Geosynthetics 2015

February 15-18, Portland, Oregon

Dynamic Reinforcement Strains from a Shake Table Test of a Full-Scale

Geogrid-Reinforced MSE Wall
Andrew C. Sander, University of California San Diego, USA, asander@ucsd.edu
Willie Liew, PE, Tensar International Corporation, USA, wliew@tensarcorp.com
Patrick J. Fox, PhD, PE, University of California San Diego, USA, pjfox@ucsd.edu

ABSTRACT
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls have been used extensively in practice for decades. Static response of
such structures has been assessed via field instrumented sites, but controlled dynamic tests have been largely relegated to
small- to moderate-scale 1g shake tables or centrifuge specimens. In an effort to improve seismic design guidelines, harmonic
and recorded earthquake ground motions were applied to a full-scale, well instrumented, 6.1 m tall modular block MSE wall
reinforced with uniaxial high density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid. The tests were performed using a new large soil
confinement box (LSCB) on the NEES@UCSD Large High Performance Outdoor Shake Table (LHPOST). Local strain
response of the geogrid reinforcement was measured with bonded strain gages at the midpoint of each rib at seven elevations
along the centerline of the wall specimen, as well as numerous redundant locations away from the centerline. This paper
summarizes some of the findings from ongoing analysis of this testing program.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Characterization of the dynamic properties and response of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls, particularly those
reinforced with polymeric geogrid, has been a key focus of research over the last three decades (e.g., Bolton and Pang 1982;
Bathurst and Hatami 1998; Ling et al. 2005). Data from field reconnaissance, small centrifuge models, and small-to-moderate
scale 1g shake table models, as well as numerical analyses, have demonstrated that such structures perform well under
seismic loading, typically better than traditional rigid and semi-rigid retaining wall systems (Ling et al. 2001; Bathurst et al.
2002; Yen et al. 2011). However, full scale controlled dynamic tests of geogrid-reinforced MSE walls are still needed to
develop benchmark datasets against which to compare results from previous research that may be subject to certain
limitations (Iai 1989). Such tests are needed to extrapolate results from model to prototype scale and assess and calibrate
numerical models for design and analysis of full-scale MSE walls.
In order to overcome some of the limitations associated with small-scale tests, a full scale dynamic test was conducted on a
modular block, geogrid-reinforced MSE wall using the Large High Performance Outdoor Shake Table (LHPOST) at the
University of California-San Diego. With addition of a newly fabricated boundary apparatus, the Large Soil Confinement Box
(LSCB), the LHPOST is well-suited for this type of experimental work because of its high vertical payload and lateral thrust
capacity, large table area, and outdoor setting that has no overhead constraints (Figure 1). For the first test using the LSCB, a
6.1 m tall MSE wall was subjected to a series of harmonic and recorded earthquake ground motions in order to evaluate its
fundamental dynamic behavior and seismic response. This paper provides an update to the project and previous information
published by Sander et al. (2013, 2014) and Fox et al. (2014).

Figure 1. The LSCB at UCSD.

720

2.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

2.1

Specimen

A MESA Retaining Wall System, manufactured by Tensar International Corporation of Atlanta, GA, was selected for the test.
This retaining wall system is a fully integrated modular block wall that utilizes mechanical connectors to attach HDPE geogrid
reinforcement to high strength dry cast masonry facing blocks. The wall was designed to optimize the space available within
the narrow configuration (width = 4.62 m) of the LSCB and achieve maximum height with minimum payload while still allowing
full development of the anticipated failure surface. The reinforcement was designed to minimum code requirements with
consideration of expected peak ground acceleration (PGA) up to 0.7g.
The entire test specimen measures 6.55 m tall, 4.62 m wide, and 9.10 m long in the direction of motion, as shown in Figure 2.
It is composed of a clean angular sand backfill (< 3% P200) and Tensar UX1400 geogrid, spaced uniformly at every third
course of block (0.61 m) in the vertical direction, along with the facing and connector components. The wall facing extends to
a height of 6.1 m above an unreinforced concrete leveling pad with 2000 psi minimum compressive strength. A layer of
foundation soil (31 cm thick) separates the table from the leveling pad (15 cm thick) in order to allow sliding and rotation of the
toe. The foundation soil was compacted using the same sand and procedures as for the backfill. At 95% relative density, the

backfill soil yields peak and residual friction angles of 42 and 38 , respectively, and a cohesion intercept of essentially zero.
Transverse steel angle sections were bolted to the top of the shake table to enforce a no-slip condition at the bottom boundary
of the specimen during shaking.

Figure 2. MSE wall specimen inside LSCB.

The test specimen was contained by the rigid walls of the LSCB. For simplicity of numerical modeling and to avoid
uncertainties associated with response of a seismic buffer material (e.g., geofoam) under cyclic loading, the back boundary
was also rigid. On all sides, three sheets of plastic film (dry) were used to separate the soil from the concrete walls of the
LSCB and minimize interface friction. Figure 3 presents failure envelopes from a series of large-scale direct shear tests that
were conducted on the layers of plastic film to measure interface friction angle for this boundary condition. The interface
o
friction angle was approximately 18 for displacement rates typical of the applied motions. In these tests, sliding occurred
between the sheets of plastic film layered between a sample of the soil from the MSE wall experiment and the steel plate of
the direct shear machine, which was approximately as rough as the smooth concrete walls of the LSCB.

721

Figure 3. Interface friction failure envelopes (Fox et al. 2014).

2.2

Instrumentation

The specimen was instrumented to monitor facing and backfill accelerations, facing displacements, reinforcement strain,
vertical and horizontal total earth pressure, and backfill settlement. A schematic diagram of the centerline section (A-A) of the
instrumented wall specimen is shown in Figure 4. This section was the most densely instrumented of three (B-B and C-C not
shown) with 30 uniaxial and 30 biaxial accelerometers tracking backfill motion, as well as 5 uniaxial accelerometers mounted
directly to the wall face. Additionally, 20 string potentiometers measured wall displacements relative to the west wall of the
LSCB, 14 pairs of vertical/horizontal total pressure cells measured dynamic lateral earth pressure coefficients, and 130
bonded strain gages measured local strain at the midpoint of each geogrid aperture for subsequent correlation to
reinforcement load at 7 elevations.

Figure 4. MSE wall instrumentation section A-A.

722

Select redundant measurements were made on vertical planes located 1.40 and 2.01 m (sections B-B and C-C, respectively)
off centerline to provide a check to Section A-A and to assess the effectiveness of the boundary at modeling plane strain
conditions (Fox et al. 2014). The LSCB itself was also fitted with accelerometers to ensure that its rigidity was preserved
throughout shaking such that it could serve as a reliable reference for relative displacement and acceleration measurements of
the wall specimen. Backfill settlement measurements were the only values not recorded dynamically during shaking and the
location of these markers was set to coincide with roof framing members of the LSCB as a measurement reference.

3.

CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

Construction of the MSE wall specimen was completed with techniques and equipment consistent with those used for field
installations. Backfill soil was initially placed using a concrete hopper and crane in order to spread a soil pad large enough to
place a small skid steer loader inside the LSCB without damaging the loader tracks on the bottom angle sections. Additional
backfill soil was then placed using a conveyor belt with the skid steer loader inside the LSCB to spread and compact the soil.
The first 31 cm was placed and compacted as a foundation layer upon which the leveling pad was poured.
Each soil lift was placed to a loose height of 19 cm and then compacted down to 15 cm using a 7.1 kN smooth drum vibratory
roller attached to the skid steer loader. The final relative density for each lift ranged approximately from 90 to 100%. Sand
cone tests were performed every two lifts and nuclear density gauge tests every ten lifts. The majority of the backfill was
compacted with 6 passes of the roller. Near the wall face, a walk-behind vibratory plate compactor was used in order to
minimize local outward deformations of the facing units. The plate compactor was also used around the edge of the fill, where
the roller could not reach.
After installation of each geogrid layer, three courses of facing blocks were placed and leveled with the connectors oriented to
maintain a vertical wall profile. In lieu of the typical gravel layer adjacent to the wall face, a nonwoven geotextile was placed
behind the blocks and around the side gaps (i.e. near the side walls of the LSCB) as a filter to prevent loss of backfill soil.
Construction procedures remained consistent until the final three lifts, at which point the elevation of the backfill relative to the
roof framing prevented further use of the skid steer. Backfill placement resumed by crane for elevations between 6.10 and
6.55 m and a walk-behind jumping jack plate compactor was used for compaction over the area formerly compacted by use of
the vibratory roller. An overhead photograph of the finished specimen prior to shaking is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. MSE wall specimen prior to shaking.

4.

RESULTS

Over a three day period, the specimen was subjected to a series of harmonic motions of varying frequency and amplitude,
scaled ground motion records from the 1995 Kobe, 2010 Maule, and 1994 Northridge earthquakes, and a subsequent set of
harmonic motions for direct comparison to the initial series. Some initial results for displacements and accelerations have
been presented by Sander et al. (2014) and Fox et al. (2014) and demonstrate good agreement across all three instrumented
sections, indicating that the desired plane strain conditions were adequately approximated for the center section.

723

Maximum strains and connection strains measured for the instrumented geogrid layers after each 1 Hz harmonic motion are
displayed in Figures 6a and 6b for the initial and final series of harmonic motions, respectively. Connection strains were
measured at the wall facing and maximum strains are the largest value of local strain measured within each elevation. During
the initial harmonic motions, deformations within the reinforced zone of the backfill accumulated and the majority of the
resulting strain demand was localized in the lower one-third of the specimen. Connection strains and maximum strains at the
toe and crest of the wall experienced small changes while a clear peak in demand among the measured reinforcement layers
developed at an elevation of approximately 1.88 m above the bottom boundary (1.42 m above the leveling pad). In contrast,
the final set of harmonic motions display only minor additional changes in reinforcement strain (i.e., demand). Note that the
initial motions show sequentially increasing amplitude while the final motions do not. Throughout the entire loading sequence,
strains in the lowest (first) and highest (tenth) layers show only small variations, while the most active regions of the reinforced
zone (third, fifth, and seventh layers) indicate increases in residual local strain of 1% or more.
For the same two series of harmonic motions, the peak dynamic increments of maximum and connection tensile strain (i.e., in
excess of the measurement at the beginning of each motion) are presented in Figures 6c (initial) and 6d (final). In both cases,
the small amplitude motion (PGA = 0.1g) generated negligible dynamic strains. The moderate amplitude motion (PGA =
0.25g) led to similar distributions of dynamic strain increment with only the fifth and tenth layers experiencing significantly
different demand before and after application of historical records. However the high amplitude motion (PGA = 0.4g) produced
response characteristics which are distinct between the initial and final series. For the initial series, dynamic strains increased
linearly with depth except near the toe. This suggests a primarily sliding deformation mechanism, whereas for the final series
(i.e., after the recorded earthquake records), the largest strains are localized above mid-height suggesting more of an
overturning mechanism or secondary sliding higher above the toe.
7

Elevation (m)

max

, 0.10g

, 0.10g

con

max

, 0.25g
5

, 0.25g

con

max

, 0.40g

, 0.40g

con

1
0
0

, 0.10g

con

max

, 0.25g

, 0.25g

con

max

, 0.40g

, 0.40g

con

b) Residual, Final

, 0.10g

max,dyn

, 0.10g

con,dyn

, 0.25g

max,dyn

, 0.25g

con,dyn

, 0.40g

max,dyn

, 0.40g

con,dyn

3
2

Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

, 0.10g

0.5
1
1.5
Axial Strain Amplitude (% )

a) Residual, Initial

0
0

max

3
2

0.5
1
1.5
Axial Strain Amplitude (% )

0
0

Elevation (m)

0.2

0.4
0.6
0.8
Axial Strain Amplitude (% )

c) Dynamic Increment, Initial

1.2

0
0

0.2

, 0.10g

max,dyn

, 0.10g

con,dyn

, 0.25g

max,dyn

, 0.25g

con,dyn

, 0.40g

max,dyn

, 0.40g
con,dyn

0.4
0.6
0.8
Axial Strain Amplitude (% )

1.2

d) Dynamic Increment, Final

Figure 6. Measured strains from 1 Hz harmonic motions.

724

A comparison of the strain profiles before and after all motions shows a pronounced bulge in the lower one-third of the wall
with maximum strain accumulation of 1.1% in the third geogrid layer (Figure 7). Maximum strains increased in all layers
through the loading sequence with minimal change (~0.1%) in the layers near the toe and crest. Connection strains are
approximately linear with depth and in relatively close agreement for initial and final conditions. The measurements of
maximum and connection strain near the crest display less consistent response trends than in the rest of the specimen. This
inconsistency is likely the result of higher relative incidence of strain gage failures (delamination or otherwise) in these layers
during the late stages of the testing program. Figure 8a shows the gap behind the top course of blocks (roughly 0.3 m wide
and deep) that resulted from shaking. This loss of confinement, as well as that from surface cracking (more than 3 cm wide at
the edge of the reinforced zone), may also contribute to the anomalous strain measurements near the crest. Figure 8b shows
the final deformed profile of the wall face, including a bulge at approximately one-third height.

Elevation (m)

, Initial

max

, Initial

con

, Final

max

, Final

con

4
3
2
1
0
0

0.5
1
1.5
Axial Strain Amplitude (%)

Figure 7. Reinforcement strains before and after all shaking tests.

a)

Gap behind top course of blocks

b) Overhead view of displaced profile

Figure 8. MSE wall specimen after final motion.

725

5.

CONCLUSIONS

Full-scale dynamic tests (both sinusoidal and seismic base excitation) of a 6.1 m tall MSE retaining wall were conducted within
a new confinement structure (the LSCB) on the NEES@UCSD LHPOST. A dense array of instrumentation was used to record
the dynamic behavior of the specimen, including accelerations, wall displacements, tensile strains in reinforcement, and
dynamic earth pressures. Strain measurements presented above suggest the following:

a maximum increase in residual strain of 1.1% developed in the third geogrid layer (out of ten) from the bottom over
the course of the entire loading sequence
small changes in residual strain were found to develop at the toe and crest as compared to the mid-section of the wall
comparison of strains produced by similar severe harmonic motions early and late in the sequence indicates different
deformation mechanisms for undamaged and damaged states of the specimen

Findings from this research program are expected to provide guidance in the continued development of design standards and
assessment of numerical models used to analyze the dynamic response of MSE walls in seismic regions. This test was a
success insofar as the wall performed well and the capability of the LSCB for dynamic testing of large geotechnical structures
was demonstrated. Several tests on rocking bridge foundations followed this MSE wall test and have also demonstrated the
capability of the LSCB for other interesting applications in geotechnical earthquake engineering research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this investigation was provided by Grant No. CMMI-1041656 from the George E. Brown, Jr. Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) Research Program of the U.S. National Science Foundation. Supplemental funds
were provided by Tensar International Corporation, the California Department of Transportation, the Washington Department
of Transportation, and the Jacobs School of Engineering and Department of Structural Engineering at UCSD. This support is
gratefully acknowledged. The authors sincerely thank the staff of the Englekirk Structural Engineering Center, in particular
Paul Greco and Dan Radulescu, and UCSD students Stuart Thielmann, Mike Sanders, Mary Klepin, and Sydney Sroka for
their assistance with the project. In addition, we would like to thank Tony Allen, State Geotechnical Engineer for the
Washington Department of Transportation, and Dr. Richard Bathurst, Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, for
several helpful conversations with regard to details of the experimental program.

REFERENCES
Bathurst, R.J. and Hatami, K. (1998), Seismic Response Analysis of a Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall,
Geosynthetics International, 5(1-2): 127-166.
Bathurst, R.J., Hatami, K. and Alfaro, M.C. (2002), Geosynthetic reinforced soil walls and slopes: seismic aspects,
Geosynthetics and Their Applications, S.K. Shukla, ed., Thomas Telford Publishing, London, UK, 327-392.
Bolton, M.D. and Pang, P.L.R. (1982), Collapse limit states of reinforced earth retaining walls, Geotechnique, 32(4): 349-367.
Fox, P.J., Sander, A.C., Elgamal, A., Greco, P., Isaacs, D., Stone, M. and Wong, S. (2014), Large Soil Confinement Box for
Seismic Performance Testing of Geo-Structures, Geotechnical Testing Journal, accepted.
Iai, S. (1989), Similitude for shaking table test on soil-structure-fluid model in 1 g gravitational field, Soils and
Foundations, 29(1): 105-118.
Ling, H.I., Leshchinsky, D. and Chou, N.N.S. (2001), Post-earthquake investigation on several geosynthetic-reinforced soil
retaining walls and slopes during the Ji-Ji earthquake of Taiwan, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 21: 297313.
Ling, H.I., Mohri, Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K. and Liu, H. (2005), Large-Scale Shaking Table Tests on
Modular-Block Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
131(4): 465-476.
Sander, A.C., Fox, P.J., Elgamal, A., Pradel, D.E., Isaacs, D., Stone, M. and Wong, S. (2013), Seismic testing program for
large-scale MSE retaining walls at UCSD, Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2013, ASCE: 1188-1195.
Sander, A.C., Fox, P.J. and Elgamal, A. (2014), Full-scale seismic test of MSE retaining wall at UCSD, Proceedings of GeoCongress 2014, ASCE, in press.
Yen, W-H P., Chen, G., Buckle, I., Allen, T., Alzamora, D., Ger, J. and Arias, J.G. (2011), Postearthquake Reconnaissance
Report on Transportation Infrastructure Impact of the February 27, 2010, Offshore Maule Earthquake in Chile, Pub. No.
FHWA-HRT-11-030, US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, USA.

726