Full Text:   <813>

Summary:  <313>

CLC number: 

On-line Access: 2022-11-28

Received: 2022-04-02

Revision Accepted: 2022-07-29

Crosschecked: 2022-11-28

Cited: 0

Clicked: 1023

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714


Qiang LUO


Teng-fei WANG


-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A 2022 Vol.23 No.11 P.900-916


Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill

Author(s):  Ming WEI, Qiang LUO, Gui-shuai FENG, Teng-fei WANG, Liang-wei JIANG

Affiliation(s):  School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China; more

Corresponding email(s):   w@swjtu.edu.cn

Key Words:  Cantilever retaining wall, Backfill reinforcement, Seismic response, Shaking table test, Dynamic earth pressure, Phase shift

Ming WEI, Qiang LUO, Gui-shuai FENG, Teng-fei WANG, Liang-wei JIANG. Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University Science A, 2022, 23(11): 900-916.

@article{title="Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill",
author="Ming WEI, Qiang LUO, Gui-shuai FENG, Teng-fei WANG, Liang-wei JIANG",
journal="Journal of Zhejiang University Science A",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",

%0 Journal Article
%T Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill
%A Ming WEI
%A Qiang LUO
%A Gui-shuai FENG
%A Teng-fei WANG
%A Liang-wei JIANG
%J Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A
%V 23
%N 11
%P 900-916
%@ 1673-565X
%D 2022
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/jzus.A2200192

T1 - Shaking table tests on a cantilever retaining wall with reinforced and unreinforced backfill
A1 - Ming WEI
A1 - Qiang LUO
A1 - Gui-shuai FENG
A1 - Teng-fei WANG
A1 - Liang-wei JIANG
J0 - Journal of Zhejiang University Science A
VL - 23
IS - 11
SP - 900
EP - 916
%@ 1673-565X
Y1 - 2022
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/jzus.A2200192

Physical modelling of cantilever retaining walls with and without backfill reinforcement was conducted on a 1g shaking table to evaluate the mitigation effect of reinforcement on system dynamics (g denotes the acceleration of gravity). The model wall has a height of 1.5 m with a scale ratio of 1/4 and retains dry sand throughout. The input motions are amplified to three levels of input peak base acceleration, 0.11g, 0.24g, and 0.39g, corresponding to minor, moderate, and major earthquakes, respectively. Investigation of the seismic response of the retaining walls focuses on acceleration and lateral displacement of the wall and backfill, dynamic earth pressures, and tensile load in the reinforcements (modeled by phosphor-bronze strips welded into a mesh). The inclusion of reinforcement has been observed to improve the integrity of the wall-soil system, mitigate vibration-related damage, and reduce the fundamental frequency of a reinforced system. Propagation of acceleration from the base to the upper portion is accompanied by time delay and nonlinear amplification. A reinforced system with a lower acceleration amplification factor than the unreinforced one indicates that reinforcement can reduce the amplification effect of input motion. Under minor and moderate earthquake loadings, reinforcement allows the inertia force and seismic earth pressure to be asynchronous and decreases the seismic earth pressure when inertia forces peak. During major earthquake loading, the wall is displaced horizontally less than the backfill, with soil pushing the wall substantially; the effect of backfill reinforcement has not been fully mobilized. The dynamic earth pressure is large at the top and diminishes toward the bottom.




Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article


[1]Al AtikL, SitarN, 2010. Seismic earth pressures on cantilever retaining structures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(10):1324-1333.

[2]BathurstRJ, HatamiK, 1998. Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall. Geosynthetics International, 5(1-2):127-166.

[3]BrennanAJ, MadabhushiSPG, 2009. Amplification of seismic accelerations at slope crests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46(5):585-594.

[4]BrennanAJ, ThusyanthanNI, MadabhushiSP, 2005. Evaluation of shear modulus and damping in dynamic centrifuge tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131(12):1488-1497. https://doi.‍org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:‍12(1488)

[5]ContiR, MadabhushiGSP, ViggianiGMB, 2012. On the behaviour of flexible retaining walls under seismic actions. Géotechnique, 62(12):1081-1094.

[6]DingGY, ZhouL, WangJ, et al., 2020. Shaking table tests on gravel slopes reinforced by concrete canvas. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 48(4):539-545.

[7]EdinçlilerA, ToksoyYS, 2017. Physical model study of the seismic performance of highway embankments with and without geotextile. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 11(2):1750003.

[8]EftekhariZ, PanahAK, 2021. 1-g shaking table investigation on seismic performance of polymeric-strip reinforced-soil retaining walls built on rock slopes with limited reinforced zone. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 147:106758.

[9]El-EmamMM, BathurstRJ, 2005. Facing contribution to seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil walls. Geosynthetics International, 12(5):215-238.

[10]El-EmamMM, BathurstRJ, 2007. Influence of reinforcement parameters on the seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil retaining walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(1):33-49.

[11]ErtugrulOL, TrandafirAC, 2013. Lateral earth pressures on flexible cantilever retaining walls with deformable geofoam inclusions. Engineering Geology, 158:23-33.

[12]ErtugrulOL, TrandafirAC, OzkanMY, 2017. Reduction of dynamic earth loads on flexible cantilever retaining walls by deformable geofoam panels. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 92:462-471.

[13]GaoHM, HuY, WangZH, et al., 2017. Shaking table tests on the seismic performance of a flexible wall retaining EPS composite soil. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 15(12):5481-5510.

[14]GreenRA, OlgunCG, CameronWI, 2008. Response and modeling of cantilever retaining walls subjected to seismic motions. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 23(4):309-322.

[15]HardinBO, DrnevichVP, 1972. Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 98(7):667-692.

[16]HatamiK, BathurstRJ, 2000. Effect of structural design on fundamental frequency of reinforced-soil retaining walls. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 19(3):‍137-157.

[17]HuangCC, 2019. Seismic responses of vertical-faced wrap-around reinforced soil walls. Geosynthetics International, 26(2):146-163.

[18]IaiS, 1989. Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid model in 1g gravitational field. Soils and Foundations, 29(1):105-118.

[19]JoSB, HaJG, LeeJS, et al., 2017. Evaluation of the seismic earth pressure for inverted T-shape stiff retaining wall in cohesionless soils via dynamic centrifuge. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 92:345-357.

[20]KamiloğluHA, ŞadoğluE, 2019. A method for active seismic earth thrusts of granular backfill acting on cantilever retaining walls. Soils and Foundations, 59(2):419-432.

[21]KilicIE, CengizC, EdinclilerA, et al., 2021. Seismic behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls backfilled with cohesive soil. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(5):‍‍1256-1269.

[22]KokushoT, 1980. Cyclic triaxial test of dynamic soil properties for wide strain range. Soils and Foundations, 20(2):45-60.

[23]KosekiJ, TatsuokaF, MunafY, et al., 1998a. A modified procedure to evaluate active earth pressure at high seismic loads. Soils and Foundations, 38(S1):209-216.

[24]KosekiJ, MunafY, TatsuokaF, et al., 1998b. Shaking and tilt table tests of geosynthetic-reinforced soil and conventional-type retaining walls. Geosynthetics International, 5(1-2):73-96.

[25]KramerSL, 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, USA, p.65-83.

[26]KrishnaAM, LathaGM, 2007. Seismic response of wrap-faced reinforced soil-retaining wall models using shaking table tests. Geosynthetics International, 14(6):355-364.

[27]KrishnaAM, LathaGM, 2009. Seismic behaviour of rigid-faced reinforced soil retaining wall models: reinforcement effect. Geosynthetics International, 16(5):364-373.

[28]KrishnaAM, BhattacharjeeA, 2017. Behavior of rigid-faced reinforced soil-retaining walls subjected to different earthquake ground motions. International Journal of Geomechanics, 17(1):06016007.

[29]LiSH, CaiXG, JingLP, et al., 2021. Lateral displacement control of modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls under horizontal seismic loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 141:106485.

[30]LiuH, HanJ, ParsonsRL, 2021. Mitigation of seasonal temperature change-induced problems with integral bridge abutments using EPS foam and geogrid. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(5):1380-1392.

[31]LuXL, ChenC, JiangHJ, et al., 2018. Shaking table tests and numerical analyses of an RC coupled wall structure with replaceable coupling beams. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 47(9):1882-1904.

[32]MononobeN, MatsuoH, 1929. On the determination of earth pressure during earthquakes. Proceedings of the World Engineering Conference, p.177-185.

[33]NakajimaS, OzakiT, SanagawaT, 2021. 1g shaking table model tests on seismic active earth pressure acting on retaining wall with cohesive backfill soil. Soils and Foundations, 61(5):1251-1272.

[34]OsouliA, ZamiranS, 2017. The effect of backfill cohesion on seismic response of cantilever retaining walls using fully dynamic analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 89:‍‍143-152.

[35]RenFF, HuangQQ, WangG, 2020. Shaking table tests on reinforced soil retaining walls subjected to the combined effects of rainfall and earthquakes. Engineering Geology, 267:105475.

[36]SafaeeAM, MahboubiA, NoorzadA, 2021. Experimental investigation on the performance of multi-tiered geogrid mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls with wrap-around facing subjected to earthquake loading. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(1):130-145.

[37]SameeAA, YazdandoustM, GhalandarzadehA, 2022. Effect of reinforcement arrangement on dynamic behaviour of back-to-back mechanically stabilised earth walls. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 22(4):208-223.

[38]SeedHB, WhitmanRV, 1970. Design of earth retaining structures for dynamic loads. Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, p.103-147.

[39]TatsuokaF, TateyamaM, KosekiJ, 1996. Performance of soil retaining walls for railway embankments. Soils and Foundations, 36(S1):311-324.

[40]TatsuokaF, TateyamaM, MohriY, et al., 2007. Remedial treatment of soil structures using geosynthetic-reinforcing technology. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(4-5):‍204-220.

[41]TatsuokaF, HirakawaD, NojiriM, et al., 2009. A new type of integral bridge comprising geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geosynthetics International, 16(4):301-326.

[42]VarnierJB, HatamiK, 2011. Seismic response of reinforced soil retaining walls: is PGA-based design adequate? Georisk 2011, p.336-343.

[43]VeletsosAS, YounanAH, 1997. Dynamic response of cantilever retaining walls. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(2):161-172.

[44]WangLY, ChenGX, ChenS, 2015. Experimental study on seismic response of geogrid reinforced rigid retaining walls with saturated backfill sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43(1):35-45.

[45]WatanabeK, MunafY, KosekiJ, et al., 2003. Behaviors of several types of model retaining walls subjected to irregular excitation. Soils and Foundations, 43(5):13-27.

[46]WatanabeK, NakajimaS, FujiiK, et al., 2020. Development of geosynthetic-reinforced soil embankment resistant to severe earthquakes and prolonged overflows due to tsunamis. Soils and Foundations, 60(6):1371-1386.

[47]WilsonP, ElgamalA, 2015. Shake table lateral earth pressure testing with dense c-ϕ backfill. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 71:13-26.

[48]WoodDM, 2004. Geotechnical Modelling. CRC Press, London, UK, p.233-258.

[49]WoodDM, CreweA, TaylorC, 2002. Shaking table testing of geotechnical models. International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 2(1):1-13.

[50]XuC, LuoMM, ShenPP, et al., 2020. Seismic performance of a whole geosynthetic reinforced soil-integrated bridge system (GRS-IBS) in shaking table test. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 48(3):315-330.

[51]XuP, HatamiK, JiangGL, 2020. Study on seismic stability and performance of reinforced soil walls using shaking table tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 48(1):82-97.

[52]XuP, HatamiK, JiangGL, 2021. Shaking table performance of reinforced soil retaining walls with different facing configurations. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(3):‍516-527.

[53]YaoJJ, DiDT, JiangGL, et al., 2014. Real-time acceleration harmonics estimation for an electro-hydraulic servo shaking table using Kalman filter with a linear model. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 22(2):‍794-800.

[54]YazdandoustM, 2017. Investigation on the seismic performance of steel-strip reinforced-soil retaining walls using shaking table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 97:216-232.

[55]YuPJ, Richart JrFE, 1984. Stress ratio effects on shear modulus of dry sands. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 110(3):331-345.

[56]YünkülK, GürbüzA, 2022. Shaking table study on seismic behavior of MSE wall with inclined backfill soils reinforced by polymeric geostrips. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 50(1):116-136.

[57]ZhengY, McCartneyJS, ShingPB, et al., 2018. Transverse shaking table test of a half-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil bridge abutment. Geosynthetics International, 25(6):582-598.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion


Please provide your name, email address and a comment

Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE