in this study can simulate the geosynthetic- 0
reinforced modular block wall behaviour. 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5
Reinforcement strain (%)

1.0 Layer 4
0.5
0
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.0
5.1. General observations Layer 3
0.5
The results of the FE analyses for the baseline case (D ¼
0
0.25H) are compared with those for the otherwise rigid 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
foundation case. Figures 7–12 illustrate the wall perform- 1.0
Layer 2
ance in terms of lateral wall deformation, maximum 0.5
reinforcement forces, and distribution of shear stress ratio. 0
As can be seen in Figure 7, the effect of foundation 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.0
yielding is to increase the lateral wall deformation in both Layer 1
0.5
tiers. In fact, the foundation yielding tends to cause an
0
approximately 80% increase in the lateral wall deforma-
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
tion of the lower tier, mostly through translational-type Distance from front of wall (m)
movement. Such a trend is no doubt a direct consequence (b)
of the considerable horizontal displacement in addition to
the vertical settlement at the foundation level due primar- Figure 6. Comparison between predicted and measured
ily to the absence of the toe resistance, as shown in the RMC test results: (a) wall displacement; (b) reinforcement
strain
contour plots in Figure 8. At the completion of wall
construction, the maximum horizontal displacement at the
foundation level is approximately 80% larger than that for forced soil block. Note that the lateral deformation within
the vertical settlement, i.e. 73 mm as against 44 mm, the reinforced soil block, h,int , is obtained by simply
causing the wall to rotate about its toe. subtracting h,ext from h,face (Ho 1993), and therefore
The effect of foundation yielding on the wall deforma- represents, to a large extent, average lateral deformation
tion is better illustrated in Figure 9 in terms of the sources within the reinforced soil block. As seen in Figure 9a for
of lateral deformation at the wall face (h,face ), i.e. lateral the lower tier, the foundation yielding tends to increase
deformation within (h,int ) and behind (h,ext ) the rein- the lateral deformation at the wall face through increases
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls
5
4
Wall height, H (m)
3 D 5 0.25H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 Lower Upper
tier tier
Yielding
1 attributed to the greater share of the total force required
Rigid
0 of the absence of the toe resistance. The factors of safety
0 100 200 300
Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
Figure 7. Comparison of wall deformations between yielding
and non-yielding (rigid) cases
in the lateral deformation both within and behind the
reinforced soil block, thus implying that both the external
and the internal stability of the lower tier are affected by
the foundation yielding. This trend was in fact also
observed by Skinner & Rowe (2005a), in which the
increased foundation yielding due to consolidation re-
sulted in a significant increase in lateral wall deformation
by more than a factor of 4. For the upper tier, shown in
Figure 9b, however, it appears that the increase in lateral
deformation at the wall face is associated mainly with an
increase in the lateral deformation behind the reinforced
soil block, thus suggesting that the internal stability of the
upper tier is not significantly affected by the foundation
yielding.
The trend observed in the deformation behaviour is well
reflected in the FE-generated reinforcement tensile force
distributions shown in Figures 10 and 11. As shown in
Figure 10, increases in the reinforcement forces are
evident for all layers, with the increase being more
pronounced—as great as 15 kN/m—towards the bottom
Lower tier level pad
Figure 8. Contour plots of (a) horizontal and (b) vertical displacements of foundation (displacement values are in metres)
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
187
layers. Further inspection of Figure 11, which shows the
maximum reinforcement force distribution, reveals that
the pattern of increase is more or less uniform up to the
bottom half layers, after which the increase then gradually
decreases further up. Considering that the total force
required for internal equilibrium is the sum of the
horizontal toe reaction and the reinforcement forces (Ho
1993), the increased reinforcement forces may in part be
for internal equilibrium by the reinforcement on account
400 against internal stability failure in terms of tensile overs-
tress and pullout for the lower tier are thus expected to
decrease significantly when subject to unanticipated foun-
dation yielding. No significant increases are seen in the
upper tier, suggesting that the internal stability of the
upper tier is not significantly influenced by the foundation
yielding. This trend supports the trend observed in the
lateral wall deformation.
The FHWA design guideline requires a global stability
analysis to be performed in lieu of a conventional external
sliding stability computation as part of the external
stability calculations for the lower tier. Figure 12 presents
the distributions of the shear stress ratio, with the zones
having a ratio greater than 90% being indicated, for the
yielding and rigid foundation cases. (The shear stress ratio
is defined as the ratio of mobilised shear stress to shear
strength.) Apart from a larger extent of the shear failure
zone for the yielding foundation than for the rigid
foundation case, clearly observed in the yielding founda-
tion case is, in addition to the bearing capacity failure in
the foundation, a global shear type failure surface that
passes behind the reinforced soil block of the upper and
lower tiers. Such a trend suggests that the potential for a
global shear failure is likely to increase in the event of
foundation yielding, and highlights the importance of
carrying out a global slope stability analysis for multi-
U, U1
0
29.1 3 1023
21.8 3 1022
22.7 3 1022
23.6 3 1022
24.6 3 1022
25.5 3 1022
26.4 3 1022
27.3 3 1022
(a)
U, U2
12.0 3 1022
11.2 3 1022
13.9 3 1023
24.1 3 1023
21.2 3 1022
22.0 3 1022
22.8 3 1022
23.6 3 1022
24.4 3 1022
(b)
 188 Yoo and Song
5 5

4 4

Wall height, H (m)

Wall height, H (m)

3 D 5 0.25H 3 D 5 0.25H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 Wall Behind reinf. 2 Within reinf.
face soil block soil block
1 Yielding 1 Yielding
Rigid Rigid
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(a)

5 5

4 4

Wall height, H (m)

Wall height, H (m)

3 D 5 0.25H 3 D 5 0.25H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 Wall Behind reinf. 2 Within reinf.
face soil block soil block
1 Yielding 1 Yielding
Rigid Rigid
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(b)

Figure 9. Comparison of lateral deformation between yielding and rigid foundation cases: (a) lower tier; (b) upper tier

tiered GR-SRWs constructed on an incompetent founda-
tion.
In short, the results presented above strongly suggest
that an unanticipated foundation yielding can increase the
degree of interaction between the upper and lower tiers,
thus resulting in increased lateral wall deformation as well
as reinforcement tensile forces, especially in the lower tier.
Although it has been shown that the current design
methodology can be conservative for normal working
conditions of GR-SRWs (Allen and Bathurst 2002), this
may not be true for tiered GR-SRWs constructed on a
yielding foundation, as the foundation yielding signifi-
cantly affects both the internal and external stability,
especially for the lower tier.
5.2. Effect of foundation yielding on walls with
different offset distances
The effect of foundation yielding on walls with different
offset distances was examined by analysing the cases with
D ¼ 0.05H, 0.25H, 0.5H and 1.0H. According to the
FHWA design approach, the case with D ¼ 0.05H is
designed as a single wall with a height H ¼ H1 + H2 . For
cases with the intermediate offset distances D ¼ 0.25H
and 0.5H, the effect of the upper tier on the lower tier is
taken into consideration in the form of an equivalent
surcharge, the magnitude of which is determined based on
the offset distance D. A simple design rule is that the
smaller D is, the greater is the effect of the upper tier on
the external and internal stability calculations for the
lower tier, i.e. smaller factors of safety. For the case of D
¼ 1.0H, on the other hand, the offset distance is greater
than H2 tan(90

r ), where H2 is the lower-tier height and
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

r is the internal friction angle of backfill soil, and each
tier is designed as a single wall assuming no interaction.
Although the minimum required reinforcement lengths
vary according to the above design categories, the same
reinforcement lengths, i.e. UL ¼ 0.7H1 (H1 ¼ upper-tier
height) and LL ¼ 0.6H were adopted for all cases to allow
for direct comparison between them.
Figures 13 and 14 present the lateral wall deformation
profiles for the upper and lower tiers for D ¼ 0.05H and
0.5H. Those for D ¼ 0.25H have already been given in
Figure 9. For the lower tier shown in Figure 13, it can be
seen that the effect of foundation yielding is to increase
the lateral deformation both within and behind the
reinforced soil block for all levels of D, with the increase
being more pronounced for cases with smaller offset
distance D, thus suggesting that the foundation yielding
affects both the internal and external stability for all levels
of D analysed.
The lateral deformation at the wall face for the upper
tier illustrated in Figure 14 also seems to increase in the
event of foundation yielding for all levels of D. However,
the increase appears to be associated primarily with the
increases in lateral deformation behind the reinforced soil
block, suggesting that the upper-tier lateral deformation
increases mainly through a rigid body translational-type
movement of the reinforced soil block when subject to
foundation yielding. Therefore, in view of the upper-tier
stability, the foundation yielding is relevant only for the
external stability for all levels of D considered.
The lateral deformations at the wall face, as a percent-
age of the total wall height (H), are shown in Figure 15
for the rigid and yielding foundation cases. One important

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 189

30
Layer 8
25
0
30
Layer 7
25
0
30 Layer 6
25
Reinforcement force (kN/m)

0
30 Layer 5
25
0
30 Layer 4
25
0
30
Layer 3 (a)
25
0
30 Layer 2 SSR
25
0 0.9–0.95
30 Layer 1
25 0.95–1.0
0

0 2 4 6
Distance from wall facing (m)
(a)

Yielding foundation
Rigid foundation (b)
30
25
Figure 12. Comparison of shear stress ratio (SSR) distri-
0
30 bution between (a) rigid and (b) yielding foundation cases
25
0
30
Reinforcement force (kN/m)

25 trend shown in this figure is that (h,face )max /H increases

0 more rapidly with decreasing D for the yielding founda-
30
25 tion case than for the rigid foundation case. This trend
0
30 suggests that the degree of interaction between the upper
25 and lower tiers for a given D can increase when subject to
0
30 foundation yielding. It can also be seen in Figure 15 that
25 (h,face )max /H for the upper tier also varies with D regard-
0
30 less of the foundation condition. Such a trend has a
25
0
significant implication in terms of design practice, be-
cause current design approaches treat the upper tier as a
single wall with no consideration of possible interaction
0 1 2 3 4
Distance from wall facing (m) with the lower tier. This issue is discussed further later in
(b) this paper.
The trends shown in the lateral deformation are well
Figure 10. Comparison of strain in reinforcement layers for reflected in the distributions of maximum reinforcement
rigid and yielding foundations: (a) lower tier; (b) upper tier
force Tmax presented in Figure 16 for different values of D.
Also shown for comparison are those calculated based on
the FHWA design approach. In Figure 16, three important
5 trends are observed. First, the maximum reinforcement
force distribution tends to become far more uniform with
4
depth for all levels of D when subject to foundation
yielding. Second, for intermediate offset distances, i.e. D
Wall height, H (m)

3
D 5 0.25H
¼ 0.25H and 0.5H, the values of Tmax obtained from the
2 LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H FE analyses slightly exceed those based on the FHWA
Lower Upper design approach for yielding foundation cases, especially
tier tier in the upper one-third layers, suggesting that the FHWA
1
Yielding design approach may not be on the safe side in the
0 Rigid reinforcement force calculation in the event of foundation
yielding. Third, foundation yielding has essentially no
0 20 40 60 80 effect on the upper-tier reinforcement force for all levels
Reinforcement force (kN/m) of D, as no variation is seen between the yielding and rigid
foundation cases.
Figure 11. Reinforcement tensile forces The effect of foundation yielding on the internal
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 190 Yoo and Song
5 5

4 4

Wall height, H (m)

Wall height, H (m)

3 3
D 5 0.05H D 5 0.05H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 Wall Behind reinf. 2
Within reinf.
face soil block soil block
1 Yielding 1 Yielding
Rigid Rigid
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(a)

5 5

4 4
Wall height, H (m)

Wall height, H (m)

3 3
D 5 0.5H D 5 0.5H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 Wall Behind reinf. 2
Within reinf.
face soil block soil block
1 Yielding 1 Yielding
Rigid Rigid
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(b)

Figure 13. Effect of foundation yielding for cases with various offset distances (lower tier): (a) D ¼ 0.05H; (b) D ¼ 0.5H

5 5
Wall Behind reinf.
face soil block
4 Yielding 4
Wall height, H (m)

Wall height, H (m)

Rigid
3 3
D 5 0.05H D 5 0.05H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 2
Within reinf.
soil block
1 1 Yielding
Rigid
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(a)

5 5

4 4
Wall height, H (m)

Wall height, H (m)

3 3
D 5 0.5H D 5 0.5H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 2
Wall Behind reinf. Within reinf.
face soil block soil block
1 Yielding 1 Yielding
Rigid Rigid
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(b)

Figure 14. Effect of foundation yielding for cases with various offset distances (upper tier): (a) D ¼ 0.05H; (b) D ¼ 0.5H

stability of the lower tier is re-examined by using the total respect to the unit weight of the backfill, ª, and the
reinforcement force F in Figure 17. Note that the total squared lower-tier height H 22 , is used. As seen, for all
reinforcement force F is the sum of the reinforcement cases of D, the magnitude of F=ª H 22 for a yielding
forces in the lower tier. In Figure 17, normalised F with foundation case is approximately twice that for a rigid
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 191
3.0 0.8
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2.5 Lower Upper

Norm. active force, F/ãH 22

Yielding Rigid 0.6 tier tier
Lower Yielding
2.0
äh,max/H(%)

Upper Rigid
0.4 FHWA
1.5

1.0
0.2

0.5

0
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Offset distance, D/H
Offset distance, D/H

Figure 17. Variation of apparent active force with D

Figure 15. Variation of äh,max /H with D/H

5
in the internal stability calculation model adopted in the
4 FHWA design approach, as this approach yields consider-
ably larger F=ª H 22 than those from the FE analyses for all
Wall height, H (m)

3
levels of D, regardless of the foundation condition. Further
D 5 0.05H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
study is warranted to refine the internal stability calcula-
2
tion model adopted in the currently available limit equili-
Lower Upper
tier tier brium based design approaches for multi-tiered SRWs.
Yielding
1
Rigid 5.3. Effect of reinforcement distribution
FHWA For a given multi-tiered GR-SRW geometry, the reinforce-
0
ment distribution in terms of length in each tier is
0 20 40 60 80 expected to have a significant influence on the wall
Reinforcement force (kN/m)
(a)
performance, as would be the case for a single wall (Ho
1993). The effect of reinforcement distribution is therefore
5 examined for walls on a yielding foundation with two
levels of offset distances, D ¼ 0.25H and 0.5H. In this
4 study, each tier was assumed to adopt a uniform reinforce-
ment length for simplicity. The variation of wall perform-
Wall height, H (m)

3 ance with different combinations of reinforcement lengths

D 5 0.5H
LL 5 0.6H, UL 5 0.4H
2 Lower Upper
tier tier
1
Yielding
Rigid
0 FHWA
0 20 40 60
Reinforcement force (kN/m)
(b)
Figure 16. Reinforcement force distributions for yielding and
rigid foundation cases: (a) D ¼ 0.05H; (b) D ¼ 0.5H
foundation case. Moreover, it is seen that the rate of
increase of F=ª H 22 with decreasing D/H is larger for the
yielding foundation case than for the rigid foundation
case, thus supporting the trend observed in the lateral wall
deformation. The normalised force F=ª H 22 for the upper
tier, however, remains practically the same for all cases
analysed, also supporting the trend in which foundation
yielding is irrelevant for the internal stability of the upper
tier. Also shown in this figure is the inherent conservatism
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5
in both tiers was then examined.
The variation of maximum lateral deformation at the wall
face, (h,face )max , of the lower tier with LL and UL for
various values of D is shown in Figures 18 and 19,
respectively. As expected, increasing the reinforcement
length causes a decrease in (h,face )max regardless of the
offset distance. An important trend is that a critical LL exists
80 for the offset distances considered, beyond which no
beneficial effect in terms of reducing (h,face )max can be
achieved. In fact the critical reinforcement length LLcrt can
be viewed as the minimum critical length required to
minimise the lateral deformation at the wall face for a given
wall geometry, and it tends to increase somewhat with
decreasing D within the range LL ¼ 0.6–0.7H. The critical
reinforcement length LLcrt is in fact in accordance with the
guideline suggested by the FHWA (Elias and Christopher
1997). A similar trend can also be observed in Figure 19, in
which UL is varied for a fixed LL. Although not evident, it
seems that the critical value of UL is in the neighbourhood
of UL ¼ 0.6H regardless of the offset distance.
The results presented in the above figures demonstrate
that that the upper reinforcement length UL is as impor-
tant as LL in limiting the lower-tier lateral deformation,
especially when LL , 0.7H. This is well illustrated in the

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 192 Yoo and Song
350 300
D 0.05H 0.1H D 0.05H 0.1H
UL LL
0.4H 0.6H
300 0.6H 0.7H
250
(äh,face)max (mm)

(äh,face)max (mm)
1.0H 1.0H

250

200
200

150 150
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
LL/H UL/H
(a) (a)

300 250
D 0.25H 0.5H D 0.25H 0.5H
UL LL
0.4H 0.6H
250 0.6H 0.7H
200

(äh,face)max (mm)
(äh,face)max (mm)

1.0H 1.0H

200

150
150

100 100
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
LL/H UL/H
(b) (b)

Figure 18. Variation of (h,face )max with LL (lower tier): Figure 19. Variation of (h,face )max with UL (lower tier):
(a) D ¼ 0.05H, 0.1H; (b) D ¼ 0.25H, 0.5H (a) D ¼ 0.05H, 0.1H; (b) D ¼ 0.25H, 0.5H

5 5

4 4
Wall height, H (m)

Wall height, H (m)

3 D 5 0.05H, UL 5 0.4H 3 D 5 0.05H, UL 5 0.4H

Wall Behind reinf. Within reinf.
2 LL face soil block 2 LL soil block
0.5H 0.5H
0.7H 0.7H
1 1.0H 1 1.0H
1.2H 1.2H
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(a)

5 5

4 4
Wall height, H (m)
Wall height, H (m)

3 D 5 0.25H, UL 5 0.4H 3 D 5 0.25H, UL 5 0.4H

Wall Behind reinf. Within reinf.
2 LL face soil block 2 LL soil block
0.5H 0.5H
0.7H 0.7H
1 1.0H 1 1.0H
1.2H 1.2H
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(b)

Figure 20. Effect of LL on lower-tier lateral deformation: (a) D ¼ 0.05H; (b) D ¼ 0.25H
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Effect of foundation yielding on performance of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls 193
5 5

4 4

Wall height, H (m)

Wall height, H (m)

3 D 5 0.05H, LL 5 0.6H 3 D 5 0.05H, LL 5 0.6H
Wall Behind reinf. Within reinf.
2 UL face soil block 2 UL soil block
0.4H 0.4H
0.6H 0.6H
1 0.8H 1 0.8H
1.0H 1.0H
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)
(a)

5 5

4 4
Wall height, H (m)

Wall height, H (m)

3 D 5 0.25H, LL 5 0.6H 3 D 5 0.25H, LL 5 0.6H
Wall Behind reinf. Within reinf.
2 UL face soil block 2 UL soil block
0.4H 0.4H
0.6H 0.6H
1 0.8H 1 0.8H
1.0H 1.0H
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Lateral deformation, äh (mm) Lateral deformation, äh (mm)

Figure 21. Effect of UL on lower-tier lateral deformation: (a) D ¼ 0.05H; (b) D ¼ 0.25H

lateral deformation profiles for the lower tier in Figures for the upper tier, thus implying that it may not be
20 and 21. It can be seen in these figures that the lateral relevant for the internal stability of the upper tier.
deformation at the wall face of the lower tier tends to • The potential for a global shear failure is likely to
decrease not only with increasing LL but also with increase in the event of foundation yielding, and
increasing UL. For example, an increase in UL for a fixed such a trend highlights the importance of carrying
LL results in a 100 mm decrease in the lateral deformation out a global slope stability analysis for multi-tiered
at the wall face of the lower tier through decreases in the GR-SRWs constructed on incompetent foundation
lateral deformation both within and behind the reinforced conditions.
soil block, as shown for D ¼ 0.05H in Figure 21a. • The rate of increase in lateral wall deformation with
Although the FHWA design approach specifies 70% of decreasing offset distance increases more rapidly for
upper-tier height as the minimum required reinforcement the yielding foundation than for the rigid foundation,
length, a longer UL would be beneficial in reducing the which implies that the degree of interaction between
lateral wall deformation for cases in which the wall the upper and lower tiers for a given D is higher
deformation is to be minimised. when the wall is subject to foundation yielding. A
similar trend is observed in the variation of the
reinforcement forces with the offset distance.
6. CONCLUSIONS • The upper reinforcement length UL is as important
The effects of foundation yielding on two-tiered geosyn- as LL in limiting the lower-tier lateral deformation,
thetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls were investi- especially when LL , 0.7H. Although the FHWA
gated using a calibrated plane strain finite element (FE) design approach specifies 70% of upper-tier height
model. The results of the FE modelling were analysed in as the minimum required reinforcement length, a
order to identify the fundamental interaction mechanism longer UL would be beneficial in reducing the lateral
between the upper and lower tiers when subject to wall deformation.
unanticipated foundation yielding. Based on the findings • For a given wall geometry there exists a critical
from this study, the following conclusions can be drawn. combination of UL and LL that yields a minimum
lateral wall deformation. For the wall geometry
• Foundation yielding results in increases in the lateral considered in this study, the critical values of LL and
deformation of the lower tier, both within and behind UL appear to be in the neighbourhood of 0.6–0.7H.
the reinforced soil block for all levels of D, leading • The assumption of rigid foundations in designing a
to the conclusion that both the external and the tiered GR-SRW may yield design calculations on the
internal stability of the lower tier are affected. unsafe side when the wall is subject to unanticipated
However, the foundation yielding increases only the foundation yielding. Correct evaluation of the
lateral deformation behind the reinforced soil block foundation condition during design stage is therefore
Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 194 Yoo and Song

by far the most important step to ensure the short- REFERENCES

and long-term stability of tiered GR-SRWs.
Allen, T. M & Bathurst, R. J. (2002). Soil reinforcement loads in
geosynthetic reinforced walls at working stress conditions.
Geosynthetics International, 9, Nos. 5–6, 525–566.
British Standards Institution (1995). Code of Practice for Strengthened/
Reinforced Soils and other Fills. BSI, London, BS 8006.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Collin, J. (1997). Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls’, 2nd
This work was supported by Grant No. R01-2004-000- edn. National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), Herndon,
Virginia, USA.
10953-0 from the Basic Research Programme of the Korea
Desai, C. S., Zaman, M. M., Lightner, J. G. & Siriwardane, H. J. (1984).
Science and Engineering Foundation and by Korea Minis- Thin-layer elements interfaces and joints. International Journal for
try of Construction and Transportation under Grant No. Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 8, No. 1,
C105A1000017-05A0300-01700. The financial support is 19–43.
gratefully acknowledged. Duncan, J. M., Bryne, P., Wong, K. S. & Marbry, P. (1980). Strength,
Stress–Strain and Bulk Modulus Parameters for Finite Element
Analyses of Stresses and Movements in Soil Masses, Geotechnical
Engineering Research Report No. UCB/GT/80-01, University of
California, Berkeley.
NOTATIONS Elias, V. & Christopher, B. R. (1997). Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design and Construction
Basic SI units are given in parentheses. Guidelines, FHWA Demonstration Project 82, FHWA, Washington,
DC, FHWA-SA-96-071.
c cohesion of backfill (N/m2 ) Hatami, K. & Bathurst, R. J. (2005). Development and verification of a
numerical model for the analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
D offset distance of upper and lower tiers (m) segmental walls under surcharge loading. Canadian Geotechnical
F total reinforcement force (N/m) Journal, 42, No. 4, 1066–1085.
H height of wall (m) Hatami, K. & Bathurst, R. J. (2006). Numerical model for reinforced soil
H1 height of lower tier (m) segmental walls under surcharge loading. Journal of Geotechnical
H2 height of upper tier (m) and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132, No. 6, 673–684.
Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc. (2002). ABAQUS Users Manual,
J reinforcement axial stiffness (N/m) Version 6.3, Providence, RI.
K stiffness modulus number for primary Ho S. K. (1993). A Numerical Investigation into the Behaviour of
loading (dimensionless) Reinforced Soil Walls. PhD thesis, University of Western Ontario,
Kb bulk modulus number (dimensionless) London, Canada, 408 pp.
Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E. & Thornburn, T. H. (1974) Foundation
Kur stiffness modulus number for unloading–
Engineering, 2nd edn, Wiley, New York.
reloading (dimensionless) Rowe, R. K. & Skinner, G. D. (2001). Numerical analysis of geosynthetic
n stiffness modulus exponent (dimensionless) reinforced retaining wall constructed on a layered soil foundation.
m bulk modulus exponent (dimensionless) Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19, No. 7, 387–412.
LL reinforcement length of lower tier (m) Skinner, G. D. (2002). Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Walls Constructed on
LLcrt critical reinforcement length for lower tier (m) Yielding Foundation. PhD thesis, Faculty of Applied Science,
Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 356 pp.
Rf failure ratio (dimensionless) Skinner, G. D. & Rowe, R. K. (2005a). A novel approach to estimating
Tmax maximum reinforcement force (N/m) the bearing capacity stability of geosynthetic reinforced retaining
UL reinforcement length of upper tier (m) walls constructed on yielding foundations. Canadian Geotechnical
ULcrt critical reinforcement length for upper tier (m) Journal, 42, No. 3, 763–779.
ª unit weight of backfill (N/m3 ) Skinner, G. D. & Rowe, R. K. (2005b). Design and behaviour of a
geosynthetic reinforced retaining wall and bridge abutment on a
h wall deformation (m) yielding foundation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23, No. 3,
h,face wall deformation at facing (m) 234–260.
h,ext wall deformation behind reinforced soil Yoo, C. S. (2004). Design of a geosynthetic reinforced segmental
block (m) retaining wall in a tiered arrangement: use of numerical modelling
h,int wall deformation within reinforced soil as a design aid. Proceedings of the 3rd Asian Regional Conference
on Geosynthetics, Seoul, Korea, pp. 173–182.
block (m) Yoo, C. S. & Kim, J. S. (2002). Effect of foundation stiffness on
(h,face )max maximum lateral wall displacement (m) behaviour of soil-reinforced segmental retaining walls. Journal of

internal friction angle of backfill (degrees) Korean Geotechnical Society, 18, No. 8, 7–19.

The Editors welcome discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 April 2007.

Geosynthetics International, 2006, 13, No. 5

Downloaded by [ UC San Diego Libraries] on [16/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.