Technical Note 565

Jonathan T. H. Wu1* and Thang Q. Pham2

An analytical model for evaluation

of compaction-induced stresses in a
reinforced soil mass

Abstract: When an earth fill is subject to loading and subsequent unloading, it will bring about an increase in the lat-
eral stress, provided that there is sufficient constraint to lateral deformation of the soil mass. The increase in lateral stress is
commonly known as the “residual” or “lock-in” lateral stress. The residual stress resulted from compaction operation, which
involves a series of loading and unloading onto a soil mass, is referred to as “compaction-induced stress” (CIS). The CIS will
increase the stiffness and strength of the soil mass, and is an important factor to be considered in the behavior of compacted
soil. A number of studies have been conducted on the CIS in an unreinforced soil mass. With a reinforced soil, the CIS is likely
to be much more pronounced because there is a higher degree of constraint to lateral deformation in a reinforced soil mass due
to soil-reinforcement friction. An analytical model, referred to as the CIS model, is developed for evaluation of compaction-
induced stress in a reinforced soil mass. Correlations for determination of model parameters are given so that the parameters
can be estimated through reinforcement spacing and stiffness, and common soil parameters, such as the angle of internal fric-
tion (ϕ), and overconsolidation ratio (OCR). In addition, the stress paths of typical fill compaction operation are discussed,
including compaction with a plant moving toward and away from a section under consideration, and compaction with mul-
tiple passes. The CIS model presented in this paper is found to give CIS values very close to those obtained from sophisticated
finite element analysis of a 6-m high GRS mass under different values of compaction pressure. The CIS in the reinforced soil
mass is significant under compaction pressures typically used in actual fill compaction.

Keywords: Reinforced soil, compaction, lateral stress, analytical model.

1. INTRODUCTION removed, the increase in vertical stress will reduce to a very

When a soil mass is subject to an increase in vertical load,
there will generally be an increase in the vertical and hori-
zontal stresses in the soil mass. The increase in vertical stress
can readily be evaluated by the theory of elasticity, such as
Boussinesq theory (1885) and Westergaard theory (1938).
The increase in horizontal stress, however, depends largely
on the constraint to lateral deformation. The higher the
degree of the constraint, the larger the increase in horizontal
stress will be. If the increase in vertical load is subsequently
*Corresponding Author
CB-113, 1200 Larimer Street, Department of Civil Engineering, University
1
of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217, USA, jonathan.wu@cudenver.
edu, Phone: 303-556-8585, Fax: 303-556-2368
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering (IGE/IBST), Ministry of Construction,
2
small value or zero; however, the increase in horizontal stress
may only reduce slightly. The net increase in the horizon-
tal stress that will “remain” in the soil mass is commonly
referred to as the “residual” or “lock-in” lateral stress. An
increase in vertical load followed by subsequent removal
of the load is typical in fill compaction during earthwork
construction. The residual lateral stress due to compaction is
referred to as the “compaction-induced stress” (CIS).
The CIS in a soil mass has been the subject of study by
many researchers, including Rowe (1954), Broms (1971),
Aggour and Brown (1974), Seed (1983), Seed and Duncan
(1986), and Duncan et al. (1986, 1991, and 1993). These
studies have indicated that the CIS will result in a significant
increase in lateral stress of a soil mass, provided that there
is sufficient constraint to lateral movement of the soil. The
increase in lateral stresses will lead to an increase in the

Vietnam, phamthangibst@gmail.com, Phone: (+84)437544014

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (2010) 4: (565-572) J. Ross Publishing, Inc. © 2010
DOI 10.3328/IJGE.2010.04.04.565-572
566 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

stiffness and strength of the soil mass due to the increase in

compaction load
confining pressure. I
In recent years, the technique of reinforcing a soil mass Position n Position 2 Position 1
by placing layers of tensile reinforcement (such as geosyn- z
'v
thetics) in the soil mass during construction has become
increasingly popular (e.g., Wu, 1994; Holtz et al., 1997; I
Bathurst et al., 1997). The technique is termed “reinforced (a)
soil.” It is likely that the magnitude of CIS will be higher
in a reinforced soil mass than in an unreinforced soil mass.
This is because the interface shear resistance between the h

soil and reinforcement will increase the constraint to lateral

deformation of the soil mass. With greater constraint to the
lateral deformation, the resulting lock-in lateral stress due to K 2,c and K 3,c-line
line
(Assumed coincide) K i,c-
fill compaction is likely to be larger in a reinforced soil mass.
n F
In numerical analysis of earth structures, the simula- G
tion of CIS have been over-simplified at times (e.g., Katona, 2 D

' h,c,r
E
1
1978; Hatami and Bathurst, 2005 and 2006; Morrison et al., B
C
2006), and in most cases, totally ignored. This study was A
undertaken to investigate compaction-induced stresses in a v

geosynthetic-reinforced soil mass. The study included con- 'v 'v + 'v,c,max
ducting full-scale experiments, performing numerical analy-
(b)
sis, and developing an analytical model for evaluating of the
magnitude of CIS. This paper presents the analytical aspect Figure 1. (a) Positions of compaction load, and (b) Stress paths at
of the study, where a compaction model that can be used to depth z along section I-I as compaction load moves toward the section.
evaluate the increase in lateral stress due to fill compaction
of a reinforced soil mass is developed. Correlations of model
parameters with common soil and reinforcement parameters
are also given. The compaction model was developed by compaction load
I
combining (a) a model introduced by Seed (1983) and the
Position n Position 2 Position 1
companion hand-calculation procedure by Duncan and Seed z
(1986) for an unreinforced soil mass, and (b) the concept of 'v

average stress, a theory of soil-geosynthetic composite behav-

I
ior proposed by Ketchart and Wu (2001).
(a)

2. CHANGE IN STRESSES DUE TO FILL

COMPACTION OPERATION h

changing K 2,c-line
Fill compaction is a complex behavior in terms of the change due to passes of
K 2,c and K 3,c-line compaction
in stresses due to the actual operation of compaction. To (Assumed coincide) 1
determine the change in vertical and lateral stresses in a soil F
mass due to typical compaction operation, we shall consider G
B 2 D
n
the change in stresses at depth z in Section I-I due to moving
' h,c,r

compaction loads, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The direction line

Ki,c-
of the movement of a compaction plant may take one of the A
two forms: (1) moving toward Section I-I (Figure 1), or (2) v
'v 'v + ' v,c,max
moving away from Section I-I (Figure 2). The compaction
operation can be simulated by loading and unloading at dif- (b)

ferent positions (Positions 1, 2, and n), as shown in Figures

1(a) and 2(a). Figures 1(b) and 2(b) show the corresponding Figure 2. (a) Positions of compaction load, and (b) Stress paths at depth
stress path of the stresses at depth z in Section I-I. z along section I-I as compaction load moves away from the section.
 An analytical model for evaluation of compaction-induced stresses in a reinforced soil mass
An explanation of Figure 1(b) is given as follows:
1. The initial stress condition at depth z in Section I-I
is denoted by point A, with the initial vertical stress
being σv.
2. With the compaction load at Position 1, the stresses
are increased by following the path of Ki,c-line to
point B.
3. As the compaction load is removed from Position
1, the stresses will reduce from point B to point C
by following the path of K2,c-line.
4. When the compaction load moves to a new posi-
tion (Position 2), the stresses will increase from
point C to point D, via point B.
5. As the compaction load is removed from Position
2, the stresses will reduce from point D to point E
by following again the path of K2,c-line.
6. Steps 1 through 5 are repeated for all subsequent
new positions as the compaction plant moves
toward Section I-I. Note that as the compaction
plant moves closer to Section I-I, the vertical stress
at depth z will become larger.
7. The maximum vertical stress condition will be
reached when the compaction plant is directly at
Section I-I. The corresponding stress condition
is represented by point F. Upon removal of the
compaction load, the stress path will follow K2-line
to point G. The vertical distance AG is the result-
ing residual lateral stress, the compaction-induced
stress.
Figure 2 illustrate the condition where a compaction
plant moves away from Section I-I. Initially the compaction
plant is located at Section I-I, which causes the stresses to
increase from point A to point F in Figure 2(b), due to the
application of the compaction load. As the compaction load
is moving away from Section I-I, the stresses will reduce
from point F to point D, then point B, by following the path
of K2,c-line. As the compaction plant is finally removed, the
stress condition will be at point G. The vertical distance AG is
the residual lateral stress, i.e., the compaction-induced stress.
From Figures 1 and 2, the residual lateral stresses, as
denoted by the vertical distance AG, are the same for the two
cases. It is evident that the compaction-induced stresses in
a given section, due to a moving compaction plant, can be
determined by evaluating the residual lateral stresses as the
compaction load is directly at the section under consider-
ation.
Figure 3 shows the conceptual stress paths for a soil
mass subject to multiple passes of compaction. For the first
pass, the residual stress at point A is represented by distance
AG. With a subsequent pass of compaction, the slope of the
567
h
changing K 2,c-line due
K 2,c and K 3,c-line to mutiple passes
(Assumed coincide) of compaction
G'' G''' F
G' G
' h,c,r
ine
Ki,c-l
A
'v 'v + ' v,c,max
v
Figure 3. Stress paths for soil at depth z when subject to multiple
compaction passes.
K2-line will increase, and point G becomes point G′. As the
number of compaction pass increases, the final stresses will
move from G′ to G′′, then to G′′′. The vertical distance AG′′′′
is the residual lateral stress due to multiple passes of compac-
tion operation.
3 AN ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR
EVALUATING COMPACTION-INDUCED
STRESSES (CIS) IN A REINFORCED SOIL
MASS
In this study, an analytical model was developed for evalu-
ation of compaction-induced stress (CIS) in a reinforced
soil mass. It is referred to as the “compaction-induced stress
model” or the “CIS model.” The CIS model can be consid-
ered a modified form of the bi-linear compaction model
proposed by Seed (1983) for an unreinforced soil mass, and
the companion hand-calculation procedure proposed by
Duncan and Seed (1986). This modified compaction simu-
lation model takes into account the effects of geosynthetic
inclusion in a soil mass.
The CIS model can be described by the stress paths
shown in Figure 4. An explanation of Figure 4 is given below:
• As a reinforced soil mass is subject to a compaction
load, the stress will move from an initial state (point
A) to point B, by following along the path of Ki,c-line,
on which the horizontal stress, σ′h = Ki,c σ′v, where Ki,c
= coefficient of lateral earth pressure of the soil mass
for initial loading. At point B, the soil mass assumes
a maximum stress state with the vertical stress of
σ ′v,max = σ′v + Δσ′v,c,max (σ′v = vertical stress at the initial
stress, and Δσ′v,c,max = maximum increase in vertical
stress due to compaction loading).
568 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 4. Stress paths of the compaction-induced stress model for a reinforced Soil Mass.
• Upon unloading (i.e., upon removal of the compac-
tion load), the stresses in the soil are reduced by fol-
lowing by following along the path of K2,c-line from
point B to point C, with the vertical stress, σ′v, equals
to the vertical stress of point A. The residual hori-
zontal stress due to the compaction load is Δσ′h,c,r.
• In the case of “significant unloading”, i.e., the
unloading path “touches” the limiting state line (the
“K1,c-line”) at point E; thereafter, unloading stress
path will follow line EF (with σ′h = K1,c σ′v ).
• Upon reloading due to the next pass of compaction
load application, the reloading path is to follow
along the path of K3,c-line (with , and ) from either
point C or pint F until it meets the initial loading
path (line AB) , then follow along the path of Ki,c-line
to a new stress state.
• The subsequent cycles of unloading and reloading
shall not deviate much from the K3,c-line, as has been
noted by Broms (1971), Seed (1983), and Ehrlich
and Mitchell (1994). Therefore, the same K3-line will
be used for all subsequent cycles of reloading and
unloading.
• The increase in lateral stresses due to fill compac-
tion, namely the CIS, is denoted by the horizontal
residual stresses Δσ′h,c,r in Figure 4.
4. MODEL PARAMETERS OF THE
COMPACTION-INDUCED STRESS MODEL
Four model parameters are needed for the compaction-
induced stress model described in Section 3; namely, Ki,c,
K1,c, K2,c and K3,c. These parameters can be determined from
the measured data of a Soil-Geosynthetic Composite (SGC)
tests (Wu et al., 2010). For routine computations, they can
be estimated by using empirical and semi-empirical cor-
relations shown in Table 1. It is to be noted that the term
E
0.7 E S – r0.7 J for the parameter K2,c is to account for
s v r
the presence of reinforcement. The factor 0.7 was deduced
from available test data using the concept of average stress, a
theory of soil-geosynthetic composite behavior proposed by
Ketchart and Wu (2001). The correlation for the parameter
K2,c is adapted from that proposed by Seed (1983) for an
unreinforced soil mass. Detailed derivation of the parameter
K2,c has been presented by Wu et al. (2010). For hand calcula-
tions, the maximum increase of the “vertical” stress, Δσ′v,c,max
(i.e., point B in Figure 4) due to fill compaction can be esti-
mated by using the Westergaard solution (1938).
The increase of lateral stress in a reinforced soil mass due
to compaction can be evaluated by the equation:
Δσ′h,c = Δσ′v,c,max (K1,c – K2,c ) (1)
Substituting the expression of K2,c from Table 1 into Eq.
(1), we have
0.7 E
Δσ′h,c = Δσ′v,c,max Ki,c F) 1 + E S – 0.7r E (2)
s v r
 An analytical model for evaluation of compaction-induced stresses in a reinforced soil mass 569

Table 1. Estimation of model parameters for the compaction simulation model

Range of the
Parameter Name Estimation from Soil and Reinforcement Properties
Parameter Values
Ki,c ≅ β KA

Coefficient of lateral earth 1.0 ≤ β ≤ 1.5

Ki,c pressure of a GRS mass for KA ≤ Ki,c ≤ K0 ϕ′
initial loading KA ≅ tan2 45 –
2
K0 ≅ sinϕ′

Limiting coefficient of lateral ϕ′

K1,c K1,c ≅ KP Ki,c ≅ KP ≅ tan2 45 +
earth pressure for unloading 2

Er
K2,c ≅ 1 – F 1 + 0.7 Ki,c
Es Sv – 0.7Er
Coefficient of lateral earth
K2,c 0 ≤ K2,c ≤ K0 (OCR – OCRα)
pressure for unloading where F = 1 – and
(OCR – 1)
α ≅ sin ϕ′
Coefficient of lateral earth
K3,c 0 ≤ K3,c ≤ K0 K3,c ≅ K2,c
pressure for reloading
Note: K0 = coefficient of at-rest lateral earth pressure; KA = coefficient of active lateral earth pressure; KP = coefficient of passive
lateral earth pressure; OCR = over-consolidation ratio; Es = soil stiffness (kPa); Er = reinforcement stiffness (kN/m); Sv = reinforce-
ment spacing (m)

Using Eq. (2), the increase of lateral stress in a reinforced The 6-m high GRS mass was assumed to be in a plane
soil mass can be readily obtained. Moreover, the increase in strain condition. The material parameters of the GRS mass
soil stiffness can also be estimated. For example, the stiffness are:
of a soil can be evaluated by the following equation, based • Soil: a dense sand, unit weight, γ = 17 kN/m3; angle
on the hyperbolic model developed by Duncan and Chang of internal friction, ϕ = 45°; loading modulus,
(1970): Es = 30,000 kPa; unloading/reloading modulus,
Rf (1 – sin ϕ)(σ1 – (σ3 + Δσh,c )) 2
σ3 + Δσh,c n Eur = 90,000 kPa; Poisson ratio, ν = 0.2; compaction
Ei = 1 – K Pa (3) lift thickness, S = 0.2 m.
2 c – cos ϕ + 2 (σ3 + Δσh,c ) sin ϕ Pa
• Geosynthetics: reinforcement stiffness, Er = 2,000
where kPa; reinforcement vertical spacing, Sv = 0.2 m.
Et = tangent Young’s modulus • Vertical maximum pressures due to compaction: 44
Rf = ratio of ultimate deviator stress to failure deviator stress kPa, 100 kPa, 200 kPa, 300 kPa and 500 kPa.
c = cohesive strength
ϕ = angle of internal friction 5.1 Compaction-Induced Stresses Obtained
Pa = the atmospheric pressure
from Finite Element Analysis
K and n = material parameters
The finite element analysis was performed by using about
150 stages of loading and unloading to simulate the compac-
5. VERIFICATION OF THE COMPACTION- tion operation. A very fine mesh, containing about 3,000
INDUCED STRESS MODEL elements was used to discretize the system. It was found
through a series of analyses that a coarse mesh would not
The CIS model described in Sections 3 and 4 was verified produce sufficiently accurate results.
by comparing the lateral stresses in a 6-m high GRS mass The lateral stress distribution along the centerline of the
subject to different values of maximum vertical compaction GRS mass under maximum vertical compaction pressures of
pressure, as obtained from the CIS model and from the finite 200 kPa and 500 kPa is shown in Figure 5. The lateral stresses
element method of analysis. The finite element analysis was with and without considering compaction induced stresses
carried out by using Version 8.2 of Plaxis code (2002). The are shown in the Figure. Also depicted in the Figure is the
behavior of the soil was simulated by a hardening soil model distribution of the residual later stress (compaction-induced
in the finite element analysis. stress), which is the difference between the lateral stresses
considering CIS and without considering CIS. The compac-
570 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Lateral Stress (kPa) Lateral Stress (kPa)

0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75 100 125
0 0
Lateral Stress Lateral Stress
Distribution without Distribution without
Considering CIS Considering CIS

Lateral Stress Lateral Stress

Distribution with Distribution with
1 1 Considering CIS
Considering CIS
Residual Lateral
Residual Lateral
Stress (CIS)
Stress (CIS)

2 2
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Lateral stress distribution of a GRS mass by finite element analysis, with maximum vertical compaction pressures of (a) 200 kPa and (b)
500 kPa.

tion operation was simulated by loading and unloading at
different locations on the surface area of each compaction
lift. The zigzag shape of the profile is a result of the compac-
tion lift thickness being 0.2 m. It is seen that the compaction
induced stresses are very significant in both cases. As can be
expected, the compaction induced lateral stresses are higher
under a higher compaction pressure. The compaction-
induced stresses, except near the ground surface (i.e., within
about 1 m from the ground surface), is nearly constant with
depth.
5.2 Comparisons Between the CIS Model and
Finite Element Analysis
Using Eq. (2), the compaction-induced stresses can readily
be calculated by hand. The hand-calculated CIS are plotted in
Figure 5, and are compared with the finite element analysis
results at compaction pressures of 200 kPa and 500 kPa (the
range of typical maximum vertical pressures in actual com-
paction operation). It is seen that the compaction-induced
stresses calculated from the CIS model are in very good
agreement with the values obtained from the finite element
analysis. This suggests that the compaction-induced stress
model is indeed a valid model.
It is to be noted that the finite element analysis results
presented in Figure 6 took about 20 hours to obtain, includ-
ing data input and computations. The results of the CIS
model, however, took only several minutes.
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Summary
An analytical model for evaluation of Compaction-Induced
Stress (CIS) in a reinforced soil mass is developed. The model
is referred to as the “Compaction-Induced Stress model,” or
“CIS model.” The model is based on a compaction model
proposed by Seed (1983) for an unreinforced soil mass.
Correlations for determination of model parameters with
common soil and reinforcement parameters are given so
that they can be estimated through reinforcement spacing
and stiffness, and common soil parameters, such as angle of
internal friction (ϕ), and overconsolidation ratio (OCR). In
addition, the stress paths involved in typical fill compaction
operation are discussed, including compaction with a plant
moving toward and away from a section under consider-
ation, and compaction with multiple passes. The CIS model
is verified by comparing its results with finite element analy-
sis results of a 6-m high GRS mass under different values of
 An analytical model for evaluation of compaction-induced stresses in a reinforced soil mass 571

Lateral Stress (kPa) stresses when the compaction load is directly at the
0 25 50 75 100 section under consideration.
0
Maximum vertical
compaction
REFERENCES
pressure:

1
200 kPa Aggour, M.S., and Brown, C.B. (1974). “The Prediction of
(Model)
500 kPa
Earth Pressure on Retaining Walls Due to Compaction.”
(Model) Geotechnique, 24(4), 489-502.
200 kPa Bathurst R.J., Cai, Z., Alfaro, M., and Pelletier, M. (1997).
(FE)
2 “Seismic Design Issues for Geosynthetic Reinforced
500 kPa
(FE) Segmental Retaining Walls.” Proc. the International
Symposium on Mechanically Stabilized Backfill, J.T.H.
Depth (m)

Wu, ed., Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 79-97.

3 Broms, B. (1971). “Lateral Earth Pressure due to Compaction
of Cohesionless Soils.” Proc., 4th Budapest Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, 373-384.
Boussinesq, M.J. (1885). Application des Potentiels a L’etude
4 de L’equilibre et du Mouvement des Solides Elastiques,
Gauthier Villars, Paris.
Duncan, J.M., and Chang, C-Y, (1970). “Nonlinear Analysis
of Stress and Strain in Soils.” J. Soil Mechanics and
5 Foundations Division, ASCE, 96(SM5), 1629-1653.
Duncan, J.M., and Seed, R.M. (1986). “Compaction-Induced
Earth Pressures under Ko-Conditions.” J. Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 112(1), 1-22.
6 Duncan, J.M., Williams, G.W., Sehn, A.L., and Seed R.M.
(1991). “Estimation Earth Pressures due to Compaction.”
Figure 6. Comparison of compaction induced stresses between finite J. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 117(12), 1833-1847.
element analysis and the CIS Model Duncan, J.M., Williams, G.W., Sehn, A.L., and Seed R.M.
(1993). Closure of “Estimation Earth Pressures due to
Compaction.” J. Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 119(7),
1172-1177.
compaction pressure. The agreement between the two was Ehrlich, M., and Mitchell, J.K. (1994). “Working Stress Design
very good, even though the efforts required to obtain the Method for Reinforced Soil Walls.” J. Geotechnical
results were drastically different. Engineering, ASCE, 120(4), 625-645.
Hatami, K., and Bathurst, R.J. (2005). “Development and
6.2 Conclusions Verification of a Numerical Model for the Analysis
of Geosynthetic Reinforced-soil Segment Walls.” Can.
The conclusions suggested by this study are as follows:
Geotechnical J., 42(4), 1066-1085.
1. The analytical model can be used to evaluate the Hatami K., and Bathurst R.J. (2006). “Numerical Model
compaction-induced lateral stress in a GRS mass for Reinforced Soil Segmental Walls under Surcharge
with simple hand-calculations, and with very good Loading.” J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
accuracy. Engineering, ASCE, 132(6), 673-684.
2. The compaction-induced stress in a GRS mass is Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. (1997).
found to be very significant under typical com- Geosynthetic Engineering, BiTech Publishers, Vancouver,
paction pressures, and (except near the ground 452 p.
surface) is nearly constant with depth. Katona, M.G. (1978). “The Analysis of Long Span Culverts
3. The compaction-induced stresses in a given sec- by Finite Element Method.” Transportation Research
tion, due to a moving compaction plant, can Board Research Record 678, Washington D.C., 59-66.
be determined by evaluating the residual lateral
572 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Ketchart, K., and Wu, J.T.H. (2001). “Performance Test

for Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Including Effects
of Preloading.” Report FHWA-RD-01-018, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Morrison, K.F., Harrison, F.E., Collin, J.G., Dodds, A.,
and Arndt, B. (2006). “Shored Mechanically Stabilized
Earth (SMSE) Wall Systems Design Guidelines.”
Report FHWA-CFL/TD-06-001, Federal Highway
Administration, Lakewood, Colorado, 210 p.
Plaxis, B.V. (2002). Plaxis 2D – Version 8 Manual. Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Seed, R.M. (1983). “Compaction-induced Stresses and
Deflections on Earth Structure.” Ph.D. Thesis, University
of California, Berkeley, CA, 447 p.
Seed, R.M., Duncan, J.M. (1986). “FE Analyses: Compaction-
Induced Stresses and Deformations.” J. Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 112(1), 23-43.
Wu, J.T.H. (1994). “Design and Construction of Low cost
Retaining Walls.” Report CTI-UCD-1-94, Colorado
Transportation Institute.
Wu, J.T.H., Pham, T. Q., and Adams, M.T. (2010). “Composite
Behavior of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil (GRS) Mass,”
Technical Report, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research
Center, FHWA, Washington, D.C.
Westergaard, C. M. (1938). “A Problem of Elasticity Suggested
by a Problem in Soil Mechanics: A Soft Material
Reinforced by Numerous Strong Horizontal Sheet,”
in Contributions to the Mechanics of Solids, Stephen
Timoshenko 60th Anniversary Volume, Macmillan,
New York, 268-277.