Evaluation of mechanically stabilized earth retaining walls for different soil–structure interaction methods: A review

Mayadah W. Falah; Haitham Hassan Muteb

doi:10.1515/eng-2022-0535

Article Open Access

Evaluation of mechanically stabilized earth retaining walls for different soil–structure interaction methods: A review

Mayadah W. Falah and Haitham Hassan Muteb

Published/Copyright: February 1, 2024

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Open Engineering Volume 14 Issue 1

Abstract

The method for soil preservation has been completely revolutionized thanks to internally reinforced walls. Although such walls have gained significant awareness in many parts of the globe, this construction technique has only been extensively utilized lately. The primary reason may be that the costs associated with constructing such walls are likely higher than those associated with constructing conventional externally reinforced walls. The construction methods involved may be excessively time demanding. The term “mechanically stabilized Earth systems” refers to an internally stabilized fill structure that is made up of an unreinforced concrete levelling pad, precast concrete face panel units and coping units, selected granular backfill (reinforced backfill), a subsurface drainage system, and reinforcing elements (high-strength, metallic, or polymeric inclusions) to create a reinforced soil mass which is utilized to stabilize the backfill. The purpose of this article is to provide a historical overview of the mechanically stabilized Earth retaining walls by focusing on the necessary aspects required for their design, as well as to discuss how the change of the characteristics of the soil influences lateral displacements and stress responses that occur under various ground movements. The results of this study lead to the conclusion that the dynamic behaviour of the cantilever wall is very sensitive to the frequency characteristics of the seismic record and the interaction between the soil and the structure.

Keywords: retaining wall; soil–structure interaction; mechanically stabilized earth (MSE).

1 Introduction

Most civil constructions, particularly bridges (retaining structures, abutments, pile caps, and piles), are constructed on or inside the earth. While analyzing this type of structure, the results produced by the study change drastically depend on whether ground conditions are considered [1]. It is necessary to consider the ground conditions to achieve analytical findings, including the behaviour of the fundamental structure. Once an exterior load is applied to a structure, a physical phenomenon known as “soil–structure interaction” (SSI) occurs in which the structure fails to function independently and interacts with the soil. This phenomenon may be illustrated in the following images [2]. Earthquakes exert a significant amount of effect on the ground and the buildings, which is why this phenomenon must be considered an integral aspect of the seismic design process [3,4].

The interaction between the soil and the structure may be summed up in two effects. The change in the dynamic properties of the structure is the first impact that may be seen. Since the soil’s standard stiffness is often lower than that of the building, both the structure’s stiffness and natural frequency become lower [5]. The increase in radiation damping causes an increase in the structural system’s damping, the second consequence of the addition. These impacts are different depending on the composition of the soil layers, the qualities of the material, the supplied seismic data, and the structure’s frequency. Consequently, the reaction brought on by the SSI study can end up being greater or lower than the findings of the general seismic analysis, which is based on the premise that the earth remains fixed [6].

A natural material, the soil may take on various forms, each of which has its unique set of characteristics, primarily dependent on the cohesiveness of the soil, denoted by c, as well as the angle of internal friction. Because dry dirt may flow more efficiently, it often forms a slope. It does not have a vertical face that is completely straight. Nevertheless, in other situations, including on both sides of a highway, keeping the soil in a straight vertical face to stabilize slopes and constructing bridge abutments, sea walls, immerse walls, and wing walls [7,8,9]. It is essential to give the soil vertical support to maintain its vertical orientation, which is a service that Earth retaining structure provides. For several years, retaining frameworks are constructed using reinforced concrete and configured as gravity or cantilever walls. These walls are fundamentally stiff structures that cannot support numerous differential settlements unless deep foundations underpin them. The cost of constructing retaining walls out of reinforced concrete increases exponentially as the elevation of the soil that needs to be maintained and the subsoil levels worsen. As a result of the ground tension, the foundation is making an effort to topple [9,10,11,12,13]. Porous or compressible foundation soils, on the other hand, provide significant challenges for architectural design and construction. Wall heights may range from 10 to 40 feet, and the pressures at the wall face can be anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 pounds per square foot (psf) depending on the form of the wall. The increasing size of these walls presents several geotechnical challenges, including inadequate mitigation of bearing capacity and global stability and needless total and differential settling.

This problem may be solved by using a technique known as the mechanically stabilized Earth (MSE) technique. This configuration is referred to as an MSE wall, characterized by the fact that the soil functions as a reinforcing structure, while the facing units function as a supporting system (MSE wall). When mounting the initial face units of the first side, columns and wood lagging, welded wire mesh, gabions, plates, and metal sheets, dry cast modular board, precast concrete tiles, and wrapped sheets of geo-synthetics are some of the materials that are utilized. After that, the ground may be compacted appropriately and held in place by using supporting components like geotextile frames, polymer boards, welded wire mats, bars, or steel strips. These reinforcing minerals contribute to the planet’s increased mechanized stability [7].

Since becoming a standard engineering practice, MSE walls have attracted much research attention. Building an Earth-retaining structure using little reinforcing is efficient in terms of cost and effectiveness. To be competitive in the market, the MSE wall industry is always looking for ways to improve effectiveness and save costs. This improvement results from creating novel soil reinforcing techniques and better wall performance knowledge than conventional design approaches. The current study aims to review the SSI methods considerations in SSI effects along with MSE uses and applications.

2 Soil–structure interaction

The term “ground–structure interaction” refers to the interaction between the soil (the ground) and a structure erected atop it. It is an exchange of mutual stress, in which the moving of the ground–structure system is impacted by both the kind of ground and the structure’s kind [14]. This exchange of mutual stress seems to be the primary cause of the phenomenon, which is particularly relevant to regions that experience frequent earthquakes. Different relationships between soil and building may either magnify or lessen the movement and damage that results from earthquakes [15]. Unlike malleable ground, a structure situated on stiff ground is more likely to sustain severe damage. The sinking of foundations is a second interaction effect connected to the soil’s mechanical qualities and is exacerbated when a seismic event occurs. The term for this kind of event is “soil liquefaction” [16].

Most constructions that result from civil engineering include some kinds of structural elements in direct contact with the ground. The structural displacements and the ground displacements are not independent of one another when these systems are subjected to the action of external forces including earthquakes [17]. The phrase “soil–structure interaction” refers to the process by which the soil’s reaction affects the structure’s movement, and the movement of the structure impacts the reaction of the soil. This interaction goes both ways (SSI) [18]. Traditional techniques of structural design do not consider the consequences of SSI. For light structures on relatively stiff soil, including low-rise buildings and simple rigid retaining walls, it is fair to disregard SSI as an essential consideration.

On the other hand, the influence of SSI becomes more noticeable for large structures sitting on relatively soft soils. For instance, nuclear power plants (NPPs), high-rise skyscrapers, and elevated roadways on soft soil are all examples of constructions susceptible to SSI’s effect [19]. Recent earthquakes, such as the one that occurred in Kobe in 1995, have brought to light the fact that the earthquake behaviour of a structure has been heavily impacted not only by the reaction of the superstructure but also by the reaction of the foundations and the grounds, which was brought to light due to the damage caused by these earthquakes [20]. Because of this, the most recent seismic design codes, such as the Implementing Regulations for Building Structures: Seismic Performance Verification JSCE 2005 [21], stipulate that the response analysis must be carried out by considering a whole structural system, such as the ground, foundation, and superstructure.

Once those forces have a considerable influence on the movement of the basement compared to the movement of the free-field ground, a research and engineering committee will focus its attention on the study of SSI. The movement observed on the soil’s surface is the free-field ground movement. This motion occurs even when there is no structure present to influence it. The reaction of structures to earthquakes is heavily reliant on the interactions of three connected systems, which are as follows [22]:

The structure
The foundation
The underlying soil

The study of the SSI is the procedure used to evaluate the collective reaction of the three connected systems discussed before in response to a particular ground movement. The reaction from the soil may impact the movement of the structure, and the movement of the structure could affect the response from the soil. This process is referred to as the SSI, and it could be characterized as follows:

The displacements of structure and the ground are not related to one another during this phenomenon. Most soil–structure forces are interactions that may take place between the soil and any construction. However, these cannot alter the soil’s movement in all circumstances [22].

2.1 Considerations in SSI

Once the foundation of a structure is rigid throughout the analysis process, it is claimed that the structure does not have any SSI impacts. Even if the contact force influences the foundation, this instance will be still examined. The interplay between the forces would determine how much of an impact they have on the mobility of the soil [23]:

The force magnitude
The soil foundation flexibility

It is possible to determine the magnitude of the interaction forces by using the acceleration of the base mat and the structure inertia. When considering a specific soil site and a particular free-field earthquake excitation, the magnitude of the SSI impacts increases in proportion to the mass of the structure [2]. Most of the civic structures, regardless of whether they are resting on firm or medium soil, do not display any signs of the impacts of SSI. As was just said, the impacts of SSI are more likely to be dealt with by heavy structures. This category comprises hydraulic structures such as dams and the reactor buildings of NPP [24]. It can be concluded that the study of soil interaction in seismic design was primarily created and utilized for the building industry sectors. The flexibility of the soil is another element that is taken into consideration when looking at the impacts of the SSI [25]. The likelihood of increasing SSI impacts is proportional to the degree to which the soil can be broken down, which applies to a specific building and location, both subject to free-field seismic excitation. The soil shear module may be calculated by taking the product of the soil mass density and the square of the shear wave velocity. In most cases, the soil mass density will be around 2.0 t/m³ (metric tons per cubic meter). Because of this, the shear wave velocity V _s is often considered the most critical aspect of soil stiffness [26,27].

When V _s < 300 m/s, the soil is soft.

When V _s > 800 m/s, the soil is hard.

When V _s > 1,100 m/s, the soil is rigid.

2.2 SSI and structural response

Based on more traditional theoretical frameworks, it was hypothesized that the SSIs result in consequences that are advantageous for the structural response. When it comes to the earthquake analysis of buildings, most building regulations advocate ignoring the influence that SSI has on the structure in question. This proposal is made because of the misconception that the SSI will generate a positive reaction from the structure and will, as a result, have the potential to raise the safety margins. Considering the consequences of the interaction between the soil and the structure, we may achieve a more flexible structural design, which increases the structure’s natural period [28]. Once contrasted with the equivalent rigid structure, this results in a superior-quality structure. Incorporating SSI impacts into the structure’s design helps to increase the structure’s damping ratio. Due to the more cautious design approaches, this research has some limitations or none. The SSI analysis is characterized by its high degree of complexity. Negligent will analyze the structures simpler, therefore reducing their level of complexity, which proves without a reasonable doubt that the notion that the impacts of SSI are beneficial to buildings is an urban legend. SSI can cause adverse impacts to the structures it encounters. When designing a structure, ignoring the SSI impact might lead to a dangerous combination of the substructure and superstructure [29].

3 The effects of SSI

SSI is mainly known for having negative consequences, which is the topic of this article. As was said earlier, an increase in the period is not always a positive variable, even though studies have shown that the design that depends on the interaction between soil and structure extends the period [45]. Seismic waves tend to stretch out as they travel through sites with soft soil sediments. The length of the natural period will lengthen as a consequence, ultimately resulting in resonance [46], which occurs whenever there is a vibration for a lengthy period. If the natural period lengthens, the need for ductility will also grow, which might lead to persistent deformation and soil collapse, which would further exacerbate the structural response to seismic activity. When a structure is subjected to the action of earthquake forces, this is referred to as earthquake action. When a structure is exposed to earthquake force, contact between the foundation and soil results in changes in ground movement. The interaction between the soil and its structure might result in two distinct kinds of events or consequences (per FEMA P-750, NEHRP) [47]:

Kinematic interaction
Inertial interaction
Soil foundation flexibility effects

3.1 Analysis of SSI

Two different approaches of analysis may be used to quantify the aforementioned interactions:

Direct analysis
Substructure approach

3.1.1 Direct analysis in SSI

In this type of investigation, the ground and the building are included in the same analytical model. They are evaluated in their whole as a system. A continuum illustrates the soil system in Figure 1, which may be found below. One illustration of this kind is provided using finite elements, which include the foundation, the structural components, the load transmitting boundaries, and the elements at the interface positioned on the borders of the foundation.

Figure 1

Analysis of soil–structure interaction by the finite element’s aids sketch.

Since it requires much work and is difficult to understand, this approach is only sometimes utilized in real life.

3.1.2 Substructure approach in SSIs

The activity known as SSI is broken up into two distinct sections. Then, these elements are integrated to provide a comprehensive answer to the issue. Within the scope of this method, a model is developed with the following requirements:

An analysis of the free-field movements and the soil qualities that correlate to those motions.
An analysis of the transfer functions used to transform the free-field motion to the foundation input motion.
The dashpots and springs are included in the design. At the contact between the earth and the foundation, the springs are representative of the stiffness, and the dashpots represent the damping.
An investigation of the combined structure’s responses.

4 MSE wall

A composite solid construction called an MSE wall comprises facing components, soil mass, and reinforcement. Since their development in the 1960s, several of the older reinforcing techniques have been employed primarily as abutments, seawalls, berms, and bridge retaining walls. Geotechnical and structural engineering are used to create mechanically stabilized ground. A variety of partial load factors applied to loads in design combinations and material factors applied to the structural components have been defined as a result of the development of limit state design in structural engineering [48]. In a conventional MSE wall, horizontal layers of geosynthetic materials or steel strips support compacted granular soil. The usage of reinforced parts dramatically increases the system’s strength. Facing elements are relatively thin, often built of shotcrete, welded wire mesh panels, or precast concrete. Holding the soil in place between the reinforcing layers is their structural goal. A facing system makes it possible to build an MSE wall that is steep or even vertical. In addition, the soil is positionedwithout reinforcement between the stabilized region and the ground's natural surface known as retained backfill, this area. An entire MSE wall is a construction that relies on gravity. The object’s mass supports the applied forces such as lateral earth pressures, water pressures, seismic loads, or loads resulting from human activities.

The MSE components consist of many components as follows [49,50]:

Soil
Geosynthetic reinforcement (Geotextile or Geogrid)
Masonry block-facing units
Drainage system
Levelling pad

Burke et al. [51] ran a numerical simulation utilizing a finite element technique on a full-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil structure model. It stood at 2.8 m and had an earth base 20 cm thick. The movements of the Kobe earthquake were applied at a scale that resulted in an acceleration amplitude of 0.4g. During the investigation, the face of the block’s face and the materials at its edges were modelled as being linearly elastic. The geosynthetic reinforcement, backfill, and foundation soil were modelled using a generalized plasticity model. The geosynthetic reinforcement was modelled utilizing a bounding surface model with power hardening functions. An altered version of the DianaSwandyne-II program was used in the study, which was carried out under a two-dimensional planar strain. Even though the displacement of bottom blocks at the end of the quake would seem to give a greater magnitude than the test findings, the analysis results were very close to the experimental findings, and it was concluded that the most significant settlement in the analysis takes place behind the reinforced area.

Tavakolian and Sankey [52] conducted research that demonstrated it is possible to reduce the deformation of an exposed MSE wall by connecting reinforcements directly to the exterior face of an existing structure (e.g., one that has been tied back) or, in the case of a soil nail wall, to the nail heads. In this way, the deformation of the exposed MSE wall can be reduced.

Similarly, reinforcements attached to the front (panel) face of the MSE wall provide equal and opposite resistance against the same driving force directed to the front. This configuration is, in effect, a back-to-back MSE wall. Additional research conducted by Sankey and Anderson [53] showed that shored mechanically stabilized earth walls with a height of just 0.4H were effectively built-in highway retaining wall situations. When an MSE wall is not exposed to externally applied earth pressure, the needed mass for stability and deformation control is less than required for an MSE wall that resists such earth pressure because the mass required to resist such earth pressure is excellent.

Hossain et al. [54] investigated how the backfill dirt affected MSE wall’s excessive motion. An excessive amount of wall motion or even collapse might be caused by backfill that has a high acceptable amount and inadequate drainage behaviour. It was noticed that the MSE wall facings bulged outward in the areas that included the perched water areas. A lab analysis of the obtained soil specimens was carried out to evaluate the properties of the soil used for the backfill. The findings of the tests revealed that the backfill soil was clayey sand, which was classified by the Unified Soil Classification. Following the completion of the tests and the completion of the analysis, it was concluded that the availability of a highly acceptable content may have been the factor that caused the MSE wall to move too much. In addition, the MSE wall motion was modelled using the finite-element software PLAXIS, and the results of those modelling efforts are provided in this study. The motion is seen on the MSE wall, and the motion that the model predicted correlated well.

5 Comparison between experimental MSE walls and models

The current study focuses on investigating the effect of different factors on MSE walls as follows:

Abbas et al. gave a two-dimensional finite element model [55] to analyze mechanically stabilized earth walls (MSEW’s) performance when used as part of a hybrid retaining wall system. The generated tensile forces in the MSEW and how they are impacted by wall configuration are the primary topics that will be covered in this presentation. To verify the finite element model, it is compared to a previously published case history of a monitored MSE wall. A comparison was made between the findings derived from the validation model and the measurements collected from the published field data. These measurements included wall deformations and stresses in the reinforcement. The model is utilized to explore the influence of various factors on the tensile force of reinforcements. These factors include MSEW facing slope (w), reinforcements stiffness (J), reinforcements vertical spacing (VL), SNW facing slope (x), and nail length/total height (LN/HT). Utilizing the simplified approach, the structural stiffness technique, and the K-stiffness technique, the tensile forces that have been computed are compared with the magnitudes that come from the MSEW design methods.

The geogrid reinforced wall No. 1 had dimensions of 3.60 m in height, 3.30 m in width, and 6.0 m in width. It had a target-facing batter that was 8° off vertical and was constrained between two lateral walls covered with plywood, Plexiglas, and lubricated polyethene sheets over the side walls. This structure was chosen to achieve flat stain conditions and reduce friction between the backfill dirt and the sidewalls. To make the process of building the wall as straightforward as possible and to make it easier to understand how well the wall is doing, the wall’s foundation was set on a solid concrete floor. The wall face comprised a column of separate dry-stacked solid masonry concrete blocks of 300 mm wide, 150 mm high, and 200 mm long and weighing 20 kg. Reinforcements for the geogrid were composed of polypropylene and were installed at a vertical spacing of 0.60 m and a length of 2.52 m, respectively. The characteristics of the structural components are outlined in Table 1. The geosynthetic reinforced wall one is shown in cross-section in Figures 2 and 3, which may be seen below. To measure the different soil properties, experiments in the laboratory were performed on the backfill dirt. Plane strain tests on sand samples with secant stiffness E50 = 42.5 MPa at confining stress r3 = 80 kPa were used to measure the stress–strain behaviour. The compacted dry unit weight of the backfill was 16.8 kN/m³, the friction angle was determined to be 44°, and the results of these tests showed a relationship between stress and strain [56] (Table 2).

Table 1

The soil–structure interaction and consequences

Impact	Structural system	SSI consequences	References
Beneficial	All kinds	Natural period and damping ratio increase base shear reduces	[30,31,32,33]
Detrimental	MRF	Increasing the ductility demand (mostly lower stories)	[34,35,36,37,38,39,40]
		Increasing the lateral displacement in storey drifts
		Increasing the inelastic deformation of structural elements
		Increasing pounding effect for adjacent structures
		Foundation settlements and rocking
	Wall-frame	Increasing wall foundation rocking	[41,42]
		Increasing storey drifts and lateral deflection
		Increasing frame bases of base shear
	All kinds	Ground movement amplifications	[43,44]
	All kinds	Site resonance	[43,44]

Figure 2

Cross-sectional area for the wall.

Figure 3

Numerical model of soil wall reinforced by geosynthetic facing: (a) blocks and (b) plate.

Table 2

The elastic parameters for facing and interface

Parameters	Unit	Modular block facing	Block-to-block interface
Model	—	Liner elastic	Mohr Coulomb
Drainage type	—	Non-porous	Non-porous
Unit weight, γ sat	kN/m³	21.80	21.80
Young’s modulus, E	kPa	1 × 10 5	1 × 10 5
Cohesion, C ′	kPa	—	46
Effective angle of shearing resistance, ∅′	Degrees	—	57
Dilatancy angle, ψ	Degrees	—	0
Poisson’s ratio, v ur	—	0.15	0.15
Interface, R inter	—	1	1

To simulate this case study, a two-dimensional finite element model was developed. In the case study of the geosynthetic reinforced soil wall, the boundary conditions were set up in such a way as to exclude any potential effect on the behaviour of the wall. The height of the mesh fell between two limits at z = 0 and z = 3.60 m, while the length of the mesh ran from the left boundary at x = 1.0 m to the right boundary at x = 6.0 m. Figure 4 depicts the finite element mesh for the blocks and plate-facing operations. In terms of horizontal deformation at facing (Figure 5) and reinforcing stresses after construction, the findings of the numerical mode of the wall were compared with the results of field monitoring (Figure 6). The calculated deformation exhibits an excellent match compared to the monitored values, with the estimated difference ranging from 7.0 to 21% when modelling using solid components and from 3.0 to 10% when modelling using plate elements, as shown in Figure 6. Unlike layers 4 and 5, which exhibit estimated differences ranging from 10 to 15%, the calculated reinforcement strains show a decent match when compared with the observed values. The estimated difference ranges from 2 to 5%. The link between the face and the geogrid is responsible for the more significant reinforcement strain at the facing, as illustrated in (Figure 6). Considering the findings presented earlier, the Plaxis 2D model may be sufficient to simulate the geosynthetic reinforced soil wall with the hardening soil model and the plate element for MSEW facing.

Figure 4

Comparison between different wall reinforcement cases.

Figure 5

Comparison between the computed reinforcements strains for numerical block and plate in different layers.

Figure 6

Tensile strength and wall height relationship.

Cakir [22] analyzed the dynamic behaviour of a cantilever retaining wall using the finite element approach while the wall was subjected to various ground vibrations. The impacts of seismic frequency response and SSIs were assessed by employing five distinct earthquake movements and six distinct soil kinds, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis. Most of the research is broken up into these three sections. After a short overview of the issue in the first half, the fixed-base situation is applied to the finite element model that includes a viscous boundary. Analytical formulations are offered in the second part of the article utilizing the modal analysis approach to carry out the finite element model confirmation. A satisfactory agreement is discovered between the analytical and numerical outcomes of the investigation. In the end, the approach is expanded to study parametrically further the impacts of the seismic frequency components and the interface between the soil and the foundation.

In addition, nonlinear time history analyses are performed. Altering the characteristics of the soil allows for comparisons of lateral displacements and stress responses to be done under various ground movements. The results of this study lead us to the conclusion that the dynamic behaviour of the cantilever wall is very sensitive to the frequency response of the seismic record and the SSIs.

The finite element method (FEM) helps study SSI problems because it can readily account for heterogeneity in the structure or soil medium and nonlinearity in the materials and the geometry, which is the FEM’s primary benefit in this analysis. Most finite element numerical programs conduct analyses in the time domain, making it possible to implement constitutive laws that describe the soil’s nonlinear and linear behaviour when subjected to intense ground movements. In this context, the suggested numerical model for the issue at hand, which operates on the premise of a fixed base, is shown in Figure 3. Noteworthy in this context is the fact that ANSYS, a piece of commercial software, was used throughout the processes of finite element modelling and analysis. According to the examination of the relevant literature, to make the analysis of the interactions between the soil and the structure more manageable, it is a common practice to represent three-dimensional issues by examining a 2D slice with the same material characteristics. The following are some reasons why making this prediction, however easy it is, might put it in harm’s way. Firstly, when it comes to finite frequencies, the radiation damping/unit contact area computed for the two-dimensional case underestimates the actual 3D situation. Secondly, the area of contact of a 2D model chosen sensibly will be bigger than that of a 3D model, further enhancing the radiation damping. Because of this, it cannot obtain a 2D depiction that will approximate the dynamic stiffness and the damping over a sensible frequency range. Furthermore, because the dampers are massively overstated, 2D modelling of a particular three-dimensional instance is not recommended for actual engineering applications. Considering this fact, the author of this article has focused their attention on developing a three-dimensional model of the interaction process for a cantilever wall that is 1 m in length (Figure 7).

Figure 7

Finite element modelling of backfill–cantilever wall system under the fixed-base case.

Figure 8 also represents the suggested finite element model of the backfill–cantilever wall–soil/foundation interactions system. Analyses of retaining walls are often performed using pseudo-static and pseudodynamic assumptions, which is evident when one considers most of the methodologies that earlier scholars have suggested. Nevertheless, a single constant unidirectional pseudo-static acceleration is a rather primitive way to describe the complex, transitory, and dynamic impacts of earthquake shaking. Within the pseudo-dynamic techniques’ framework, the seismic loads’ dynamic character is considered, but in an approximative and straightforward fashion. In addition, the pseudo-dynamic approach uses an elastic wave solution in the soil in a plastic deformation state. However, it does not consider the wave reflection at the soil-free surface. As a result, the analysis performed to design the structure may be incomplete.

Figure 8

Proposed finite element model for backfill–cantilever wall–soil/foundation interaction system.

Figure 9 illustrates the height-wise changes in the lateral displacements of a cantilever retaining wall due to changing the foundation soil conditions. In contrast, the wall is subjected to the impacts of three distinct ground movements. It is important to note that the displacements shown here indicate the relative lateral movement of the wall about the ground. The movements away from the backfill are called negative displacements, while the movements towards the backfill are called positive displacements. It can be seen from this figure that the displacement reaction typically rises for all ground movements when the soil stiffness reduces, which indicates that there is a firm SSI impact on the response.

Figure 9

Calculated lateral displacements along the height of the cantilever wall for (a) Coalinga, (b) imperial Valley, and (c) Loma Prieta earthquakes.

6 Conclusion

The current review investigated the differences between the experimental MSE wall and MSE wall model, and the following findings have been obtained:

It was discovered that the performance of model MSE walls constructed utilizing cementitious materials marginal backfills was even superior to the wall constructed utilizing free draining sand backfill in terms of higher load capacity with decreased lateral deformations, which was the conclusion reached after comparing the two types of walls.
The provision of end blocks that are anchored to the strips results in stress at the failure of 63.55 kN/m², which is about 2.5 times more than that of the open strip approach because the anchor blocks resist and pass the stress to the soil.
Supplying continuous strips such that one face to another takes 177.95 kN/m² of stress at failure, which is about seven times greater than the open strip approach because facing components resist and pass the stress to the soil.
The nonlinear time history analyses of the system under consideration were used to derive the stresses and lateral displacements in the wall, which are included in the findings of the computer modelling. It has been discovered that the interactions between the soil and the structure substantially impact the earthquake loading of cantilever walls. Consequently, the omission of the exact soil parameters might result in an underestimating or overestimating of the reaction, which, in turn, might lead to an unsafe earthquake engineering of R/C cantilever retaining walls.

eng.haitham.hassan@uobabylon.edu.iq

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Al-Mustaqbal University (grant number MUC-E-0122).

Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The most datasets generated and/or analysed in this study are comprised in this submitted manuscript. The other datasets are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author with the attached information.

References

[1] Fu CC, Wang S. Computational analysis and design of bridge structures. Boca Raton, Florida, United States: CRC Press; 2014.10.1201/b17878Search in Google Scholar

[2] Tabatabaiefar SHR. Determining seismic response of mid-rise building frames considering dynamic soil-structure interaction. Doctoral dissertation. 2012.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. New York: Wiley; 1992.10.1002/9780470172841Search in Google Scholar

[4] Castaldo P. Integrated seismic design of structure and control systems. London, UK: Springer; 2014.10.1007/978-3-319-02615-2Search in Google Scholar

[5] Richart FE, Jr. Some effects of dynamic soil properties on soil-structure interaction. J Geotech Eng Div. 1975;101(12):1197‒240.10.1061/AJGEB6.0000218Search in Google Scholar

[6] Piro A, de Silva F, Parisi F, Scotto di Santolo A, Silvestri F. Effects of soil-foundation-structure interaction on fundamental frequency and radiation damping ratio of historical masonry building sub-structures. Bull Earthq Eng. 2020;18:1187‒212.10.1007/s10518-019-00748-4Search in Google Scholar

[7] Al-Khafaji ZS, Al-Naely HK, Al-Najar AE. A review applying industrial waste materials in stabilisation of soft soil. Electron J Struct Eng. 2018;18(2):16‒23.10.56748/ejse.182602Search in Google Scholar

[8] Al-Masoodi Z, Dulaimi A, Jafer H, Al-Khafaji Z, Atherton W, Safa H. Soft soil treated with waste fluid catalytic cracking as a sustainable stabilizer material. Iraqi Geol J. 2022;55(1C):39‒50.10.46717/igj.55.1C.4Ms-2022-03-23Search in Google Scholar

[9] Al-Khafaji ZS, Jafer H, Dulaimi AF, Atherton W, Al Masoodi Z. The soft soil stabilisation using binary blending of ordinary Portland cement and high alumina silica waste material. In The 3rd BUiD Doctoral Research Conference, the British University in Dubai, 13th May 2017, UAE. 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Zainab SA, Zainab AM, Jafer H, Dulaimi AF, Atherton W. The effect of using fluid catalytic cracking catalyst residue (FC3R) “as a cement replacement in soft soil stabilisation”. Int J Civ Eng Technol. 2018;9(4):522‒33.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Hussain AJ, Al-Khafaji ZS. The fields of applying the recycled and used oils by the internal combustion engines for purposes of protecting the environment against pollutions. J Adv Res Dyn Control Syst. 2020;12(01):2020.10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP1/20201119Search in Google Scholar

[12] Al-Masoodi ZO, Al-Khafaji Z, Jafer HM, Dulaimi A, Atherton W. The effect of a high alumina silica waste material on the engineering properties of a cement-stabilised soft soil. In The 3rd BUiD Doctoral Research Conference. 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Hussain AJ, Al-Khafaji ZS. Reduction of environmental pollution and improving the (Mechanical, physical and chemical characteristics) of contaminated clay soil by using of recycled oil. J Adv Res Dyn Control Syst. 2020;12(4):1276‒86.10.5373/JARDCS/V12SP4/20201604Search in Google Scholar

[14] Tank MD. Evaluation of seismic behavior of tube in tube braced structural system considering soil-structure interaction. Int J Innov Sci Res Technol. 2022;7(8):994‒1003.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Pelling M, Maskrey A, Ruiz P, Hall L, Peduzzi P, Dao QH. et al. Reducing disaster risk: a challenge for development. United Nations Development Bank, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, New York; 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Lombardi D, Flora A. An innovative ground treatment approach for seismic risk mitigation of existing structures. Ph. D. thesis. Italy: University of Napoli Federico II; 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Moschas F, Stiros S. Measurement of the dynamic displacements and of the modal frequencies of a short-span pedestrian bridge using GPS and an accelerometer. Eng Struct. 2011;33(1):10‒7.10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.09.013Search in Google Scholar

[18] Sextos AG, Pitilakis KD, Kappos AJ. Inelastic dynamic analysis of RC bridges accounting for spatial variability of ground motion, site effects and soil–structure interaction phenomena. Part 1: Methodology and analytical tools. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2003;32(4):607‒27.10.1002/eqe.241Search in Google Scholar

[19] Tadesse ZL, Padavala HK, Koteswara VRP. Seismic response assessment of building structures with underground stories: a state-of-the-art review. Innov Infrastruct Solut. 2022;7(6):336.10.1007/s41062-022-00942-5Search in Google Scholar

[20] Miwa S, Ikeda T. Shear modulus and strain of liquefied ground and their application to evaluation of the response of foundation structures. Struct Eng Eng. 2006;23(1):167s‒79s.10.2208/jsceseee.23.167sSearch in Google Scholar

[21] Usami T, Lu Z, Ge H. A seismic upgrading method for steel arch bridges using buckling‐restrained braces. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2005;34(4‐5):471‒96.10.1002/eqe.442Search in Google Scholar

[22] Cakir T. Evaluation of the effect of earthquake frequency content on seismic behavior of cantilever retaining wall including soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2013;45:96‒111.10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.11.008Search in Google Scholar

[23] Lindstrom MJ, Nelson WW, Schumacher TE, Lemme GD. Soil movement by tillage as affected by slope. Soil Tillage Res. 1990;17(3–4):255‒64.10.1016/0167-1987(90)90040-KSearch in Google Scholar

[24] Petridis C, Pitilakis D. Fragility curve modifiers for reinforced concrete dual buildings, including nonlinear site effects and soil–structure interaction. Earthq Spectra. 2020;36(4):1930‒51.10.1177/8755293020919430Search in Google Scholar

[25] Reza Tabatabaiefar SH, Fatahi B, Samali B. Seismic behavior of building frames considering dynamic soil-structure interaction. Int J Geomech. 2013;13(4):409‒20.10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000231Search in Google Scholar

[26] Zhang X, Far H. Effects of dynamic soil-structure interaction on seismic behaviour of high-rise buildings. Bull Earthq Eng. 2022;1‒25.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Han X. Estimation of shallow and deep soil shear wave velocity structures in Padang, Indonesia, using microtremor explorations. Doctoral dissertation. 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Mekki M, Elachachi SM, Breysse D, Zoutat M. Seismic behavior of RC structures including soil-structure interaction and soil variability effects. Eng Struct. 2016;126:15‒26.10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.034Search in Google Scholar

[29] Wong HL. Dynamic soil-structure interaction. A report on research conducted under grants from the National Science Foundation Pasadena, California; 1975.Search in Google Scholar

[30] American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures; 2000.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Applied Technology Council, Structural Engineers Association of California. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings: A cooperative effort with the design professions, building code interests, and the research community. US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards; 1978.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Raheem SEA. Soil–structure interaction for seismic analysis and design of bridges. In Innovative bridge design handbook. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2022.10.1016/B978-0-12-823550-8.00024-XSearch in Google Scholar

[33] Stewart JP, Seed RB, Fenves GL. Seismic soil-structure interaction in buildings. II: Empirical findings. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 1999;125(1):38‒48.10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:1(38)Search in Google Scholar

[34] Abdel Raheem SE, Ahmed MM, Alazrak TMA. Evaluation of soil–foundation–structure interaction effects on seismic response demands of multi-story MRF buildings on raft foundations. Int J Adv Struct Eng. 2015;7:11‒30.10.1007/s40091-014-0078-xSearch in Google Scholar

[35] Tabatabaiefar SHR, Fatahi B, Samali B. Numerical and experimental investigations on seismic response of building frames under influence of soil-structure interaction. Adv Struct Eng. 2014;17(1):109‒30.10.1260/1369-4332.17.1.109Search in Google Scholar

[36] Bhattacharya K, Dutta SC. Assessing lateral period of building frames incorporating soil-flexibility. J Sound Vib. 20042004;269(3–5):795‒821.10.1016/S0022-460X(03)00136-6Search in Google Scholar

[37] Kraus I, Džakić D. Soil-structure interaction effects on seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete frames. Skopje earthquake-50 Years European Earthquake Engineering, Skopje, Macedonia; 2013.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Fatahi B, Van Nguyen Q, Xu R, Sun W. Three-dimensional response of neighboring buildings sitting on pile foundations to seismic pounding. Int J Geomech. 2018;18(4):04018007.10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001093Search in Google Scholar

[39] Sadeghi Hokmabadi A. Effect of dynamic soil-pile-structure interaction on seismic response of mid-rise moment resisting frames. Doctoral dissertation. 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[40] Ghandil M, Behnamfar F. Ductility demands of MRF structures on soft soils considering soil-structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2017;92:203‒14.10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.09.051Search in Google Scholar

[41] Carbonari S, Dezi F, Leoni G. Linear soil–structure interaction of coupled wall–frame structures on pile foundations. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2011;31(9):1296‒309.10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.05.008Search in Google Scholar

[42] Carbonari S, Dezi F, Leoni G. Nonlinear seismic behaviour of wall‐frame dual systems accounting for soil–structure interaction. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2012;41(12):1651‒72.10.1002/eqe.1195Search in Google Scholar

[43] Mylonakis G, Gazetas G. Seismic soil-structure interaction: beneficial or detrimental? J Earthq Eng. 2000;4(3):277‒301.10.1080/13632460009350372Search in Google Scholar

[44] Scholl RE. Observations of the performance of buildings during the 1985 Mexico earthquake, and structural design implications. Int J Min Geol Eng. 1989;7(1):69‒99.10.1007/BF01552841Search in Google Scholar

[45] Aydin E, Ozturk B, Bogdanovic A, Farsangi EN. Influence of soil-structure interaction (SSI) on optimal design of passive damping devices. Structures. 2020;28:847‒62.10.1016/j.istruc.2020.09.028Search in Google Scholar

[46] Khan AA. Geophysical characterization and earthquake hazard vulnerability of Dhaka Mega City, Bangladesh, vis-à-vis impact of scenario earthquakes. Nat Hazards. 2016;82(2):1147‒66.10.1007/s11069-016-2237-9Search in Google Scholar

[47] B. C. B. S. Safety. NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures (FEMA P-750). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[48] Scholzen A, Chudoba R, Hegger J. Thin‐walled shell structures made of textile‐reinforced concrete: Part II: Experimental characterization, ultimate limit state assessment and numerical simulation. Struct Concr. 2015;16(1):115‒24.10.1002/suco.201400046Search in Google Scholar

[49] Weldu MT, Han J, Rahmaninezhad SM, Parsons RL, Kakrasul JI. Pullout resistance of mechanically stabilized earth wall steel strip reinforcement in uniform aggregate. University of Kansas, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural; 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[50] Morsy KM, Thakeb H. Comparative evaluation of the environmental impacts of geosynthetic Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls. J Clean Prod. 2022;374:133912.10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133912Search in Google Scholar

[51] Burke C, Ling HI, Liu H. Seismic response analysis of a full-scale reinforced soil retaining wall. In Proc. 17th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conf., Newark, DE. 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[52] Tavakolian R, Sankey J. Sandwich connection design for shored reinforced earth walls. Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Eng. Acad. Pract. Geotech. Eng. 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[53] Sankey JE, Anderson PL. Effects of stray currents on performance of metallic reinforcements in reinforced earth structures. Transp Res Rec. 1999;1675(1):61‒6.10.3141/1675-08Search in Google Scholar

[54] Hossain MS, Kibria G, Khan MS, Hossain J, Taufiq T. Effects of backfill soil on excessive movement of MSE wall. J Perform Constr Facil. 2012;26(6):793‒802.10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000281Search in Google Scholar

[55] Abbas HS, El-Sherbiny RM, Salem AM. Numerical analysis of mechanically stabilized earth walls in hybrid retaining wall systems. In Advanced Research on Shallow Foundations: Proceedings of the 2nd GeoMEast International Congress and Exhibition on Sustainable Civil Infrastructures, Egypt 2018–The Official International Congress of the Soil-Structure Interaction Group in Egypt (SSIGE). 2019.10.1007/978-3-030-01923-5_18Search in Google Scholar

[56] Bathurst RJ, Nernheim A, Walters DL, Allen TM, Burgess P, Saunders DD. Influence of reinforcement stiffness and compaction on the performance of four geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geosynth Int. 2009;16(1):43‒59.10.1680/gein.2009.16.1.43Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-07-12

Revised: 2023-08-13

Accepted: 2023-09-05

Published Online: 2024-02-01

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/eng-2022-0535

Keywords for this article

retaining wall; soil–structure interaction; mechanically stabilized earth (MSE).

Creative Commons

BY 4.0