Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Seismic response of reduced-scale modular block and rigid faced

reinforced walls through shaking table tests
G. Madhavi Latha a, *, P. Santhanakumar b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
b
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper focuses on understanding the seismic response of geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls
Received 9 January 2015 through shaking table tests on models of modular block and rigid faced reinforced retaining walls.
Received in revised form Reduced-scale models of retaining walls reinforced with geogrid layers were constructed in a laminar
21 April 2015
box mounted on a uniaxial shaking table and subjected to various levels of sinusoidal base shaking.
Accepted 22 April 2015
Available online 8 May 2015
Models were instrumented with ultrasonic displacement sensors, earth pressure sensors and acceler-
ometers. Effects of backfill density, number of reinforcement layers and reinforcement type on the
performance of rigid faced and modular block walls were studied through different series of model tests.
Keywords:
Geosynthetics
Performances of the walls were assessed in terms of face deformations, crest settlement and acceleration
Shaking table tests amplification at different elevations and compared. Modular block walls performed better than the rigid
Seismic response faced walls for the same level of base shaking because of the additional support derived by stacking the
Modular block walls blocks with an offset. Type and quantity of reinforcement has significant effect on the seismic perfor-
Geogrid mance of both the types of walls. Displacements are more sensitive to relative density of the backfill and
Retaining walls decrease with increasing relative density, the effect being more pronounced in case of unreinforced walls
compared to the reinforced ones. Acceleration amplifications are not affected by the wall facing and
inclusion of reinforcement.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The use of Segmental or modular block Retaining Walls (SRW)

Retaining walls reinforced with geosynthetics performed satis-
factorily during strong earthquakes as observed by several re-
searchers (Juran and Christopher, 1989; Kutter et al., 1990; Collin
et al., 1992; Bathurst et al., 1993; Sandri, 1997; Tatsuoka et al.,
1997; Ling et al., 2001). Collin et al. (1992) reported that Geo-
synthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) walls survived the Loma Prieta
earthquake of 1989 with estimated ground accelerations ranging
from 0.3 to 0.7 g. White and Holtz (1997) conducted a survey of
three geosynthetic reinforced walls and four geosynthetic rein-
forced slopes after Northridge earthquake of 1994 to show that
these walls and slopes were not subjected to any visual distress
after the earthquake. However, there are also many case studies of
failures of geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls, a database of 171
of them documented by Koerner and Koerner (2013).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 80 2293 3123; fax: þ91 80 2360 0404.
E-mail addresses: madhavi@civil.iisc.ernet.in (G.M. Latha), santhy.iisc@gmail.
com (P. Santhanakumar).
that include dry-stacked concrete block units as the facia system
together with extensible sheets of polymeric materials (geo-
synthetics) that internally reinforce the retained soils and anchor
the facia has gained wide popularity in recent times. Studies on
SRW in North America were reported by Bathurst and Simac (1994).
Several other researchers (Cazzuffi and Rimoldi, 1994; Gourc et al.,
1990; Knutson, 1990; Won, 1994) reported the use of these struc-
tures in Europe, Scandinavia and Australia. Use of modular block
walls has tremendously increased all over the world during recent
years. The distinguishing feature of these structures is the facing
column that is constructed using mortarless modular concrete
block units that are stacked to form a wall batter into the retained
soils (typically 3e15
from vertical). Modular blocks of different
shapes and sizes are available in market and are well explained by
several researchers (Bathurst and Simac, 1994; Ehrlich and
Mirmoradi, 2013).
Shaking table tests facilitate testing of relatively larger struc-
tures and model response can be physically observed in these tests
along with measurements of response parameters. Most of the
shaking table tests are conducted using reduced scale models in a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.008
0266-1144/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
308 G.M. Latha, P. Santhanakumar / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316
1 g field (Bathurst et al., 2001; Koseki et al., 2003; Panah et al., 2015)
that are possibly subjective to scale effects due to the influence of
stress levels and the lack of reasonable scaling techniques. Most of
the model studies on seismic behavior of GRS walls have been
performed on very small-scale models where scale effects are ex-
pected to have a major influence on measured response. Some
examples include: Wang et al. (2015), H (model wall
height) ¼ 0.7 m; Lo Grasso et al. (2005), H ¼ 0.35 m; Watanabe et al.
(2003); Kato et al. (2002) and Koseki et al. (1998), H ¼ 0.5 m; Latha
and Krishna (2008), H ¼ 0.6 m. There are also some seismic tests on
larger models: El Emam and Bathurst (2007), Matsuo et al. (1998)
H ¼ 1 m; Sakaguchi (1996), H ¼ 1.5 m and Ling et al. (2005),
H ¼ 2.8 m. In the present study, height of the model walls is 0.6 m.
Though scale effects prevail in these tests, relative performance of
rigid faced and modular block walls at varying earthquake shaking
conditions can be derived from the observations, providing insights
to the effect of various parameters on the seismic performance of
these walls.
Several studies on segmental retaining walls are available in
literature. Yoo and Kim (2008) investigated the effect of surcharge
loads on segmental retaining walls by carrying out a full-scale load
test and a 3D finite element analysis on a two-tier, 5 m high, geo-
synthetic reinforced segmental retaining wall. Bathurst et al. (1997)
presented full scale tests on geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls
constructed with a column of dry-stacked modular concrete units
and wrapped face. It was concluded that hard facing column is a
structural element that acts to reduce the magnitude of strains that
would otherwise develop in a wall with a flexible facing.
Ramakrishnan et al. (1998) presented shaking table test results of
geotextile wrap faced and geotextile-reinforced segmental model
retaining walls. Segmental retaining wall was found to sustain
approximately twice the critical acceleration of the wrap-faced
wall. Huang et al. (2003) used multi-wedge method based on
Newmark's sliding block theory to analyze four geosynthetic rein-
forced modular block walls in the 1999 chiechi earthquake. Ling
et al. (2005) presented shaking table tests on three large scale
2.8 m high modular-block geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls sub-
jected to significant shaking using the Kobe earthquake motions.
The reinforcements used were polymeric geogrids, which were
frictionally connected to the facing blocks having a front lip. It was
observed that the wall performance under earthquake shaking
could be improved by increasing the length of the top reinforce-
ment layer, reducing vertical reinforcement spacing, and grouting
the top blocks to ensure firm connection to the reinforcement.
Koerner and Soong (2001) carried out extensive survey of
existing geosynthetic reinforced segmental walls and reported
major reasons for excessive deformations and collapse of some of
these walls. Yoo and Jung (2006) investigated the case history of a
failed geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining wall in Korea.
Finite element analysis of the wall and laboratory tests carried out
on backfill and reinforcement revealed that the main reasons for
failure were inappropriate design and low quality backfill, apart
from the rainfall infiltration. Liu (2012) carried out extensive finite
Table 1
Properties of backfill sand.
D10 0.215 mm
D30 0.37 mm
D60 0.71 mm
Coefficient of uniformity Cu 3.30
Coefficient of curvature Cc 0.896
Specific gravity G 2.65
Maximum void ratio emax 0.828
Minimum void ratio emin 0.5022
Maximum unit weight gdmax 17.22 kN/m3
Minimum unit weight gdmin 14.21 kN/m3
element analysis of geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining
walls and concluded that the deformation of reinforced soil zone
was largely governed by reinforcement spacing and reinforcement
stiffness, whereas the lateral displacement at the back of reinforced
soil zone was governed by the reinforcement length.
To understand the performance of geosynthetic reinforced soil
(GRS) walls during strong shaking, a series of shaking table tests on
reinforced soil model walls with dry sand backfill are performed in
the present study. This research effort had the goals of providing
insight into the seismic response of geosynthetic reinforced soil
walls under controlled dynamic base shaking, with the variation of
parameters like type of facing, backfill relative density, reinforce-
ment layers, and frequency of base motion.
2. Equipment and materials used in the experiments
This study presents the performance of rigid faced and modular
block walls at varying earthquake shaking conditions, providing
insights to the effect of various parameters on the seismic perfor-
mance of these walls. To understand the performance of geo-
synthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls during strong shaking, a series
of shaking table tests on reinforced soil model walls with dry sand
backfill are performed in the present study. This research effort had
the goals of providing insight into the seismic response of geo-
synthetic reinforced soil walls under controlled dynamic base
shaking, with the variation of parameters like type of facing, backfill
relative density, reinforcement layers, and frequency of base
motion.
2.1. Shaking table
A computer controlled servo hydraulic single axis shaking table
with payload capacity of 1000 kg and foot print of up to
1000 mm  1000 mm was used in this study. To minimize the
boundary effects on model structures, a laminar box was designed
and built for the shaking table facility. Laminar box is a large sized
shear box consisting of several horizontal layers, built such that the
friction between the layers is minimized. The layers move relative
to one another in accordance with the deformation of the soil in-
side. The laminar box used in this study is rectangular in cross
section with inside dimensions of 500 mm  1000 mm and
800 mm deep made up of fifteen rectangular hollow layers
machined from solid aluminum compose. The gap between the
successive layers is 2 mm and the bottommost layer is rigidly
connected to the solid aluminum base of dimensions
800 mm  1200 mm and 15 mm thickness. The layers were sepa-
rated by linear roller bearings arranged to permit relative move-
ment between the layers with minimum friction. Accelerometers,
soil pressure sensors and Ultrasonic Displacement Sensors (USDT)
were used for instrumenting the model retaining walls.
2.2. Back fill material
Backfill material used for the model construction is locally
available dry sand. The sand is classified as poorly graded (SP) ac-
cording to the Unified Soil Classification System. Physical properties
of the sand are reported in Table 1.
2.3. Reinforcement
Backfill sand is reinforced with two different types of geogrids,
stronger biaxial geogrid (SG) and weaker biaxial geogrid (WG).
These geogrids are made up of polypropylene, biaxially oriented
integrally extruded geogrids with rigid junctions and stiff ribs.
Properties of both the geogrids are presented in Table 2.
 G.M. Latha, P. Santhanakumar / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316 309

2.4. Modular blocks

Concrete blocks used for model facing were 125 mm

wide  100 mm long  150 mm deep with a positive mechanical
interlock in the form of concrete lip of 125 mm width  25 mm
length  50 mm thickness located at the back bottom of each block.
Each modular block has a 75 mm wide  50 mm long  150 mm
deep rectangular hollow section created by 25 mm thick reinforced
concrete. The dimension details of the block are shown in Fig. 1.
Modular concrete blocks were made according to the specifi-
cations of National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA), ASTM
codes which are presented in the Table 3. The blocks were casted
with high quality ordinary Portland cement of grade 53 for
achieving minimum of 28 days characteristic compressive strength Fig. 1. Dimensions of modular block.

of 30 MPa. The maximum nominal aggregate size used is 6 mm. The

maximum water content used is 40% with a workability slump of
Table 3
50e75 mm under severe exposure condition. The mix design ratio Specifications of modular blocks.
by weight is 1:1.2:2.36. The blocks were casted by moulds made up
Minimum compressive strength 30 MPa
of wood coated with red oxide paint. These blocks were reinforced
Water adsorption 8%
with galvanized iron wires of 4 mm diameter. Properties of the Dimension tolerance 3 mm
modular block are presented in Table 4. Maximum horizontal gap between erected units 3.25 mm

2.5. Model construction

Model retaining walls were constructed in the laminar box to a
size of 700 mm  500 mm in plan and 600 mm height. All model
walls are backfilled with sand, constructed in lifts of equal heights.
Wall facing was either rigid or modular block facing.
Rigid faced wall models were constructed using 12 hollow
rectangular steel box sections of 50 mm height and 25 mm width
each bolted together using two vertical steel rods at two ends, both
bolted to the bottom plywood base to form a 600 mm high rigid
panel of 25 mm thickness with a fixed bottom condition. The
reinforcement materials were made to run through the rods firmly
fixed between two rectangular box sections.
Modular block walls were made up of concrete blocks of size
125 mm  100 mm  150 mm with a positive mechanical interlock
in the form of concrete lip of 125 mm  25 mm  50 mm located at
the back bottom of each block. The model wall forms an inward
batter of 7.2
. The bottommost layer of the wall is fixed to the
wooden frame which in turn is firmly attached to the base. A typical
rigid facing wall and a typical modular faced model wall after
construction are shown in Fig. 2.
Backfill sand was placed in the laminar box using dry pluviation
technique to achieve the uniform density. In case of reinforced wall
models, geosynthetic layers were placed at the specific depth while
filling the backfill sand. Minimum reinforcement length (Lrein) of
0.7H (420 mm) corresponding to minimum required for reinforced
earth structures (FHWA, 2001) is maintained from the wall facing in
all the tests. The schematics of typical reinforced rigid faced wall
and modular block wall with instrumentation are shown in Fig. 3.
The retaining wall models were subjected to specific sinusoidal
motion of 20 cycles. Dynamic response of wall models in terms of
accelerations, facing displacements, vertical displacements, hori-
zontal soil pressure were measured using accelerometers,
displacement sensors, soil pressure sensors respectively and the
Table 2
Properties of geogrids.
Property WG SG
Ultimate tensile strength (kN/m) 20 40
Yield point strain 16.27% 9.2%
Aperture size 35  35 30  30
Mass per unit area g/m2 220 230
Table 4
Properties of modular block units.
Compressive strength 35 MPa
Water adsorption 5.5%
Overall dimensions 125  100  150 mm/64.5  100  150 mm
Hollow section 75  50  150 mm/14.5  50  150 mm
Weight of each unit 3.55 kg/1.75 kg
Maximum aggregate size 6 mm
Sand Zone II
Cement grade OPC 53
Reinforcement Galvanized iron wire of 4 mm diameter
same were recorded using data acquisition system of the shaking
table.
Out of the four accelerometers, one accelerometer A0 was fixed
to the base of the shaking table. Remaining three accelerometers
A1, A2, A3 are embedded in backfill material at elevations 150, 300,
600 mm respectively from the base at a constant distance from
100 mm. Three soil pressure transducers P1, P2, P3 are placed inside
the wall in contact with facing at elevations 175, 325, 475 mm
respectively from the base. To measure the horizontal displacement
of wall facing, three ultrasonic displacement transducers (USDT)
D1, D2 and D3 were placed at elevations 200, 350, 500 mm
respectively from the base. To measure the vertical displacement of
the backfill sand, one USDT D4 is placed at a distance 200 mm wall
facing. Vertical displacement at other locations along the length of
the backfill was measured using dial gauges.
3. Similitude laws
Shaking table tests in this study are 1 g model studies carried
out on reduced scale models. The stresses and deformations
measured in the experiments do not truly represent the stresses
and deformations in field because of low confining pressures and
boundary effects in model studies. Hence it is essential to apply
proper similitude rules for the experiments in order to apply the
results to actual field conditions. Iai (1989) presented similitude
laws for the 1 g model tests from basic definitions of effective stress,
strain and constitutive law, overall equilibrium and mass balance. A
geometric scale factor, l, was defined as the proportionality con-
stant between the model and prototype geometry. Similar
310 G.M. Latha, P. Santhanakumar / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316

Fig. 2. Retaining wall facings used in the study a) Rigid facing b) Modular block facing.

Fig. 3. Schematics of test set-up and instrumentation a) Rigid faced reinforced wall b) Modular block reinforced wall.

proportionality equations were assumed for other parameters such scaling factors computed for relating various physical quantities in
as stress-strain and pore water pressure. For the present study, the models to those in prototype are given in Table 5. Dimensions of the
geometric scale factor, l, is taken as 8. Accordingly, the height of the modular blocks in the model tests are
model wall is kept as 0.6 m, corresponding to 4.8 m in field. The 0.125 m  0.1 m  0.15 m (L  B  H), corresponding to prototype
 G.M. Latha, P. Santhanakumar / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316 311

Table 5
Similitude laws for shaking table model tests (Iai, 1989).

Parameter Model Parameter Equation for scaling (Prototype/Model) Scaling factor Prototype Parameter

Acceleration (g) 0.2 1 1 0.2

Unit weight of sand (kN/m3) 15.48 (47% RD) 1 1 15.48 (47% RD)
16.02 (65% RD) 16.02 (65% RD)
Dimensions of the wall 0.5  0.6 l 8 4  4.8
B  H (m)
Dimensions of the modular blocks 0.125  0.1  0.15 l 8 1  0.8  1.2
L  B  H (m)
Frequency (Hz) 2 1/l3/4 0.21 0.42
Time tm l3/4 4.75 4.75  tm
Stress sm l 8 8  sm

blocks of dimensions 1 m  0.8 m  1.2 m. Bathurst et al. (1996)
specified that the maximum dimensions of proprietary modular
blocks are 1.8 m  0.8 m  0.6 m (L  B  H). Height of the pro-
totype blocks corresponding to the present study is higher than
these specifications, though the length and width fall in the
specified range. Several other researchers have used modular
blocks of similar height in the model tests (Ehrlich and Mirmoradi,
2013; Ling et al., 2005).
Scaling of reinforcement tensile strength is not attempted in this
study. Hence the geogrids used in the study simulate very strong

Table 6
Parameters varied and the corresponding test code.

Test code Facing type Relative density of backfill (%) Type of reinforcement Number of reinforcing layers

UT1 Rigid 47 e e
UT2 Rigid 65 e e
MUT1 Modular 65 e
MUT2 Modular 65 e
RT1 Rigid 47 WG* 2
RT2 Rigid 47 WG 3
RT3 Rigid 65 WG 2
RT4 Rigid 65 WG 3
RT5 Rigid 47 SG** 2
RT6 Rigid 47 SG 3
RT7 Rigid 65 SG 2
RT8 Rigid 65 SG 3
MRT1 Modular 47 WG 2
MRT2 Modular 47 WG 3
MRT3 Modular 65 WG 2
MRT4 Modular 65 WG 3

WG*: Weaker biaxial geogrid; SG**: Stronger biaxial geogrid.

Fig. 4. Variation of horizontal displacement of wall with change in relative density of backfill a) Rigid faced wall b) Modular block wall.
312 G.M. Latha, P. Santhanakumar / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316
Fig. 5. Horizontal displacement vs. normalized height of the wall with change in
relative density of backfill for rigid faced and modular block walls.
prototype geogrids. However, comparing their relative tensile
strength, these geogrids are referred to as weak and strong geogrids
in this paper.
4. Results and discussion
Rigid faced unreinforced and reinforced retaining walls and
unreinforced and reinforced modular block walls were tested under
acceleration of 0.3 g and frequency of 2 Hz for two different relative
densities 47% and 65%. Parameters varied in the tests and the cor-
responding test codes are shown in Table 6.
4.1. Unreinforced walls
Effect of backfill density on wall performance of unreinforced
and reinforced retaining wall models was studied by conducting
tests at two different relative densities, 47% and 65%. Fig. 4 shows
Fig. 6. Variation of RMSA amplification factors of wall with change in relative density of backfill a) Rigid faced wall b) Modular block wall.
Fig. 7. Variation of vertical displacements of wall with change in relative density of
backfill a) Rigid faced wall b) Modular block wall.
the comparison of wall displacements with relative density for
unreinforced rigid faced walls and unreinforced modular block
walls. It is observed that the displacement of the wall increased
with the elevation of the wall. Increase in the backfill density
reduced the deformations significantly for both rigid faced and
modular block walls. At any specific relative density, modular block
walls showed lower deformations compared to rigid faced walls as
observed in Fig. 4. This is because of the dissimilarities between the
base widths of the rigid faced and modular block walls. The base
width of modular block walls was 125 mm, five times the base
width of the rigid faced walls (25 mm). To eliminate the effect of
base width, horizontal displacements for the rigid faced and
modular block walls are plotted with respect to the normalized
height (H/Base width) of the wall in Fig. 5. From this figure, it is very
clear that at any specific normalized height of the wall, modular
block walls deformed more compared to the rigid faced walls. This
is because the facing is much rigid in case of rigid faced wall
 G.M. Latha, P. Santhanakumar / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316
Fig. 8. Variation of horizontal displacement of wall with type and quantity of reinforcement a) Rigid facing with 47% relative density b) Rigid facing with 65% relative density c)
Modular facing with 47% relative density d) Modular facing with 65% relative density.
compared to the modular block walls. The facing consists of a stack
of rigid steel panels set in position by running them through two
rigid steel rods at both ends in case of rigid faced walls, whereas the
facing is made of a stack of interlocking hollow concrete blocks,
allowing it to deform more.
Fig. 9. Horizontal displacement vs. normalized height of the wall for unreinforced and
reinforced rigid faced and modular block walls.
313
Improving the relative density of the backfill resulted in
reduction in wall deformations for both rigid faced and modular
block walls, the benefit being more pronounced in case of modular
block walls. In case of backfill density of 47%, maximum wall face
deformation is reduced from 22.33 mm to 18.22 mm with increase
in relative density of the backfill from 47% to 65% for the rigid faced
walls g as shown in Fig. 5(a). In case of modular block walls, hori-
zontal deformations of the wall reduced from 14.65 mm to 6.14 mm
with increase in relative density of the backfill from 47% to 65%.
Maximum reduction in displacement with the increase in relative
density was 18.4% for rigid faced walls and 58% for modular block
walls. When the backfill is loose, it tries to deform more under
cyclic loading, thus exerting higher pressure on the wall. When the
density of the soil increases, the friction angle increases, leading to
a reduction in the active earth pressure coefficient and in turn the
pressure exerted on the wall.
To simplify the presentation of acceleration response at
different elevations of the slope, Root mean square acceleration
amplification factor (RMSA) is used. RMSA amplification factor is
the ratio of response acceleration value in the soil to that of cor-
responding value of the base motion (Kramer, 1996). Accelerations
are amplified more at the top of the wall. RMSA factors are slightly
higher for walls with denser backfill as observed in Fig. 6. However,
facing type has no significant influence on the RMSA amplification
factors. Incremental residual pressures observed at the end of dy-
namic excitation along the height of the wall in different rigid faced
unreinforced model walls did not show any consistent trend. Not
314 G.M. Latha, P. Santhanakumar / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316
Fig. 10. Variation of RMSA amplification factors with type and quantity of reinforcement a) Rigid facing with 47% relative density b) Rigid facing with 65% relative density c)
Modular facing with 47% relative density d) Modular facing with 65% relative density.
much variation in the pressures with change in facing type was
observed.
Fig. 7 shows the variation of vertical displacement along the
backfill surface measured at three different locations for tests with
different relative densities. Settlement of the backfill increased
with the increase in the distance from the facing, which means that
the backfill sand settled less near the facing. Vertical displacement
of the backfill decreased by about 30% on increase in relative
density of the backfill from 47% to 65% for both rigid faced and
modular block walls.
4.2. Reinforced walls
Two type of geogrids, namely weaker geogrid (WG) and stron-
ger geogrid (SG) were used in the model studies. Rigid faced walls
were reinforced with both these types of geogrids in different
model tests (Table 5). However, modular block faced walls were
reinforced only with weaker geogrids because the deformations
were negligible even when the walls were reinforced with weaker
geogrid. Length of reinforcement was 420 mm (0.7 H) from the wall
facing in all the models. Relative density of backfill was varied as
47% and 65% in reinforced model tests also. The model walls were
subjected to 20 cycles of sinusoidal shaking motion of 0.3 g accel-
eration and 2 Hz frequency. Model tests RT1 e RT8 were intended
to study the effect of type and quantity of reinforcement on the
performance of rigid faced soil wall models, whereas tests MRT1 e
MRT4 were used to study the performance of reinforced modular
block walls.
Fig. 8(a) and (b) show the horizontal displacements for unre-
inforced and reinforced rigid faced walls at relative densities of 47%
and 65% respectively. These plots present the comparison of wall
deformations without reinforcement and with two and three layers
of weak and strong geogrid reinforcement. Fig. 8(c) and (d) show
similar comparisons for modular block walls. Compared to unre-
inforced walls, wall deformations reduced significantly on inclusion
of reinforcement for both the types of walls. Maximum displace-
ment of 22.33 mm observed in case of unreinforced rigid faced wall
with backfill density of 47% (UT1) was reduced to 3.71 mm upon
inclusion of 2 layers of stronger geogrid and it further reduced to
1.68 mm upon inclusion of 3 layers of stronger geogrids. On in-
clusion of 2 layers of weaker geogrid, horizontal displacements in
modular blocks were restricted to 5.95 mm and the deformations
further reduced to 1.34 mm on the inclusion of 3 layers of weaker
geogrid. Similar decrements in deformation were observed with
the inclusion of reinforcement at 65% backfill relative density also.
Horizontal deformation of the modular block wall with three layers
of weaker geogrid reinforcement at 6% backfill relative density is
less than 1 mm. Since the deformations in modular block walls
were very low even with weaker reinforcement, further tests with
modular block walls reinforced with stronger geogrids were not
planned. A comparative plot of the deformations of rigid faced and
modular block walls with and without reinforcement at 47% rela-
tive density of the backfill is presented in the form of horizontal
displacement of the wall against normalized height of the wall in
Fig. 9. This figure indicates that though the unreinforced modular
block wall deformed more compared to the unreinforced rigid
 G.M. Latha, P. Santhanakumar / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316
Fig. 11. Variation of vertical displacements with type and quantity of reinforcement a)
Rigid facing with 47% relative density b) Rigid facing with 65% relative density c)
Modular facing with 47% relative density d) Modular facing with 65% relative density.
block wall, modular block wall reinforced with 3 layers of weaker
geogrid deformed less compared to the similarly reinforced rigid
faced wall. Reinforcement is more effective in case of modular block
walls in reducing the deformations.
Comparison of RMSA amplification factors for rigid faced and
modular block walls with different quantities of geogrid rein-
forcement at both the relative densities tested is shown in Fig. 10.
Reinforced retaining walls exhibited increased acceleration ampli-
fications and the acceleration amplification is non-uniformly
distributed along the height of the wall. Through series of centri-
fuge tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil structures, Yang et al.
(2013) demonstrated that the acceleration amplification factor is
larger than 1.0 and non-uniformly distributed with height when
the base acceleration is less than 0.4 g. Results from the present
study confirm this observation. Accelerations are amplified more at
lower levels of the retaining walls by the inclusion of reinforcement
and at the top most point of measurement, not much difference in
the acceleration amplifications was observed between unrein-
forced and reinforced retaining walls for at both the backfill den-
sities tested, as seen from Fig. 10. RMSA amplification factors
estimated for the reinforced retaining walls in the present study
ranged between 1.1 and 1.3, which is same for unreinforced walls.
Fig. 11 shows the variation of vertical displacement along the
backfill surface measured at three different locations for unrein-
forced and reinforced model walls with different relative densities.
315
Reinforced retaining walls showed lesser vertical settlements in
case of rigid as well as modular block walls at both the relative
densities. As observed from Fig. 11a and c, vertical deformations of
the rigid faced walls were not affected by the type of reinforcement.
However, increasing the quantity of reinforcement resulted in the
decrease of settlements for all the model tests. Maximum vertical
settlement measured in unreinforced rigid retaining wall with 47%
relative density was about 46 mm and it was reduced to about
19 mm by the inclusion of three layers of weaker or stronger geo-
grid. In case of modular block walls with 47% relative density,
maximum vertical deformation of unreinforced wall was about
42 mm and the inclusion of three layers of weaker geogrid brought
down the maximum settlement to 15 mm. Similar reduction in
settlements was observed also for walls with 65% relative density.
Reduction of settlements was about 60% with three layers of geo-
grid for rigid as well as modular block walls at both the relative
densities tested.
Frequency of shaking and interface shear between stacked
modular blocks are other important parameters that could influ-
ence the seismic response of modular block walls, which are not
considered in this study.
5. Conclusions
The following major conclusions are drawn from the results
obtained from the 1-g shaking table studies carried out on rigid
faced and modular block retaining walls.
Displacement of the retaining wall during base shaking in-
creases with the elevation of the wall for both rigid faced and
modular block walls.
Increase in the backfill density reduced the deformations
significantly for both rigid faced and modular block walls, the
benefit being more pronounced in case of modular block walls.
Maximum reduction in horizontal displacement with the increase
in relative density from 47% to 65% was 18.4% for rigid faced walls
and 58% for modular block walls. Vertical displacement of the
backfill decreased by about 30% on increase in relative density of
the backfill from 47% to 65% for both rigid faced and modular block
walls.
At any specific normalized height of the wall, modular block
walls deformed more compared to the rigid faced walls.
Reinforcement is more effective in case of modular block walls
in reducing the deformations.
Reinforced retaining walls exhibited increased acceleration
amplifications and the acceleration amplification is non-uniformly
distributed along the height of the wall.
Vertical deformations of the rigid faced walls were not affected
by the type of reinforcement. Increasing the quantity of reinforce-
ment resulted in the decrease of settlements for all the model tests.
With the inclusion of 3 layers of geogrid, the vertical deformations
were reduced by about 60% in both rigid faced and modular block
walls.
References
Bathurst, R.J., Simac, M.R., Christopher, B.R., Bonczkiewicz, C., 1993. A Database of
Results from a Geosynthetic Reinforced Modular Block Soil Retaining Wall,
Proceedings of Soil Reinforcement: Full Scale Experiments of the 80's. ISSMFE/
ENPC, Paris, France, pp. 341e365.
Bathurst, R.J., Simac, M.R., 1994. Geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining wall
structures in North America. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Confer-
ence on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Singapore,
September 1994, pp. 1e24.
Bathurst, J., Cai, Z., Pelletier, M., 1996. Seismic design and performance of
geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls. In: Proceedings of the 10th
Annual Symposium of the Vancouver Geotechnical Society, Vancouver, BC,
Canada, June 1996, pp. 1e26.
316 G.M. Latha, P. Santhanakumar / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 307e316
Bathurst, R.J., Cai, Z., Simac, M.R., 1997. Seismic performance chart for geosynthetic
reinforced segmental walls. In: Proc., Geosynthetics ‘97 Conf., Long Beach,
California, pp. 1001e1014.
Bathurst, R.J., Walters, D.L., Hatami, K., Allen, T.M., 2001. Full-scale performance
testing and numerical modeling of reinforced soil retaining walls. IS Kyushu
Prepr. 3e28.
Cazzuffi, D., Rimoldi, P., 1994. The Italian experience in geosynthetics reinforced soil
retaining wall with vegetated and concrete facing. Recent case histories of
permanent geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. In: Tatsuoka, F.,
Leshchinsky, D. (Eds.), 1994, Proceedings of Seiken Symposium No. 11, Tokyo,
Japan, November 1992. Balkema, pp. 21e43.
Collin, J.G., Chouery-Curtis, V.E., Berg, R.R., 1992. Field observations of reinforced
soil structures under seismic loading. In: Ochiai, H., et al. (Eds.), Proc., Int. Symp.
on Earth Reinforcement. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 223e228.
Ehrlich, M., Mirmoradi, S.H., 2013. Evaluation of the effects of facing stiffness and
toe resistance on the behavior of GRS walls. Geotext. Geomemb. 40, 28e36.
El-Emam, M., Bathurst, R.J., 2007. Influence of reinforcement parameters on the
seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil retaining walls. Geotext.
Geomemb. 25 (1), 33e49.
Gourc, J.P., Gotteland, P., Wilson-Jones, H., 1990. Cellular retainingwalls reinforced
by geosynthetics: behaviour and design. Performance of reinforced soil struc-
tures. In: McGown, A., Yeo, K., Andrawes, K.Z. (Eds.), 1991, Proceedings of the
International Reinforced Soil Conference Held in Glasgow, Scotland, September
1990. Thomas Telford, pp. 41e45.
Huang, C.C., Chou, L.H., Tatsuoka, F., 2003. Seismic displacements of geosynthetic-
reinforced soil modular block walls. Geosynth. Int. 10 (1), 2e23.
Iai, S., 1989. Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid model in 1 g
gravitational field. Soils Found. 29 (1), 105e118.
Juran, I., Christopher, B., 1989. Laboratory model study on geosynthetic reinforced
soil retaining walls. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 115 (7), 905e926.
Kato, N., Huang, C.C., Tateyama, M., Watanabe, K., Koseki, J., Tatsuoka, F., 2002.
Seismic stability of several types of retaining walls on sand slope. In: Proc. of
7th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Nice, vol. 1, pp. 237e240.
Knutson, A.F., 1990 May. Reinforced soil retaining structures, Norwegian experi-
ences. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, vol. 1. Balkema, The Hague, Netherlands,
pp. 87e91.
Koerner, R.M., Koerner, G.R., 2013. A data base, statistics and recommendations
regarding 171 failed geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth
(MSE) walls. Geotext. Geomemb. 40, 20e27.
Koerner, R.M., Soong, T.-Y., 2001. Geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls.
Geotext. Geomemb. 19 (6), 359e386.
Koseki, J., Tatsuoka, F., Munaf, Y., Tateyama, M., Kojima, K., 1998. A modified pro-
cedure to evaluate active earth pressure at high seismic loads, soils and foun-
dations. Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17 1995
Hyogoken-Nambu Earthq. 2, 209e216.
Koseki, J., Tatsuoka, F., Watanabe, K., Tateyama, M., Kojima, K., Munaf, Y., 2003.
Model tests on seismic stability of several types of soil retaining walls. In: Ling,
Leshchinsky, Tatsuoka (Eds.), Reinforced Soil Engineering. Dekker, pp. 317e358.
Kramer, S.L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Kutter, B.L., Casey, J.A., Romstad, K.M., 1990. Centrifuge modeling and field obser-
vations of dynamic behavior of reinforced soil and concrete cantilever retaining
walls. In: Proc., 4th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering,
pp. 663e672.
Latha, G.M., Krishna, A.M., 2008. Seismic response of reinforced soil retaining wall
models: influence of backfill relative density. Geotext. Geomemb. 26 (4),
335e349.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., Chou, N.N.S., 2001. Post-earthquake investigation on
several geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes during 1999 Ji-Ji
earthquake of Taiwan. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 21 (4), 297e313.
Ling, H.I., Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K., Liu, H., 2005. Large-
scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 131 (4), 465e476.
Liu, H., 2012. Long-term lateral displacement of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
segmental retaining walls. Geotext. Geomemb. 32, 18e27.
Lo Grasso, A.S., Maugeri, M., Recalcati, P., 2005. Seismic behavior of geosynthetic
reinforced slopes with overload by shaking table tests. Slopes and retaining
structures under static and seismic conditions. In: ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 140. CDROM.
Matsuo, O., Tsutsumi, T., Yokoyama, K., Saito, Y., 1998. Shaking table tests and an-
alyses of geosythetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. Geosynth. Int. 5 (1e2),
97e126.
Panah, A.K., Yazdi, M., Ghalandarzadeh, A., 2015. Shaking table tests on soil
retaining walls reinforced by polymeric strips. Geotext. Geomemb. 43 (2),
148e161.
Ramakrishnan, K., Budhu, M., Britto, A., 1998. Laboratory seismic tests on geotextile
wrap-faced and geotextile-reinforced segmental retaining walls. Geosynth. Int.
5 (1e2), 55e71.
Sakaguchi, M., 1996. A study of the seismic behavior of geosynthetic reinforced
walls in Japan. Geosynth. Int. 3 (1), 13e30.
Sandri, D., 1997. A summary of reinforced soil structure performance in the greater
Los Angeles area after the Northridge earthquake. In: Wu, J. (Ed.), Mechanically
Stabilized Backfill. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 433e442.
Tatsuoka, F., Tateyama, M., Uchimura, T., Koseki, J., 1997. Geosynthetic-reinforced
soil retaining walls as important permanent structures, the 1996e1997 Mercer
lecture. Geosynth. Int. 4 (2), 81e136.
Watanabe, K., Munaf, Y., Koseki, J., Tateyama, M., Kojima, K., 2003. Behaviors of
several types of model retaining walls subjected to irregular excitation. Soils
Found. 43 (5), 13e27.
White, D.M., Holtz, R.D., 1997. Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced slopes and
walls during the Northridge, California earthquake of January 17, 1994. In: Earth
Reinforcement, vol. 2. Balkema, pp. 965e972.
Wang, L., Chen, G., Chen, S., 2015. Experimental study on seismic response of
geogrid reinforced rigid retaining walls with saturated backfill sand. Geotext.
Geomemb. 43 (1), 35e45.
Won, G.W, 1994 September. Use of Geosynthetic Reinforced Structures in Highway
Engineering by the Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW). Ground Modification
Seminar No 3-Geosynthetics in Road Engineering. University of Technology,
Sydney, Australia, p. 26.
Yang, K.-H., Hung, W.-Y., Kencana, E.Y., 2013. Acceleration-amplified responses of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures with a wide range of input ground ac-
celerations. In: ASCE Geo-Congress 2013, San Diego, California, March 2013,
Geotechnical Special Publication, GSP 231, pp. 1178e1187.
Yoo, C., Jung, H.Y., December 1, 2006. Case histories of geosynthetic reinforced
segmental retaining wall failure. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 132 (12).
Yoo, C., Kim, S.B., 2008. Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic reinforced
segmental retaining wall under a surcharge load: full-scale load test and 3D
finite element analysis. Geotext. Geomemb. 26 (6), 460e472.