Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf
Abstract
Reinforced soil walls were only slightly damaged in the recent earthquake disasters in Japan. However, because sandy soils are generally used as
backll in steel-strip reinforced soil walls, these walls may deform during or immediately after an earthquake. Therefore, it is important to clarify the
resistance of this type of wall to seismic shocks and to improve the wall's seismic performance for stabilisation through such methods as cement
treatment. For this purpose, we developed a reinforced soil wall model to simulate the stress and deformation around an embedded reinforcement.
The reinforcement used here was a steel strip with ribs. First, a series of conventional pullout tests was performed to examine the pullout resistance
of the strip with its ribs embedded in the soil layer. Next, shaking table tests were performed using a reinforced soil wall model with different initial
pullout loads applied to the strip. The conditions of the horizontal shaking table tests briey consisted of a maximum acceleration of 1000 Gal and a
frequency of 3 Hz. The initial pullout load before the shaking tests was set at 75% of the maximum load obtained from the pullout tests. Sand, clay,
and cement-treated sand and clay were used for the soil samples. The clay had a ne fraction content of over 25%. This paper discusses the seismic
behaviour of a reinforced soil wall composed of sand, clay, and cement-treated clay based on the results of pullout and shaking table tests. The
primary conclusions can be summarised as follows: 1) When no overburden pressure was applied, shaking caused the strip in the untreated sand
layer to slip within a couple of seconds. Conversely, when the overburden pressure was above 50 kPa, the strip did not slip at all during 3 min of
shaking. When the initial pullout load was decreased by 5%, the facing wall moved forward by only 0.2% of its height. Therefore, no large
deformations affecting the instability of the wall were recognised during the shaking tests. 2) Furthermore, in the case of untreated clay with or
without overburden pressure, the resistance between the strip and the soil was negligible, and the strip was simultaneously made to slip from the
shaking table tests to the same extent as the untreated sand without overburden pressure. 3) After the cement treatment was applied to the clay, the
strip did not slip during 3 min of shaking, the initial pullout load did not decrease, and the facing wall did not move during the shaking period. 4)
When the strip was connected to the facing wall, the strip slipped more slowly than when it was not connected. 5) The stability and seismic
performance of the reinforced soil wall were not affected by the ratio of the initial pullout load to the maximum pullout load within the tested range.
6) Conversely, when the acceleration was set to 1500 Gal, the initial pullout load decreased by only a maximum of 5%. Therefore, the use of
cement-treated soil can crucially improve the stability of a reinforced soil wall, even if a large acceleration occurs during an earthquake.
& 2015 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reinforced soil wall; Steel strip; Retaining wall; Seismic performance; Shaking table; Stabilisation; Pullout resistance
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 836 85 9303; fax: +81 836 85 9301.
E-mail addresses: msuzuki@yamaguchi-u.ac.jp (Motoyuki Suzuki), n-shimura@hirose-net.co.jp (Naoki Shimura).
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2015.04.013
0038-0806/& 2015 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Suzuki et al. / Soils and Foundations 55 (2015) 626636 627
1. Introduction describes the results of pullout and shaking table tests. The
pullout tests were performed under conditions of monotonic
It is well known that reinforced soil walls generally showed high loading and stage loading to determine the maximum pullout
levels of anti-earthquake capability in the aftermath of both the load of the strip. The shaking tests were performed using a
South Hyogo Prefecture Earthquake of 1995 and the Noto Hanto reinforced soil wall model that was designed based on an
Earthquake of 2007 (Koseki et al., 2006, 2007). After the 2011 earlier pullout test apparatus (Suzuki et al., 2007) and was set
Great East Japan Earthquake (off the Pacic Coast of Tohoku), it up on a shaking table. While carrying out the shaking table
was reported that whole foundations below reinforced soil walls tests, we assumed that the reinforced soil wall generally
slipped due to the strong motion and that crests settled and retaining exerted its retaining effect by retaining the pretension with
walls tilted. Inherent factors, such as poor drainage or frost heaving, respect to the strip. Thus, the shaking table tests were
may have contributed to these failures (Sahara, 2012). Such damage performed using pretension based on the results of the pullout
can lead to the instability of reinforced soil walls (Sato et al., 2006). tests. The effects of the overburden pressure, the cement
However, the established theory suggests that reinforced soil walls treatment, the pretension load, and the acceleration on the
still exhibit strong earthquake resistance. The seismic performance shaking behaviour of the reinforced soil wall were examined
of reinforced soil walls using geosynthetics, such as geogrids, has separately through a series of tests. Based on the test results,
been examined through experiments and numerical analyses of we mainly discuss the characteristics of the shaking pullout
construction materials conducted under various conditions behaviour of the strip and the simultaneous displacement of the
(Richardson and Lee, 1975; Richardson et al., 1977; Matsuo retaining wall.
et al., 1998; Ling et al., 1997; Watanabe et al., 2003; Koseki
et al., 2006, 2007). Provided that a reinforced soil wall is designed 2. Reinforced soil wall model on shaking table
and constructed under appropriate standards, it will exhibit excellent
seismic resistance compared with other soil structures. However, the Fig. 1(a)(c) show our newly developed reinforced soil wall
seismic performance of a retaining wall with a steel strip reinforce- model. The sketch in Fig. 1(a) indicates how the model
ment has been examined in only a few studies (Uezawa et al., 1974;
Richardson et al., 1977; Yogendrakumar et al., 1992; Futaki et al.,
1996). Additionally, the behaviour of a reinforced soil wall over a
long duration of strong ground motion, as occurred in the recent
great earthquakes, remains unclear.
The ne fraction content and maximum grain size of backll
soil are regulated according to the Geosynthetic Reinforced
Soil Wall (GRSW), the Reinforced Railroad/Road with Rigid
Facing (RRR), Terre Arme, and Multi-Anchored Retaining
Wall (MARW) methods (Miyata et al., 2001). In a reinforced
soil wall, such as that by Terre Armee, frictional resistance is
expected to be well mobilised upon contact between the
backll soil and the steel strip. Backll soil with a ne fraction Tube for air bag Confining plate Dial gauge for
content of no more than 25% is suitable for a reinforced soil displacement of wall
Data
Table 1
Recorder
Physical properties of samples used.
Data Air pressure
control panel Sample name Chiba sanda Mito clayb
Acceleration
control panel
Natural water content (%) 4.3 27.5
Density of soil particles (g/cm3) 2.719 2.751
v PC
PC
Fine fraction content (%) 14.8 68.6
Initial water content (%) 19.3 45.0
Pullout load
Soil classication [S-F] [CH]
a
Soil tank Compressor Chiba sand: Optimum water content 19.3%, Maximum dry density 1.66 g/cm3.
b
Mito clay: Liquid limit 45.0%, Plastic limit: 28.9%.
Actuator Shaking table
load was actively induced by directly pulling the strip out from the 80
soil layer. Although there was a difference between the actual and
wall with our test apparatus, as shown in Fig. 1(a). In element tests,
such as triaxial compressive or hollow torsional tests, we generally 40
consider it reasonable to directly control the stress or deformation of Mito clay
the soil specimen (e.g., Hyodo et al., 1994). The tests in this study Chiba sand
were not intended to simulate all of the reinforced soil wall, but 20
only a certain part of it. Therefore, we directly controlled the
mechanical conditions of part of the reinforced soil wall. Further- 0
more, for the test apparatus, the facing wall was movable and in 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
synch with the displacement of the soil layer. Thus, we considered Grain size (mm)
that the conditions reproduced in this test were nearly the same as Fig. 4. Grading curves of soil samples.
those under the actual conditions.
In the pullout tests, a drainage layer of unwoven cloth and In the shaking table tests, the soil tank was lled with a soil
lter paper was set on the bottom of the soil tank, and the sample similar to the above-described pullout tests. An
630 M. Suzuki et al. / Soils and Foundations 55 (2015) 626636
1500 1.5
Chiba sand (Untreated)
1000 v = 50 kPa
1.2
Pullout load T( ( kN )
v = 0 kPa
Acceleration (gal)
500
0.9
0
0.6
-500
0.3
-1000
-1500 0.0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Time (sec) Displacement of facing wall d ( mm )
Fig. 5. Acceleration measured in upper frame of soil tank (Test no. S-2). Fig. 6. Relationship between pullout load and displacement of facing wall
during monotonic loading (Test nos. C-1 and C-2).
overburden pressure was then loaded onto the surface of the
soil sample. After consolidation, the initial pullout load, Ti, Chiba sand (Untreated)
obtained from the above pullout tests, was loaded onto the strip 3.0 = 100 kPa
in a step-by-step manner. The initial pullout load acted on the = 50 kPa
retaining wall immediately as a result of the active earth 2.5 = 0 kPa
pressure created by the construction of the backll. Accord-
Pullout load T (kN)
load was nearly constant, the displacement of the facing wall Chiba sand
5
increased rapidly. After the strip slipped, the displacement v = 0 kPa
returned to approximately 3 mm. When v 50 and 100 kPa, Treated
3
the strip slipped when T reached 2.1 and 2.7 kN, respectively. 4 Qc = 100 kg/m
In these cases, the pullout load decreased rapidly to 0 kN, but
Ti/Tslip= 0.75
= 1000 gal = 1000 gal
v = 100 kPa = 50 kPa
v
150
150 v = 50 kPa = 0 kPa
v
v = 0 kPa
100
100
50
50
0 0
0 60 120 180 0 60 120 180
= 0 kPa
0.6 2.0
v = 0 kPa
1.5
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0 60 120 180 0.0
Shaking time (sec) 0 60 120 180
Shaking time (sec)
Fig. 9. Seismic behaviour of facing wall with cement-treated sand under
different overburden pressures (Test nos. S-1, S-2, and S-3)., (a) Pullout load Fig. 10. Seismic behaviour of facing wall with untreated clay (Test nos. S-6
of strip), and (b) Displacement of facing wall. and S-7), (a) Pullout load, and (b Displacement of facing wall).
caused by a loss in frictional resistance between the strip and the strip did not slip considerably. The displacement of the
the backll soil, an increase in the active earth pressure acting facing wall was 0.5 mm at the front, which is 0.2% of its
on the facing wall or both. After the test, the maximum height. If the wall is 10 m in height, the displacement of the
displacement of the wall was more than 10 mm. When the wall wall will be nearly 20 mm. Thus, the displacement might not
is assumed to be 10-m high, the displacement will be be too damaging to the stability of a reinforced soil wall.
equivalent to nearly 30 cm. This means the displacement of However, if the effect of the skin friction is not perfectly
the wall may be larger in the case of an earthquake whose removed, the wall displacement may be underestimated.
horizontal acceleration is over 1000 Gal. We conducted a Therefore, an evaluation of the wall displacement should
shaking test under the condition of an overburden pressure include any inuence of the boundary conditions. The ten-
0 kPa. According to the design and construction manual, the dency at v 100 kPa was similar to that at v 50 kPa.
minimum overburden thickness was prescribed as 0.6 m, Displacement was less likely to occur in the presence of
which is equivalent to an overburden pressure of approxi- overburden pressure. During the shaking test, the wall dis-
mately 10 kPa. Although the overburden pressure acting on the placement was bound to the pullout direction when the strip
top surface was set to 0 kPa, the actual overburden pressure experienced tension. When the strip did not slip during
acting on the strip was estimated to be 3 kPa because the strip shaking, the pullout load uctuated by a few percentages of
was embedded at a 0.15-m depth from the top surface. To the pullout load during shaking. It is considered that the
clarify the inuence of the overburden pressure within the pullout load may be comparatively affected by the inertia force
estimated range on the behaviour and characteristics of the of the soil layer. The mass of the soil layer in the tank is
seismic activity, it was necessary to add test cases without an approximately 75 kg; and thus, the inertia force corresponds to
overburden pressure, i.e., v 0 kPa. On the other hand, with approximately 0.74 kN when the acceleration is 980 Gal. This
regard to the relationships among the pullout load, the wall can be equivalent to 10% of the maximum pullout resistance in
displacement, and the shaking duration at v 50 kPa and Ti/ the case of treated Chiba sand under an overburden pressure of
Tslip 0.75, the pullout load barely decreased during the 0 kPa. Although the inertia force was added or reduced to the
shaking table test. However, unlike the case of v 0 kPa, pretention pullout load, the extent of the contribution was
M. Suzuki et al. / Soils and Foundations 55 (2015) 626636 633
and the applied overburden pressure was zero during the Frame of soil tank
shaking test. The initial pullout load was set to 0.34 kN. The
strip clamped to the wall was pulled out from the soil layer
Surface of soil
within 60 s. The changes in Rt and Rd under the clamped
condition were slower than those under the non-clamped
condition. Here, Rt was higher than under the non-clamped
condition. The actual seismic resistance was improved through Strip
an integration of a wall and a strip. For only the soil layer in
the test apparatus, we did not directly observe or measure the
deformation or displacement. The soil layer was bound to Shaking direction
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 60 120 180 0 60 120 180
Shaking time (sec) Shaking time ( sec )
3
Rate of change of displacement
2
of retaining wall Rd (%)
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 60 120 180
Shaking time (sec)
Fig. 13. Seismic behaviours of cement-treated and untreated clay (Test nos. S- Fig. 14. Seismic behaviours of cement-treated and untreated sand (Test nos. S-1
6 and S-8), (a) Pullout load, and (b) Displacement of facing wall. and S-4) (a) Pullout load, and (b) Displacement of facing wall.
untreated and cement-treated samples were set to 0.027 kN and soil wall may not be signicantly inuenced by the initial
2.47 kN, respectively. In contrast with the untreated clay, the pullout load acting on the strip, which is smaller than Tslip.
pullout load ratio using the cement-treated clay as a backll Fig. 16 compares the results between 1000 and 1500 Gal of
material remained approximately 100% during shaking. The acceleration. Both samples used in the shaking test were
facing wall was not displaced during shaking. Based on these cement-treated clay. It should be noted that their values for
results, we conclude that the cementation of the backll Ti/Tslip differed. In the case of the 1500 Gal acceleration, the
material remarkably improves the brittle behaviour of a value for Rt decreased approximately 5% at maximum during
reinforced soil wall when using untreated clay. Fig. 14(a) the shaking period, whereas the value for Rd increased only
and (b) shows the test results for untreated and cement-treated 0.07% at maximum. These results suggest that when cement-
Chiba sand. The overburden pressure was zero, and the value treated soil is used as a backll material, the acceleration
of Ti/Tslip was set to 0.75 for both samples. The pullout load of seldom changes the pullout load. Moreover, even in the event
the cement-treated sand did not change, and the wall was of a large earthquake, whose input value of acceleration is
barely displaced as the shaking proceeded. These behaviours more than 1500 Gal, a reinforced soil wall will not be damaged
were consistent with those of the cement-treated clay. as the pullout load decreases. If the wall is 10 m in height,
Figs. 15 and 16 show the relationships among Rt, Rd, and the 0.07% of the wall's displacement ratio will be approximately
shaking time under different values of Ti and acceleration , 7 mm. The internal stability of a reinforced soil wall can be
respectively. The sample used here was treated Mito clay, and impaired only if displacement continues to occur.
the applied overburden pressure was zero during shaking. Fig. 17 shows the slipping surface of a soil tank after the shaking
When Ti was set to 85% of Tslip (Ti/Tslip=0.85), the rate of table test. A slipping surface observed during a previously
change in the pullout load increased 3% at maximum during conducted pullout test is overlaid in the image. It can be observed
the shaking period, but did not decrease below 100%. The wall from this gure that a tensile failure of the soil occurred locally
displacement was nearly the same as when Ti was set to 75% behind the facing; and thus, the collapsed soil fell. In addition, the
of Tslip (Ti/Tslip=0.75). The strip pulls out more easily as the slipping line was formed obliquely toward the pulling direction
value of Ti/Tslip increases. Nevertheless, the initial pullout load through the strip. Accordingly, the active and passive regions were
did not disappear, and the wall did not move in the direction of conrmed to be clearly divided in the soil layer. Although the two
the pullout load. Thus, the seismic performance of a reinforced slipping surfaces differed from each other around the zone in which
M. Suzuki et al. / Soils and Foundations 55 (2015) 626636 635
100 100
90 90
80 80
0 60 120 180
0 60 120 180
Shaking time (sec)
Shaking time (sec)
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.00
0 60 120 180
Shaking time (sec) 0.00
0 60 120 180
Fig. 15. Inuence of initial pulling load on seismic behaviour of facing wall Shaking time (sec)
with cement-treated clay (Test nos. S-8 and S-9) (a) (a) Pullout load, and
Displacement of facing wall. Fig. 16. Inuence of acceleration on seismic behaviour of facing wall with
cement-treated clay (Test nos. S-8 and S-10) (a) (a) Pullout load of strip, and
(b) Displacement of facing wall.
the strip was embedded, they showed nearly the same lines at the
top and bottom of the crack.
pressure. However, deformation of the soil is likely to be caused by
shaking under low overburden pressure. It can be seen from Fig. 14
4.3. Effect of stabilisation of ll material that for untreated Chiba sand, the pre-tensioned pullout load
decreased and the wall displacement increased under low over-
The advantages of stabilization obtained from this study are burden pressure within approximately 20 s. On the other hand, both
summarized in comparison with the case of untreated soil. It can be the pullout load and the displacement for treated sand were
seen from Fig. 8 that the peak value of the pullout resistance for maintained and were not affected by the shaking. Accordingly, it
cement-treated soil obtained from the static pullout test was nearly was conrmed that the pullout resistance of a strip is signicantly
nine times that for untreated soil. In the case of untreated Mito clay, increased by the application of stabilisation to a low frictional
a small pullout resistance was exhibited under no overburden material. An effective suppression of the reduction in the pullout
pressure. By stabilizing the Mito clay, the peak value of the pullout load and the increase in the wall displacement was recognised
resistance became more than that for Chiba sand under the same during the shaking test.
overburden pressure. These tendencies are very similar to those
from a previous study (e.g., Tasaka et al., 2010). This may be
attributed to the adhesion generated in between the particles or 5. Conclusion
between the particles and the strip. Fig. 13 shows the shaking test
results for both untreated and treated Mito clay. It can also be seen The conclusions of this study can be summarised as follows:
from Fig. 13 that for untreated clay, the pullout load disappeared
and the displacement of the facing wall rapidly increased immedi- 1) As the pullout load was monotonously increased, the
ately after shaking. Conversely, both the pullout load and the wall displacement of the facing wall during the test at an
displacement for treated clay were maintained and were unaffected overburden pressure of 50 kPa became smaller than that
by the shaking. In the case of sandy soil, the pullout resistance is at 0 kPa. As the pullout load was decreased, the displace-
sufcient during an earthquake under the application of overburden ment of the facing wall was not fully reversible.
636 M. Suzuki et al. / Soils and Foundations 55 (2015) 626636
References
260 mm
m
Slipping surface Futaki, M., Ogawa, N., Sato, M., Kumada, T., and Natsume, S., 1996.
of pullout test Experiments about seismic performance of reinforced earth retaining wall.
In: Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
200 mm Paper no. 1083.
Hyodo, M., Yamamoto, Y., Sugiyama, M., 1994. Undrained cyclic shear
Strip behaviour of normally consolidated clay subjected to initial static shear
stress. Soils Found. 34 (4), 111.
Slipping surface Koseki, J., Bathrust, R.J., Gler, E., Kuwano, J., and Maugeri, M., 2006.
of shaking test Seismic stability of reinforced soil walls, Keynote Lecture. In: Proceedings
of the 8th International Conference on Geosynthetics. Yokohama, vol. 1,
pp. 5177.
Koseki, J., Tateyama, M., Watanabe, K., and Nakajima S., 2007. Stability of
earth structures against high seismic loads. In: Proceedings of the 13th
Fig. 17. Comparison of failure lines after pullout and shaking table tests. Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineer-
ing, Post-Conference Volume. pp. 222241.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D., Perry, E.B., 1997. Seismic design and perfor-
2) During the shaking test on untreated Chiba sand at an over- mance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. Gotechnique 47 (5),
burden pressure of 0 kPa, when the initial pullout load was set to 933952.
Matsuo, O., Tsutsumi, T., Yokoyama, K., Saito, Y., 1998. Shaking table tests
75% of the maximum level and an acceleration of 1000 Gal was
and analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. Geosynth. Int.
applied, the strip slipped within 10 s and the displacement of the 5 (12), 97126.
facing wall increased rapidly to more than 10 mm. Miyata, T., Fukuda, N., Kojima, K., Konami, T. and Otani, Y., 2001. Design
3) In the shaking table test on untreated Chiba sand at an of reinforced soil wall: overview of design manuals in Japan. Landmarks in
overburden pressure of more than 50 kPa, the displacement Earth Reinforcement. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Earth Reinforcement. vol. 2, pp. 11071114.
of the wall was 0.5 mm in front, which was 0.2% of the
Miyata, Y., Bathurst, R.J., 2012. Measured and predicted loads in steel strip
height of the facing wall, and the rate of change in the reinforced c - soil walls in Japan. Soils Found. 52 (1), 117.
pullout load ratio remained at approximately 100%. In this Public Works Research Center (PWRC), 2003. Design Method, Construction
test case, the strip did not slip. Manual and Specications for Steel Strip Reinforced Retaining Walls, third
4) In contrast to when sand was used as a backll material, the ed. Public Works Research Center, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan (in Japanese).
Richardson, G.N., Lee, K.L., 1975. Seismic design of reinforced earth walls. J.
rate of change in the pullout load decreased to 0% when
Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 101 (2), 167188.
clay was used, even when an overburden pressure was Richardson, G.N., Feger, D., Fong, A., Lee, K.L., 1977. Seismic testing of
applied. However, the cementation of the backll material reinforced earth walls. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 103 (1), 117.
improved the pullout behaviour of the soil that had been Sahara, K., 2012. Investigation of damage to reinforced earth walls in the great
deemed unsuitable by the regulations. east Japan earthquake and related maintenance. In: Proceedings of the
International Joint Symposium on Urban Geotechnics for Sustainable
5) Comparing the seismic behaviours when the initial pullout
Development. JS-Seoul, pp. 7477.
load was set at 75% and 85% of the maximum pullout load, Sato, M., Onodera, S., and Naemura, S., 2006. A proposal of damage grade
we found that the behaviours were nearly the same. estimation for reinforced retaining wall. In: Proceedings of the 41st Japan
Therefore, we can conclude that the value of the initial National Conference on Geotechnical Engineering. pp. 18471848 (in
pullout load does not signicantly affect the seismic Japanese).
Suzuki, M., Tasaka, Y., Yoneda, O., Kubota, A., and Yamamoto, T., 2007.
performance within the tested range.
Pullout resistance of strip embedded in cement-treated soil layer for
6) When the reinforced soil wall model, mounted on the reinforced soil walls. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium
shaking table, was vibrating at an acceleration of 1500 Gal, on Earth Reinforcement. IS-KYUSHU07. pp. 693699.
the rate of change in the pullout load decreased by no more Tasaka, Y., Suzuki, M., Yoneda, O., Shimura, N., Sugiyama, Y., 2010. Pullout
than 5% of the initial value. The resistance between the resistance characteristics of strips from cement-treated soil and design
method of strip in reinforced earth wall. J. JSCE Geotech. Eng.(C) 66 (3),
strip and the backll material can be inuenced by the
516529 (in Japanese).
acceleration. However, it is possible that the above results The Japanese Geotechnical Society, 2006. New application of earth
could include the inuence, if any, of those boundary reinforcement-combined geotechnical technology (in Japanese).
conditions peculiar to laboratory testing. Uezawa, H., Yasuda, Y., Menjo, S., 1974. Experiment and analysis of the
failure of model reinforced earth (Terre Arme) Railway Technical
Research Report. 889. The Railway Technical Research Institute, Japanese
National Railways. 116 (in Japanese).
Watanabe, K., Munaf, Y., Koseki, J., Tateyama, M., Kojima, K., 2003.
Acknowledgements Behaviors of several types of model retaining walls subjected to irregular
excitation. Soils Found. 43 (5), 1327.
The authors are grateful to the late Professor Tetsuro Yogendrakumar, M., Bathurst, R.J., Finn, W.D.L., 1992. Dynamic response
analysis of reinforced-soil retaining wall. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE 118,
Yamamoto for providing helpful advice and to Mr. Masanori
11581167.
Fujii and Mr. Noboru Sato for assisting in the setting up of the
experimental facilities.