See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265294365

Effects of Backfill Soil on Excessive Movement of MSE Wall

Article  in  Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · December 2012

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000281

CITATIONS READS
26 2,685

5 authors, including:

Md Hossain Golam Kibria

University of Texas at Arlington Drash Consultants, LLC, San Antonio, TX
87 PUBLICATIONS   817 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   198 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammad Sadik Khan Jakaria Hossain

Jackson State University Daffodil International University
56 PUBLICATIONS   288 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   85 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Utilization of Recycled Plastic Pins for Improving Bearing Capacity of the Embankment Soft Foundation Soil View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Golam Kibria on 04 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Effects of Backfill Soil on Excessive Movement of MSE Wall
M. S. Hossain1; G. Kibria2; M. S. Khan3; J. Hossain4; and T. Taufiq5

Abstract: The use of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls has gained popularity as an alternative to conventional cast-in-place
concrete walls. The construction of MSE walls is cost effective, requires less site preparation, and is technically more feasible compared with
conventional concrete retaining walls. However, use of backfill with high fine content and poor drainage behavior can cause excessive wall
movement or even failure. The current paper presents the case study of a MSE wall located at State Highway 342 in Lancaster, Texas. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

top of the MSE wall has moved as much as 300e450 mm only 5 years after construction. An extensive site and laboratory investigation
testing program was conducted to determine the possible causes of the MSE wall movement. The site investigation included soil test boring and
resistivity imaging (RI). Perched water zones were identified at a few locations in the backfill area using RI. The bulging of the MSE wall facings
was observed where the perched water zones were located. Laboratory testing of the collected soil samples was conducted to determine the
characteristics of the backfill soil. The test results indicated the backfill soil was clayey sand according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Based on the test results and analyses, it was determined that the presence of high fine content may have caused the excessive movement of the
MSE wall. The movement of the MSE wall was also modeled using the finite-element program PLAXIS, and is presented in this paper. The actual
movement of the MSE wall and the obtained movement from the model were in good agreement. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-
5509.0000281. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Walls; Backfills; Retaining structures.
Author keywords: MSE wall; Excessive movement; Backfill soil; Resistivity imaging.

Introduction
A mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall is an internally rein-
forced soil structure with a face angle of 70e90
. The use of a MSE
retaining wall has gained popularity as an alternative to conventional
cast-in-place concrete walls. The construction of a MSE wall is cost
effective, requires less site preparation, and is technically more
feasible compared with a conventional concrete retaining wall (Elias
et al. 2001). The stability of the MSE wall depends on the frictional
and bearing resistance between the reinforcing elements and the soil.
Reinforcements are placed in layers in the backfill soil. The type of
reinforcement and facing of a MSE wall are varied depending on the
site condition, purpose of application, and wall height.
The performance of the MSE wall strongly depends on the be-
havior of the backfill soil and rock materials used in their con-
struction. Therefore, knowledge of the behavior of the earthen
materials and their interaction with the manufactured components
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Texase
Arlington, 417 Yates St., NH 404, Arlington, TX 76019 (corresponding
author). E-mail: hossain@uta.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
TexaseArlington, 417 Yates St., NH 404, Arlington, TX 76019.
3
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
TexaseArlington, 417 Yates St., NH 404, Arlington, TX 76019.
4
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
TexaseArlington, 417 Yates St., NH 404, Arlington, TX 76019.
5
Research Scientist Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of
TexaseArlington, 416 Yates St., Suite 425, Arlington, TX 76019. E-mail:
tashfeena.taufiq@mavs.uta.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 17, 2011; approved on
August 16, 2011; published online on August 18, 2011. Discussion period
open until May 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, Vol. 26, No. 6, December 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN
0887-3828/2012/6-793e802/$25.00.
of the MSE wall are of critical importance for successful wall
design and performance. MSE walls require high-quality backfill
for durability, good drainage, constructability, and good soil re-
inforcement interaction. Well-graded granular soil fulfills these
criteria. However, use of backfill with high fine content as a result of
poor drainage behavior can cause excessive wall movement or even
failure.
The provision of drainage is also an important factor in the per-
formance of a MSE wall. Narejo and Ramsey (2001) conducted
a study on the hydrologic design issues of a MSE wall. According
Narejo and Ramsey (2001), a comprehensive drainage and filtration
plan should be addressed to ensure proper drainage in the wall.
Narejo and Ramsey (2001) also proposed that the choice of drainage
and filtration system should be site specific.
There is no theoretical height restriction for the construction of
a MSE wall. However, a technically feasible wall height of wall of
25 m has been reported (Elias et al. 2001). The tallest MSE wall in
the western hemisphere is 46 m (Stuedlein et al. 2010). The wall is
located at the west side of the third runway at the Seattle Tacoma
International Airport. An extensive instrumentation program in-
cluding a total station, inclinometer, settlement ring, piezometer, and
strain gauge was undertaken to monitor the performance of the wall
during and after construction. The performance of the wall was
reported to be excellent.
The construction of a MSE wall does not require special crafts-
manship and skill. The construction procedure is simple and rapid.
Nonetheless, site-specific material specification, construction qual-
ity control, and a performance monitoring plan should be considered
before construction of the wall. Special attention should be provided
to the specification of the backfill soil, corrosion and degradation of
the reinforcement, drainage requirement, and construction damage
(Elias et al. 2001).
Failure of a MSE wall can be attributed to poor backfill, in-
sufficient length and strength of the reinforcement, inadequate

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 793

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.

 provision of drainage, sudden drawdown of the water table, and
a weak foundation soil (Leshchinsky and Han 2004). Chen et al.
(2007) presented a failure analysis of a MSE wall as a result of the
loss of backfill sand and surface cracks on the concrete approach
slabs above the wall. According to their study, the cracks on the
approach slabs may be related to the excessive loss of backfill from
behind the MSE wall. Potential voids beneath the concrete slab may
have caused the embankment structure to become unsafe. The loss of
backfill sand has been associated with a significant amount of water
intrusion through joints, ruptured drainage pipes, and cracked ap-
proach slabs in the vicinity of bridge abutments.
Stulgis (2005) analyzed the performance of a MSE wall with high
fine backfill material. He suggested evaluating the hydraulic, me-
chanical, and deformation properties as well as the environmental
effects of fill soils before using them as backfill soils. According to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
his study, excessive movement of a MSE wall can be attributed to
poor drainage of the backfill material. The permeability of soil
decreases with the increase in the percentage of fines. Wetting of
reinforced fill with a high percentage of fines by groundwater in-
filtration, rainfall, or other sources (under drain, snow melt, etc.) can
cause pore-water pressure to develop within the reinforced fill zone.
Scarborough (2005) presented a case study on the catastrophic
failure of a MSE wall located in Virginia. The failure was most likely
the result of poor drainage. Additional pressure was built behind the
wall facing as a result of the lack of adequate drainage. Based on the
investigation, it was found that other contributing factors were in-
consistent compaction of fill soils, increased height of the wall, and
the use of clayey backfill within the reinforced zone.
Leshchinsky (2005) described the effect of pore-water pressure
on the performance of a MSE wall. According to his study, use of
backfill with high fine content can promote the generation of a
perched water zone, which causes additional pressure on the wall
facing. The end result can be a large deformation or even failure.
The importance of backfill soil in the design and performance of
a MSE wall is evident from the previously presented case studies.
Lack of adequate drainage, poor quality control, and inadequate
reinforcement can also worsen the performance of a wall or often led
to failure. The objective of the current study was to determine the
Fig. 1. Site location (map data © 2012 Google)
794 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.
possible causes of excessive movement in the MSE wall located at
State Highway 342 (SH 342) in Lancaster, Texas.
Site Background
The MSE wall is located on Dallas Avenue of SH 342 in Lancaster,
Texas, as presented in Fig. 1. The layout and cross section (between
Stations 11690 and 11700) of the MSE wall are presented in Fig. 2.
Granular soil was proposed in the design of backfill material. Steel
wire meshes were used as soil reinforcement. The facing panels were
fabricated of standard precast concrete. A storm sewer is located at
the top of the MSE wall. The construction of the MSE wall was
completed in May 2004. Because of excessive movement of the
MSE wall, cracks (more than 150-mm wide) were visible on the
pavement in 2009. A site investigation was carried out by soil test
boring, laboratory testing of soil samples, and resistivity imaging
(RI) of the subsurface.
Research Methodology
A geotechnical investigation program was undertaken to investigate
the causes of the movement of the MSE wall. Two soil test borings
were conducted to determine the type and corrosive nature of the
backfill soil. Boring BH-1 was drilled between Stations 1 1 630 and
1 1 640, and BH-2 was drilled between Stations 1 1 680 and 1 1
690. The locations of soil test boring are presented in Fig. 3. Soil
samples were collected every 1.5 m throughout the depth of the
borings. Grain size analysis, moisture content, Atterberg limits, and
soil resistivity tests were performed on the collected samples in the
laboratory according to ASTM D6913-04, ASTM D4643-08,
ASTM D4318, and AASHTO T-288-91 standard test methods.
An inclinometer casing was installed at the two boring locations to
monitor the horizontal movement of the MSE wall.
Soil boring and laboratory testing provide information on sub-
surface conditions at a particular location. However, to get a con-
tinuous image of the subsurface conditions, a geophysical method
is necessary because geophysical methods have the capability of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. (a) Layout of the MSE wall; (b) cross-section A-A of the MSE wall between Stations 1 1 690 and 1 1 700

Fig. 3. Location of the soil test boring

providing an image of the subsurface (Giao et al. 2003). For the
current project, RI was used for enhanced mapping of lateral and
vertical variations in the subsurface moisture content. One two-
dimensional (2D) RI was conducted along the west side of the
pavement above the MSE wall between Stations 1 1 630 and 1 1
690. The operational setup of the RI is presented in Fig. 4. The RI
was conducted twice during the investigation period, first on March
5, 2010, and next on July 22, 2010. The electrode spacing for RI was
considered as 1.8 m and the RI was conducted using a dipole-dipole
array configuration, which gives better resolution of the subsurface
image over other array configurations. The data recorded during
the imaging were transferred to a computer and analyzed using the
software Earth Imager 2D to generate a continuous image of the
subsurface.
2D finite-element (FE) analysis can provide fairly good results
over a long section of a wall. This approach assumes uniform con-
ditions out of plane along the wall. However, this approach does not
offer a determination of the displacements and stress distribution in
a three-dimensional plane. In this study, the MSE wall was modeled
and analyzed using the 2D FE program PLAXIS (Brinkgreve et al.

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 795

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.

 2003a, b). A representative division of the subsoil, structural objects,
and loadings were included in the geometry of the model as pre-
sented in Fig. 5. Two basic assumptions were made to simulate a FE
model of the geometry of the structure: (1) the geometry of the
representative model of the MSE wall has a uniform cross section
and (2) the corresponding stress state and loading scheme over
a certain length perpendicular to the cross section is uniform.
Therefore, a plane strain model was used to simulate the geometry of
the model. Surcharge was not considered in the model because
permanent loadings were not observed within the reinforced mass of
the MSE wall (Elias et al. 2001). The behavior of both the backfill
and foundation soil was modeled using the elastic perfectly plastic
Mohr-Coulomb model. The soil properties proposed in the design
for the selected and random backfills were used in the model. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
foundation soil parameters were determined from correlations of the
liquid limit and plastic limit with the soil strength parameters.
Because the water table at the time of soil boring was found to be
Fig. 4. Operational setup of RI: (a) drilling of pavement; (b) insertion of
electrode; (c) connection of cable with equipment; (d) layout of cable
Fig. 5. Geometric configuration used in numerical modeling
796 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.
considerably below the reinforced soil area, the unit weight of the
soil was not expected to be affected by the phreatic level. However,
few isolated saturated zones were observed from RI. Therefore,
a separate soil cluster was defined to incorporate the saturated
zone in the model. Soil reinforcement was modeled using
geogrid elements, which are used to model slender structures able
to sustain tensile force. The reinforcement length used in the
model was 2.4 m, which was specified by a set of plans. The first
reinforcement layer was placed 1.5 m below the top of the
pavement because of the presence of a storm sewer and the rest of
the reinforcement was placed at 1-m vertical spacing. The facing
panels and leveling pads of the wall were modeled using plate
(beam) elements, which have both flexural and normal stiffness.
The material data set parameters used in the model are provided
in Tables 1 and 2. Finally, the analyses were performed using
plastic calculation to carry out an elastoplastic deformation
analysis.
Test Results
The subsurface conditions as interpreted from the laboratory testing
indicated a subsurface profile consisting of clayey sand (SC)
according to the Unified Soil Classification System. From the grain
size analyses of the soil samples collected from BH-1 and BH-2 at
a depth of 4.6e6.1 m, the percent passings through U.S. Standard
Sieve #200 (0.075 mm) were 28.9 and 30.7%, respectively as
presented in Fig. 6. For the soil sample collected from BH-1 at a
depth of 0.9e1.5 m, the plasticity index was found to be 5.8 and for
all other soil samples, the plasticity indices were found to be more
than 6. The soil classification test results are summarized in Table 3.
The moisture content of the soil samples collected from BH-1 and
BH-2 ranged between 7.9 and 18.9%. The variation of moisture
content with depth is presented in Fig. 7. The soil resistivity results
indicated that the resistivity of the backfill soil was more than 3 V×m
for all soil samples, which is summarized in Table 4.
The RI results for March 2010 showed a low-resistivity area near
BH-1 at a depth of 3.6e6.7 m, which is presented in Fig. 8. Another
low-resistivity area was observed approximately 17.4 m toward the
south from BH-1 between depths of 3e6 m. This low-resistivity area
indicates the presence of high moisture content, which is identified
as Perched Water Zones 1 and 2. The resistivity values of these
 perched water zones ranged from 1 to 4 V×m. A relatively high-
resistivity zone, which is identified as Area A (resistivity . 100
V×m), was located approximately 2 m below the top of the MSE wall
between Perched Water Zones 1 and 2. A comparatively low-
resistivity zone, Area B (resistivity , 20 V×m), was located be-
tween the perched water zones at a depth of 6e9 m (Fig. 8). Another
RI (Fig. 9) was conducted in July 2010 along the same line to in-
vestigate the effect of seasonal variations on the perched water
zones. The results indicated that the area of the perched water zones
Table 1. Soil Parameters Used in the Model
Select Random Foundation
Parameter backfill backfill soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
increased compared with the RI investigation in March 2010. The
high-resistance area (Area A) decreased significantly and the low-
resistance area (Area B) increased substantially during the inter-
mediate period.
The results of the FE analyses are presented in Figs. 10 and 11.
From Fig. 10(a), it can be found that a maximum displacement of
291 mm was predicted at the top of the wall. The model predicted
the vertical displacement was 179 mm as presented in Fig. 10(b).
Fig. 11 shows the soil failed in tension at the top of the wall, which
was also observed in the field as tension cracks formed in between
the coping and flume. In addition, the Mohr-Coulomb points in the
model indicate that the stresses at these points lie on the Mohr-
Coulomb failure envelope.

g (unsaturated) (kN×m2) 18.8 18.8 16

g (saturated) (kN×m2) 22 22 16
V (angle of friction) (degree) 34 30 27 Causes of Excessive Wall Movement
C (cohesion) (kN×m2) 1 1 8.45
c (dilatancy angle) (degree) 4 0 0 Based on the laboratory results, it was found that the backfill soil is
E (modulus of elasticity) 12,500 10,000 5,500 mainly SC and the percent passings through the #200 sieve were in
(kN×m2) between 28.9 and 38.8% for BH-1 and BH-2 (Figs. 6). The plasticity
Poisson’s ratio 0.32 0.3 0.3 indices were between 5.8 and 10.2 for the soil samples collected
from Boreholes BH-1 and BH-2 (Table 3). According to the
guidelines of Federal Highway Administration (FHwA), all the
backfill material used in the structural volume for MSE wall
Table 2. Structural Element Parameters Used in the Model structures should conform to the gradation limit presented in Table 5
Axial stiffness Bending stiffness (Elias et al. 2001). However, for the current MSE wall, the percent
Structural element (kN×m) (kN×m2/m) passing through the #200 sieve was greater than 15% for all soil
samples collected from BH-1 and BH-2. Therefore, the backfill soil
Facing panel 4,017 3.08 3 106
did not satisfy either the FHwA or the Texas Department of
Soil reinforcement 150 —
Transportation (TxDOT) requirements (Table 6).

Fig. 6. Grain size distribution (legends indicate depths of samples)

Table 3. Soil Classification Test Summary

Serial number Borehole number Sample depth (m) Liquid limit Plastic limit Plasticity index Percent passing #200 sieve
1 BH-1 0.9–1.5 28.0 22.2 5.8 36
2 BH-1 4.6–6.1 22.4 12.9 9.5 28.9
3 BH-1 7.6–8.8 26.2 16.6 9.6 35.6
4 BH-2 0.9–1.5 30.6 20.4 10.2 35.7
5 BH-2 4.6–6.1 22.7 13.6 9.1 30.7
6 BH-2 7.9–8.2 23.7 14.8 8.9 38.8

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 797

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.

 The resistivity tests were performed on collected soil samples in
the laboratory to obtain data to evaluate the corrosive nature of
backfill soil. According to the FHwA and TxDOT requirements, the
resistivity of backfill soil should be more than 3 V×m. Backfill soil
with resistivity of less than 3 V×m is susceptible to degradation of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
reinforcement and facing connection (Elias et al. 2001). The cor-
rosive nature of backfill soil can be worsened when subsequent
wetting and drying occur. However, for all the collected soil samples
from BH-1 and BH-2, the soil resistivity was more than 3 V×m as
presented in Table 4. Therefore, in general the backfill soil at the
borehole locations was not corrosive in nature. However, from the RI
a low-resistivity zone was noted at a few backfill locations, which
indicates the possibility of the existence of corrosive soil in a few
locations.
From the RI conducted on March 05, 2010, perched water zones
were observed in a few locations (Fig. 8). The perched water zones
could be a result of poor drainage of the backfill soil because of the
presence of high fine content. This perched water can apply addi-
tional pressure causing bulging of the facing. During the site visit,

nonuniformity in the alignment of the facing blocks as a result of

Fig. 7. Moisture profile of the soil samples collected from various
depths
Table 4. Soil Resistivity Test Summary
Serial number Borehole number Sample depth (m) Resistivity (V×cm)
1 BH-1
2 BH-1
3 BH-2
4 BH-2
differential movement was observed. The bulging of the facings also
occurred near Inclinometers 1 and 2 where the perched water zones
were located (Fig. 12). The RI conducted on July 22, 2010, indicated
an increase in high moisture zones (low resistivity). The effect of
seasonal variations on the area of the perched water zones was
evident in the resistivity images from March and July 2010. The
observed excessive movement of the MSE wall during June and July
2010 may be the outcome of the increased perched water zones as
a result of seasonal variations. Therefore, the perched water zones
were created as a result of the possible intrusion of water into the
high fine content backfill, which produced additional pressure and
caused the movement of the MSE wall as presented in Fig. 13. The
wall movement over the last six years (2004e2010) has been
summarized in Table 7. Also, the maximum wall height was about
7.5 m and the maximum length of the reinforcement was 2.4 m.
1.5–3 3,190
Thus, the reinforcement length is about 30% of the wall height,
4.6–6.1 4,945
which covers only the active zone and does not include the length
0.6–1.5 3,010
needed for the resisting zone (Elias et al. 2001). Inadequate
4.6–6.1 7,032
reinforcement length was identified as another major cause of

Fig. 8. Resistivity image conducted on March 2010

Fig. 9. Resistivity image conducted on July 2010

798 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Model predicted displacements: (a) total displacement (291 mm); (b) vertical displacement (179 mm)

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 799

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.

 excessive wall movement, and the numerical modeling results
confirmed the finding.

Movement of the MSE Wall: Actual versus

Numerical Modeling

During 2004e2010, the total movement of the MSE wall was

300e450 mm, which was found from the background study and
inclinometer readings. However, the model predicted 291-mm
movement at the top of the MSE wall. A comparison of the observed
field displacement and numerical modeling is presented in Table 8.
From the site investigation, the maximum movement was observed
at the top of the MSE wall. The magnitude and location of the highest
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Mohr-Coulomb and tension cutoff points displacement found from PLAXIS was fairly similar to the actual
field movement. Stability analyses of the MSE wall showed rota-
tional movement of the wall, which was also in good agreement with
Table 5. Gradation Limit of Backfill (FHwA) the MSE wall movement in the field. Moreover, soil reinforcement
U.S. sieve size Percent passing was not provided at the top 1.5 m of the MSE wall because of the
presence of a storm sewer. Under this condition, the movement of
102 mm (4 in.) 100 291 mm was predicted by the numerical modeling. Therefore, in-
0.425 mm (No. 40) 0–60 adequate reinforcement in the upper portion of the MSE wall could
0.075 mm (No. 200) 0–15 have also caused excessive movement.
Note: Plasticity index should not exceed 6.

Table 6. Gradation Limit of Backfill (TxDOT)

Summary and Conclusions
Type A Type B
Percent Percent
From the site investigation results and the available MSE wall
Sieve size passing Sieve size passing
documents, significant wall movement was observed between 2004
and 2009. After repair work by the TxDOT in 2009, the wall
76 mm (3 in.) 100 152 mm (6 in.) 100 movement was not significant until May 2010. However, since June
0.425 mm (No. 40) 0–60 76 mm (3 in.) 75–100 2010 the rate of the wall movement (2.5e4 mm/month) consider-
0.075 mm (No. 200) 0–15 0.075 mm (No. 200) 0–15 ably increased and approached the previous rate observed during
Note: Plasticity index should not exceed 6. 2004e2009. In addition, bulging of some of the facing panels was

Fig. 12. Position of bulging

800 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Rotational movement of the MSE wall

Table 7. Wall Movement Summary • Additional pressure produced by the poor drainage property of
Total movement Movement/month the backfill soil and the creation of a perched water zone caused
Time period (mm) (mm) by the possible intrusion of water into the high fine content
backfill may be a factor.
May 2004 to October 2009 300–450 4.5–7 • Inadequate reinforcement length was another major cause of
December 2009 to May 2010 1–2 Less than 1 excessive wall movement.
June 2010 to July 2010 5–8 2.5–4

Table 8. Comparison of Displacements at the Top of the MSE Wall
Field observation (mm) Numerical modeling (mm)
300–450 291
observed. The excessive movement of the MSE wall may be a result
of the following factors:
• The excessive movement may be a result of the existence of
a high percentage of fines in backfill soil. The percent passing
through U.S. Standard Sieve #200 was more than 15% for all
samples collected from the backfill areas. The backfill soil did
not meet either the TxDOT or FHWA requirements.
References
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Broere, W., and Waterman, D. (2003a). PLAXIS
version 8 material models manual, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Broere, W., and Waterman, D. (2003b). PLAXIS
version 8 reference manual, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Chen, D. H., Nazarian, S., and Bilyeu, J. (2007). “Failure analysis of a bridge
embankment with cracked approach slabs and leaking sand.” J. Perform.
Constr. Facil., 21(5), 375e381.
Elias, V., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. (2001). “Mechanically stabi-
lized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes—Design & construction
guidelines.” FHWA-NHI-00-043, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC.
Giao, P. H., Chung, S. G., Kim, D. Y., and Tanaka, H. (2003). “Elec-
tric imaging and laboratory resistivity testing for geotechnical

JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 / 801

J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.

 investigation of Pusan clay deposits.” J. Appl. Geophys., 52(4),
157e175.
Leshchinsky, D. (2005). “MSE drainage issues & design.” Proc., Geo-
synthetics Research and Development in Progress, GRI 18, Geo-
Frontiers 2005, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Leshchinsky, D., and Han, J. (2004). “Geosynthetic reinforced multitiered
walls.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130(12), 1225e1235.
Narejo, D., and Ramsey, B. (2001). “MSE wall drainage alternatives:
Careful drainage design can prevent costly retaining wall failures.”
Geotech. Fabr. Rep., 19(5), 26e29.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UT ARLINGTON on 10/12/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Scarborough, J. A. (2005). “A tale of two walls: Case histories of failed
MSE walls.” Proc., Slopes and Retaining Structures under Seismic
and Static Conditions, GSP 140, Geo-Frontiers 2005, ASCE,
Reston, VA.
Stuedlein, A. W., Bailey, M., Lindquist, D., Sankey, J., and Neely, W. J.
(2010). “Design and performance of a 46-m-high MSE wall.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 136(6), 786e796.
Stulgis, R. P. (2005). “Selecting reinforced fill materials for MSE
walls.” Proc., Geosynthetics Research and Development in Progress,
GRI 18, Geo-Frontiers 2005, ASCE, Reston, VA.

802 / JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012

View publication stats J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2012.26:793-802.