Experiments related to Retaining Walls (Literature Review)

The main objective of this literature study is to know about the important steps involved in the
experimental work related to retaining wall.
A. Fang et al. 1994 presents experimental data of earth pressure acting against a vertical rigid wall,
which moved into a mass of dry sand with a stress-free horizontal surface under various wall-
movement modes. Based on experimental data it is found that, for a wall under translational
movement, the passive pressure distribution is linear and in good agreement with Terzaghi's
prediction based on the general wedge theory. For a wall under either RTT or RBT mode, the
magnitude of passive thrust and its point of application are significantly affected by the mode of
wall displacement.
Experimental Setup:
The model wall is a 1,000-mm-wide, 550-mm-high, and 120-mmthick solid plate, and is made of
steel. Note that the effective wall height H (or height of backfill above wall base) is only 500mm.
Backfill Material:
Air-dry Ottawa sand (ASTM C-109) was used throughout this investigation. Physical properties
of the soil include Gs = 2.65; ema x = 0.76; emin= 0.50; D60 = 0.36 mm; and D10 = 0.23 mm.
Compaction Method:
For this study, the backfill was deposited by air pluviation from the slit of a hopper into the soil
bin. The drop distance was kept to be approximately 600 mm to the soil surface through the
placement process. Since the pluviation work was conducted manually, a certain degree of
heterogeneity in the backfill was inevitable. To investigate the possible scattering of density in the
pluviated soil mass, several density-control boxes with inside dimensions of 150 mm • 150 mmx
150 mm were used to measure the local densities at different locations and depths. Experimental
results indicate that about ±0.5% of scattering in soil density was possible. The soil unit weight
achieved with the pluviation method was 15.5 kN/m 3. The corresponding internal friction angle
ф determined from direct shear tests with normal stresses less than 40 kPa was found to be 30.9.
To limit the scope of this study, only one density was used throughout all experiments.

B. M.M. Dewoolkar et al. 1995 studied seismic loads on a tall, cantilever retaining wall using
centrifuge modeling. An aluminum wall (55’ prototype) retaining dry, cohesionless backfill was
subjected to two successive dynamic events. Pressure transducers were used to directly measure
lateral earth pressures on the wall. The magnitudes of the lateral earth pressures were compared
with values calculated using the Mononobe-Okabe method. Preliminary results indicate that
calculated pressures are higher than the measured pressures.
Experimental Setup:
The actual inside dimensions of the test container were 30” long, 12” wide, and 15.8” deep. A one
foot tall, aluminum model wall was used. The model wall width was 11. 875". This allowed a
clearance of 0.063” between the wall and the sides of the container. At a centrifugal acceleration
of 55 times that of earth's gravity, the model wall represented a 55 ft tall, reinforced concrete
retaining wall. The model wall satisfied the scaling relation for flexural stiffness. The wall was
free to rotate but was restrained against forward sliding.
Backfill Material and Compaction method :
The wall retained dry, Nevada No. 100 Sand with an approximate unit weight of 98 pcf. This
corresponds to 60% relative density. The backfill surface was horizontal and even with the top of
the wall. The sand was placed behind the wall using dry pluviation and was contained in a latex
 membrane. Silicone grease was applied on the side walls of the container to minimize
frictional effects and better simulate plane strain conditions.

C. Abouzar Sadrekarimi 2007 performed series of reduced-scale shaking table model experiments on
broken-back quay walls composed of concrete blocks with two different rear-face shapes. In
comparison with a vertical-back wall, earth pressures increased at the upper forward (i.e., seaward)
leaning rear-face segments of the wall, whereas they decreased at lower backward (i.e., landward)
leaning elevations. Because of the wide application of the pseudo-static method of Mononobe–
Okabe in engineering practice and design codes, lateral earth pressures have also been estimated
using this approach. The comparison between the measured lateral earth pressures and those
calculated using the Mononobe–Okabe method shows fairly good agreement in predicting the
overall distribution of lateral active earth pressure during and after the shaking.
Experimental Setup:
The Plexiglas model container was 180 cm long, 45 cm wide, and 70 cm high and was equipped
with carbon dioxide and water inlets and outlets. The models were intended to simulate a plane
strain condition, thus the main concern was to avoid side effects of the test container. This was
accomplished by polishing and lubricating the Plexiglas sides of the container before each test.
Backfill Material:
A silica sand with the specific gravity of particles, Gs = 2.658; maximum void ratio, emax = 0.943;
minimum void ratio, emin = 0.603; and mean grain diameter D50 = 0.3 mm was used as the subsoil
beneath the model walls. To avoid backfill liquefaction, each wall was backfilled with crushed
limestone having Gs = 2.630, emax = 0.960, emin = 0.670, D50 = 12 mm, and hydraulic
conductivity, k = 0.5 m/s. The average particle-size distributions of these materials are also plotted.
A medium-to-coarse (D50 = 3 mm) crushed stone foundation with a thickness of about 2 cm was
deposited on the subsoil sand before placing the wall to distribute the weight of the wall uniformly
on the sand. A 4 cm thick quarry stone layer with a maximum particle size of 40 mm was also
placed in front of the wall’s toe.
Compaction Method:
To achieve a wide range of subsoil sand relative densities while maintaining uniformity, the
undercompaction moist tamping method was adopted to prepare the subsoil. Ladd (1978)
showed that undercompaction would create more uniform moist-tamped specimens. In this
method, the difference in density between successive layers is defined as the ‘‘percent
undercompaction.’’ Based on this value, the lower layers were initially compacted more loosely
than the final target density so that the final density of each layer, even with the effects of
compaction of the successive overlying layers, would be equal to the target density. The model
subsoil was constructed in four layers of equal height. For each layer, according to its
undercompacted density, a predetermined weight of moist sand (5% moisture content) was
uniformly poured into the model container and a tamping foot and guide rail (resting on the sides
of the model container)] were used to compact an d level each lift, working from the boundaries
of the model towards the middle. A reference collar attached to the tamping rod was adjusted prior
to the compaction of each layer to ensure that the tamping disc could not be advanced beyond the
desired elevation during compaction of that layer. Initially, a light tamping force was used to
distribute and seat the material uniformly in the mold. The force was then increased gradually until
the collar uniformly hit the top of the tamping rod guide rail. The surface of each lift was scarified
before placement of the subsequent lift. To minimize evaporation of the moisture during
 compaction, predetermined weights of moist sand were placed in bins and covered with a lid before
being used.

D. Dou Guotao et al. 2016 aims to reveal the depth distribution law of non-limit passive soil pressure
on rigid retaining wall that rotates about the top of the wall (rotation around the top (RT) model).
The soil pressure predicted by the theoretical calculation put forward in this paper are quite similar
to those obtained by the model experiment, which verifies the theoretical value, and the
engineering guidance provided by the calculations are of significance.
Experimental Setup:
a model box consisting of the following major components is used: a retaining wall, a soil bin, a
driving system, and a data acquisition system. The details of the apparatus are as follows.
(1) The retaining wall is a solid plate that is 980 mm wide, 1000 mm high, and 100 mm thick,
which is made of reinforced Concrete
2) The soil bin is fabricated with steel members whose inside dimensions are 2000 mm _ 1000
mm _ 1000 mm. In order to reduce the effect of boundary friction, Vaseline is smeared on the
box’s inner wall. Steel plates are connected to the top and the front of the model box to prevent
the two side walls of the box from expansion when the soil body is squeezed. Behind the box, there
is a reaction frame; it can prevent the box from moving backward when the sand
is squeezed.
(3) To determine the distribution law of the soil pressure, soil pressure micro sensors are attached
to the retaining wall. Nine mini-type soil pressure transducers are arranged within the central zone
of the wall. Another two transducers (SPT 10 and SPT11) are mounted between the central zone
and the sidewall to study the sidewall effects. The actual displacement of the retaining wall is
measured by the displacement meter.
(4) In order to study the variation of the passive soil pressure on the retaining wall under the RT
mode, at the top of the wall, we place a block of hard wood whose size is 0.9 m in length, 0.1 m
in height, and 0.05 m in width. Two screw jacks are also placed to prevent the top of the wall from
moving. At the bottom of the wall, two screw jacks are placed to translate the wall. For each
measurement, the bottom is pushed 1 cm, and then the soil pressure is recorded by computer.
Backfill material and Compaction of Sand
Loose and Dense Sand
Air-dried sand from the city of Xuzhou is used throughout the experiments on loose and dense
sand. The surface of the sand is horizontal. Physical properties of the soil are shown in Table. The
sand is divided into 10 units along the height direction of the model box, and the mass of the sand
in each layer is calculated. With the bag, the sand falls into the model box from a height of
1m. The effective sand height h is only 950 mm (less than 1 m) to prevent the sand from
overflowing.

Table
Physical Parameters of loose and dense sand
Sand H(m) ф Dr g (kN/m3)
Loose 0.95 32.6 0.194 14.21
Dense 0.95 42.99 0.764 16.17
E. Gabriel Candia Agusti and Nicholas 2013 conducted the experimental and numerical modeling for
determining the seismic earth pressure on retaining walls with cohesive back fill. The results from
the experimental and numerical analysis provide information to guide the designers in selecting
seismic design loads on retaining structures with cohesive backfills. The experimental results show
that the static and seismic earth pressures increase linearly with depth and that the resultant acts at
0.35H-0.4H, as opposed to 0.5-0.6H assumed in current engineering practice.
Experimental Setup:
Centrifuge model.

Backfill material:
The soil used in the experiments is a low plasticity lean clay (CL), called Yolo Loam from a borrow
pit at the centrifuge facility. A series of laboratory tests was performed for the purposes of
classification and to determine mechanical properties of the soil as compacted. Atterberg limits
(ASTM D4318) were found to be: LL = 29.5%, PL = 18.2%, giving a PI=11.3%. The maximum
dry unit weight was 18.1 kN/m3 and the optimum water content was 15%, based on the Standard
Proctor compaction curves. Strength parameters c and φ were determined from a series of
unconfined-unconsolidated (UU) triaxial tests.

Table: Geotechnical parameters of compacted Yolo Loam

Parameter Model GC01 Model GC02
3
g (kN/m ) 18.7 20.8
3
gd (kN/m ) 16 18.1
w (%) 17 15
c (kPa) 15.2 68.1
Ф (degree) 30 30
c/gH 0.13 0.54

Compaction method:
Soil excavation and sieving: For each test, approximately 1 m3 of Yolo Loam was retrieved from
the centrifuge facility with a small excavator. Using a mechanical sieve, the soil was passed
through a sieve #4 (4.76mm) and stored on barrels.
Soil mixing: The target moisture content in GC01 was 17% and the natural moisture was about
7%. Thus, water was slowly sprinkled inside a drum mixer to homogenize the soil and prevent the
formation of lumps. In experiment GC02 the target moisture was 15% which was very close to the
natural moisture, significantly reducing the time required to prepare the soil. Soil compaction: In
GC01, a 7 kg vibrating block with a corrugated base plate was used to compact the soil on 2.5cm
lifts. After each lift a sheep-foot roller was passed to increase the
interlayer bonding. This compaction device delivered low amounts of energy to the soil
resulting in a dry density γd=16.5 kN/m3, equivalent to 90% of the maximum dry unit weight
achieved through the Standard Proctor test. A significantly higher compaction effort was
used in GC02 by using a pneumatic hammer on 2.5 cm lifts, resulting in a dry density of
γd=18.1 kN/m3, approximately 100% of the maximum dry unit weight using the Standard
Proctor test as a reference.

F. A. Scotto di Santolo et al. 2012 explored the dynamic behavior of cantilever retaining walls under
earthquake action is explored by means of 1-g shaking table testing, carried out on scaled models.
 The experimental program encompasses different combinations of retaining wall geometries, soil
configurations and input ground motions. The response analysis of the systems at hand aimed at
shedding light onto the salient features of the problem, such as: (1) the magnitude of the soil thrust
and its point of application; (2) the relative sliding as opposed to rocking of the wall base and the
corresponding failure mode; (3) the importance/interplay between soil stiffness, wall dimensions,
and excitation characteristics, as affecting the above.

Soil Material and Compaction

The required soil configuration consists of a dense supporting layer and a medium dense backfill.
The material proposed for both layers is Leighton Buzzard (LB) sand BS 881-131, Fraction B
(D50=0.82 mm, Gs=2640 kg/m3, emin = 0.486, emax = 0.78).
The packing density for each layer, determined from sand mass and volume measurements during
the deposition. The base deposit was formed by pouring sand in layers of 150-200 mm from a
deposition height of 0.6m and then densifying by shaking. After densification, the height of the
layer was reduced to 390mm. The top layer was formed by pouring sand in axisymmetric
conditions close to the center of the desired backfill region, without any further densification. The
pouring was carried out by keeping the fall height steady, approximately equal to 200mm in order
to minimize the densification effect of the downward stream of sand.

G. H A Kamiloglu and Erol Sadglu 2019 did experimental and theoretical investigation of Short and
long heel cases of cantilever retaining walls in active state. the failure surfaces occurring behind
model cantilever walls and the failure cases were examined experimentally by using particle
image velocimetry (PIV) analysis.
Experimental Setup:
The experimental study aimed to observe failure surfaces and evaluate the parameters affecting
the failure surface geometry occurring behind a model cantilever wall supporting granular backfill
in an active case. The small-scale laboratory tests were performed in the tank. The internal
dimensions of the tank were 0.90x0.10x0.65 m (length x width x height). The bottom and lateral
parts of the tank were made of hard wood, and to observe failure surfaces 10-mm-thick glass plates
were placed on the back and front sides. It is clear that failure surface observations performed with
prototype-scale tests give more reliable results.

Soil Material:
Poorly graded sand (SP) was used as granular backfill. Internal friction angle of the backfill,
friction angle between the model wall and the backfill, and some relevant geotechnical properties
of the backfill were determined.
Internal friction of the backfill was 36° in most of the small-scale tests, and the tests were repeated
for different internal friction angles (f = 36, 38, 40°) to examine the effect of internal friction angle
on failure surfaces. Triaxial tests were performed on the backfill with different densities (ρ loose
= 1.33 Mg/m3 , ρ medium = 1.56 Mg/m3, ρ dense = 1.62 Mg/m3). A graph presenting the internal
friction angle and density correlation was prepared for the backfill. The backfill densities
corresponding to some internal friction angles (f = 36, 38, 40°) were determined using the graph.
Density of the backfill was controlled to achieve the same internal friction angle in the entire
backfill. Thus, the effect of density on failure surfaces was also determined in the active case in
addition to internal friction angle.
Direct shear tests were performed to determine the friction angle between the model wall and the
backfill soil, and the friction angle between the backfill and glass plates of the tank used in the
small-scale tests. The bottom part of the shear box was replaced with the model wall material, and
the upper part of the box was filled with sand to determine the friction angle between backfill and
the model wall. A standard shear box testing procedure was carried out, and the friction angle
between the wall and the backfill was determined for different backfill densities (ρ1 = 1.45 Mg/m3,
ρ2 = 1.58 Mg/m3, ρ3 = 1.65 Mg/m3). A similar procedure was carried out to determine the friction
angle between the backfill and the glass plates.

Compaction Method:
The sand was placed into the tank with different densities to change the internal friction angle of
the backfill. The mechanical compaction method was applied to change backfill density. Density
cans were placed in different parts of the backfill.

Conclusions:
The review of the literature was carried out with an aim to know about the important steps involved
in the experimental work related to retaining walls. These papers give better understanding in
choosing the method of compaction of different kind of soil in the soil bin to achieve the require
densities and their relationship between the internal friction angle, the method of reporting the
properties of backfill soil, the development of plain strain conditions, the use of modern digital
image correlations for capturing the failure planes. The study of these published articles helps a
lot in understanding the writing format and style of the Journal. Following conclusions can be
drawn for the review of the above reported literature:
 To deposit the backfill material at different densities behind the retaining walls for
studying the impact of density on the other variable parameters, different methods had
been used and proposed during the experimental work. These methods are;
1. Dry Pluvation technique
2. Under compaction moist tamping method
3. Shaking table technique
4. Rollers
5. Predetermined weight from the calculated layer-volume and targeted density.
 In order to ensure the uniformity of the density throughout the layer of the soil, density
cans are placed at different locations within the soil bin.
 It is found that the backfill material should be characterized by conducting the standard
tests for determining the physical properties of the soil. The physical properties that
should be determined and the corresponding standard specifications are listed below:
1. Specific gravity [ASTM D854 (ASTM 2014)]
2. Minimum-maximum relative density [ASTM D4254-16 (ASTM 2016b) and ASTM
D4253-16 (ASTM 2016a)]
3. Direct shear tests [ASTM D3080/D3080M-11 (ASTM 2011)],
4. Unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests [ASTM D2850-15 (ASTM 2015)]
 In order to achieve the plain strain condition, the friction between the soil and side walls
should be minimizes by using the grease. There should be a gap between the retaining wall
and side walls of soil bin.
 It is reported n the literature that researcher use advanced image technology known as
particle image velocimetry (PIV) analysis for capturing the failure planes, which is
basically applied on fluid mechanics problems. However, digital image correlation
 technique, which was originally used to measure displacement and strains by observation
of the surface of solids, compares a sequence of digital images of a body undergoing
deformation using a correlation scheme to produce the displacement and strain fields
within the deformed body has not yet been used for capturing the failure planes.
References: