applied

sciences
Article
Stability of Reinforced Retaining Wall under
Seismic Loads
Liang Jia 1 , Shikai He 1 , Na Li 2 , Wei Wang 2 and Kai Yao 3, *
1 College of Civil Engineering, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China;
jialiang1949@163.com (L.J.); herryadam@163.com (S.H.)
2 School of Civil Engineering, Shaoxing University, Shaoxing 312000, China; lina@usx.edu.cn (N.L.);
wellswang@usx.edu.cn (W.W.)
3 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 117576, Singapore
* Correspondence: yaokai@u.nus.edu; Tel.: +65-90592451




Received: 11 April 2019; Accepted: 24 May 2019; Published: 28 May 2019


Abstract: Based on the horizontal slice method (HSM) and assuming a log spiral slip surface, a method
to analyze the stability of a reinforced retaining wall under seismic loads was established in this
study by calculating the tensile force of the reinforcement. A parametric study was conducted on
the normalized tensile force of the reinforcement, and it was observed that the normalized tensile
force tends to increase with acceleration of the seismic load and the height of the backfill. Moreover,
it also increases with soil unit weight, while it decreases with increased friction angle of the backfill
soil, and the influence of soil cohesion on the normalized tensile force is not significant. The HSM
method is proved to be suitable for analyzing the tensile force of reinforcement in retaining walls
under seismic loads.

Keywords: seismic loads; retaining wall; sliding failure; horizontal slice method

1. Introduction
The reinforced retaining wall is a composite structure widely adopted in seismic regions due
to its excellent deformation characteristics under seismic loads, such as earthquakes, owing to the
friction between the reinforcement and the soil [1–10]. Okabe [11] proposed the Mononobe–Okabe
method, which has been applied in analyzing the stability of reinforced retaining walls under dynamic
loads [12]. Zeng and Steedman [13] studied the propagation of the shear wave in the backfill of a
retaining wall by the pseudodynamic method and validated the analysis by centrifuge tests. Based on
the pseudostatic method, Ling and Leshchinsky [14] and Kwak [15] investigated the vertical seismic
response of reinforced soil structures under earthquake conditions. Shahgoli et al. [16] adopted the
horizontal slice method (HSM) to analyze the stability of reinforced soil structures subjected to seismic
loads. Choudhury and Singh [17] used the pseudostatic method to calculate the active earth pressure
behind a retaining wall under seismic load. The slip surface of the reinforced retaining wall was also
detected by vibration table tests [18,19], and it was found that the slip surface was like a log spiral.
However, the mechanism of collaboration between reinforcement and soil remains unclear. Calculation
of the tensile force of the reinforcement is still far from being fully understood and established [20,21].
Based on HSM and log spiral slip surface [16,22,23], the collaborative work of reinforcement and soils
is considered in this study to establish a method of analyzing the stability of a reinforced retaining wall
under seismic loads. Calculation of the tensile force of the reinforcement is carried out by considering
the influence of soil parameters and loading conditions [24,25]. The slice method is proposed to
determine the critical failure angle of the backfill wedge under complex conditions, and an iterative

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175; doi:10.3390/app9112175 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175 2 of 13

calculation method is presented to determine the tension crack depth of the active earth pressure under
seismic loads [26,27]. The axial stress of the anchor is greatly increased by seismic excitation, and the
increment is mainly induced within the excitation period of great acceleration amplitude, evaluation of
the effect of earthquake frequency content on seismic behavior of cantilever retaining wall including
soil–structure interaction [28,29]. By taking the failure surface as a plane, the analytical expression for
the critical angle of the failure surface, earthquake-induced displacements of gravity retaining walls
and anchor-reinforced slopes are also derived [30,31].
A critical review of literature shows that a very few studies have been reported for the stability
analysis of a reinforced retaining wall. The present paper extends the latter work by developing a
number of formulations, including a pseudostatic method of analysis. The formulations are described
and compared with other published methods used for the seismic analysis of reinforced soil structures.
However, no study seems to be available to quantify the effect of seismic acceleration coefficients and soil
and reinforcing structure on the stability of reinforced soil walls. In view of this observation, the present
study is directed to conduct a seismic stability analysis of the reinforced retaining wall using the HSM
and considering the pseudo static forces. The limit equilibrium equation of a reinforced retaining wall
under seismic loads is established, and the formula for calculating the tensile force in reinforcement is
proposed to address the stability of reinforced retaining wall. In the end, the parametric study has
been carried out to investigate the effect of various parameters like reinforcing structure, angle of
internal friction and cohesion of soil, horizontal seismic loading.

2. Assumptions and Formulation of the Horizontal Slice Method (HSM)

2.1. Basic Assumptions of HSM

In the HSM approach, the sliding wedge is divided into horizontal slices with rigid-plastic
behavior. The seismic force is considered as a pseudostatic force acting at the center of gravity of each
slice [23]. The geotechnical interaction between the reinforcing structure and the surrounding soil is
ignored. The assumptions are as follows:

(1) The log spiral slip surface line of the reinforced retaining wall passes through the toe of the wall.
(2) The sliding body of the retaining wall is divided into several horizontal slices, the number of
which is equal to that of reinforcement layers, and each slice contains reinforcement [32].
(3) The horizontal shear force between reinforcements is ignored.
(4) The safety factor is assumed to be equal for various slices [23].
(5) Both horizontal and vertical seismic actions are applied to the center of gravity of the slice.
(6) The analysis is done by the limited equilibrium method.
(7) The anchoring strength of the reinforcement and the resistance of the reinforcement against
pulling out are not taken into account.

2.2. Formulation of the HSM

HSM was proposed by Lo and Xu [22] and was aimed at overcoming the difficulties in analyzing
reinforced soil structures by the vertical slice method (Figure 1). In Figure 1, H is the height of the
retaining wall (in m); Sy,j denotes the vertical distance between the reinforcement of layer j and layer
j+1 (in m), and it is usually treated as a certain value in the design; St,i and NN ,i are the shear force
and normal force acting on the ith slice, respectively; lai is the length of reinforcement in the slip zone
behind the wall; and lei refers to the length of reinforcement in the anchorage zone. Figure 2 zooms in
on the ith slice taken from Figure 1, which contains one reinforcement. In the figure, FN,I and FN,i+1
represent the normal force acting on the top and bottom of the ith slice, respectively; Ti refers to the
tensile force of the ith reinforcement [33]; Qhi and Qvi denote horizontal and vertical seismic force,
respectively, acting on the top of the slice; αi is the inclination angle of slip surface of the slice in the
horizontal direction; and Wi is the weight of the ith slice. It should be noted that the slip surface is
Appl.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9,
Sci. 2019, 9, 2175
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
of 13
13
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13
assumed to be in a limited equilibrium state, while both horizontal and vertical seismic loads are
assumed
assumedon to be
beacenter
tothe logaspiral
in shape
limited passing through
equilibrium state, the toeboth
while of the wall [34].and
The sliding wedge is assumed
applied of gravity of the slice. Then the safetyhorizontal
for each slice is:vertical seismic loads are
to
applied on the center of gravity of the slice. Then the safety for each slice is: loads are applied on the
be in a limited equilibrium state, while both horizontal and vertical seismic
center of gravity of the slice. Then the safety for eachslice is:
Fs = 
f
(1)
Fs =τ f r
f
(1)
Fs =  r (1)
where  f and  r refer to shear strength and shearτstress r on the sliding surface, respectively.
where  f and  r refer to shear strength and shear stress on the sliding surface, respectively.
where τ f and τrcould
Nomenclature refer be foundstrength
to shear in Appendix A. stress on the sliding surface, respectively.
and shear
Nomenclature could be found in Appendix A.

Figure 1. Illustration of failure mechanism of reinforced wall by the horizontal slice method (HSM)
Figure 1. Illustration of failure mechanism of reinforced wall by the horizontal slice method (HSM)
Figure 1. Illustration
(modified of 2018).
after Jia et al. failure mechanism of reinforced wall by the horizontal slice method (HSM)
(modified after Jia et al. 2018).
(modified after Jia et al. 2018).

Figure 2. Forces
Figure 2. Forces acting
acting on the ith
on the ith slice
slice (modified
(modified after
after Jia
Jia et
et al.
al. 2018).
2018).
Figure 2. Forces acting on the ith slice (modified after Jia et al. 2018).
3. Seismic Loads
3. Seismic Loads
3. Seismic
UnderLoads
seismic loads, the shear wave velocity V and compression wave velocity V are
Under seismic loads, the shear wave velocity Vss and compression wave velocity V pp are
characterized as:
Under seismic loads, the shear wave velocity s Vs and compression wave velocity V p are
characterized as: G
characterized as: Vs = (2)
ρG
Vs = G (2)
Vs =  (2)
s
Vp =
G(2 −  2υ) (3)
ρ(1 − 2υ)
G (2-2 )
Vp = G (2-2 ) (3)
where G, ρ, and υ are shear modulus, density, Vpand （1-2） ratio of soils, respectively. In this study,
= Poisson’s (3)
we assumed υ is 0.3 for soils, therefore: （1-2）
where G ,  , and  are shear modulus, density, Vp and Poisson’s ratio of soils, respectively. In this
where ,  , and  are shear modulus, = 1.87
density,
study, we assumed  is 0.3 for soils, therefore:V
G (4)
and Poisson’s ratio of soils, respectively. In this
s
study, we assumed  is 0.3 for soils, therefore:
The period for the horizontal seismic load TV is:
Vp = 1.87
p
(4)
V
2π = 1.87
s 4H (4)
T = Vs = (5)
ω
The period for the horizontal seismic load T is: VS
The period for the horizontal seismic load T is:
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175 4 of 13

αh and αv are horizontal and vertical seismic acceleration, respectively. We assumed that the
direction of propagation of seismic waves is vertical. Then the acceleration of z deep location from the
surface of the retaining wall at moment t is:
" #
H−z
αh (z, t) = αh × sin ω(t − ) (6)
VS
" #
H−z
αv (z, t) = αv × sin ω(t − ) (7)
Vp
The body mass of the element in z with m depth and dz height mi (z) is:

γ H−z
mi ( z ) = × × dz, (8)
g tan αi

while the self-weight of the ith slice is:

li + li+1
Wi = γ × ( ) × dz (9)
2
where γ is the unit weight of backfill soil, and li and li+1 are the length of the top and bottom side of
the ith slice, respectively.
Horizontal inertia force on the ith element is:

qhi = mi (z) × αh (z, t) (10)

Then the total horizontal seismic load on the slice Qh is:

RH RH RH γ
h i
Qh = 0
qhi dz = 0
mi (z) × αh (z, t)dz = 0 g × H−z
tan αi × αh × sin ω(t − H−z
VS ) dz
λ×γ×kh (11)
= 4π2 tan αi
[2πH cos ωξ + λ(sin ωξ − sin ωt)]

The vertical inertia force on the ith element is:

qvi = mi (z) × αv (z, t) (12)

Then the total horizontal seismic load on the retaining wall Qv is

γ
RH RH RH  
Qv = 0
qvi dz = 0
mi (z) × αv (z, t)dz = 0 g × H−z
tan αi × αv × sin ω(t − H−z
Vp ) dz
λ×γ×kv
(13)
= 4π2 tan αi
[2πH cos ωψ + λ(sin ωψ − sin ωt)]

where λ is the vertical wavelength of the shear wave (λ = T × VS ), and η denotes the vertical wavelength
of the compression wave (ξ = t − VH ; ψ = VHP ). By considering qhi and qvi on the critical direction of the
S
element, the limits of Qh and Qv according to Ling and Leshchinsky [14] are, respectively:

γ × H2 × α h α
lim (Qh )max = = h × W = kh × W (14)
vs→∞ 2g × tan α g

γ × H2 × α v αv
lim (Qv )max = = × W = kv × W (15)
vp→∞ 2g × tan α g

where kh = αh /g and kv = αv /gX. When the ith slice is in limited equilibrium state, the vertical and
P P
horizontal stress applied on the slice are F y =0 and Fx =0 [21,24], then:

FN,i+1 − FN,i − Wi − Qv,i + Nt,i × sin αi + NN,i × cos αi = 0 (16)

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175 5 of 13

n
X n
X n
X n
X
Ti + Nt,i × cos αi − NN,i × sin αi − Qh,i = 0 (17)
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1

4. Tensile Force of Reinforcement

According to the definition of safety factor [21], the shear force at the base of the slice is calculated
by Equation (18):
1
Nt,i = × (c × li + NN,i tan ϕ) (18)
Fs
where c and ϕ are cohesion and friction angle of soil, respectively. The following formula can be
obtained by compiling Equations (16) and (18):

sin αi ×c×li
FN,i + Wi + Qv,i − FN,i+1 − Fs
NN,i = tan ϕ
(19)
Fs × sin αi + cos αi

Then Equation (19) can be obtained by compiling Equations (17)–(19):

n n n n F sin αi ×c×li
X X 1 X X N,i + Wi + Qv,i − FN,i+1 − Fs
Ti + (c × li + NN,i × tan ϕ) − Qh,i − tan ϕ
× sin αi = 0
Fs × sin αi + cos αi
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 Fs
(20)
After that, the tensile force of reinforcement is:
cos αi ×tan ϕ
n
X c × H × cos αi [ Fs − sin αi ] − [FN,0 + W + Qv − c×H
Fs ]
T i = Qh − − (21)
Fs × sin αi sin αi ×tan ϕ
+ sin αi
i=1 Fs

For each layer of reinforcement, the tensile force is:

Ti = K × γ × h j × S y,j (22)

where Sy,j is the vertical distance between reinforcements and hj denotes the vertical distance between
the jth reinforcement and the top of the wall. The normalized tensile force K for all reinforcements
is [21]:
n
P
Ti
i=1
K= (23)
0.5γH2
For the stability analysis of a reinforced retaining wall under seismic loads [35], the maximum
tensile force of each reinforcement needs to be calculated by Equation (22). This is also to determine
the most critical log spiral slip surface, in which αi is obtained. This problem is the optimal solution of
n
Ti and αi .
P
the linear programming problem. Matlab was used to get the interactive solution of
i=1

5. Parametric Study
Figure 3 shows the geometry of the reinforced retaining wall as a case study. It can be seen that
the wall is 6 m in height (H). The retaining wall is made of 6 pieces of reinforced concrete panel, each
of which has a height of 1 m. The toe of the wall is made of plain concrete, with a width of 0.6 m
and buried depth of 0.6 m. The reinforcement is made of metal, with a cross-section of 3 × 0.2 cm.
Peak seismic acceleration αmax is assumed to be 0.2 g. Factors affecting the stability of the retaining
wall investigated are seismic acceleration coefficients (kh and kv ) and soil parameters (c, γ, and ϕ);
parameters for the study can be seen in Table 1.
 Soil cohesion (c) 0–15 kN/m2 10 kN/m2
Internal angle of soil friction (  ) 28–38° 33°
Coefficient of horizontal seismic acceleration ( kh ) 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 0.15
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175 of vertical seismic acceleration ( kv
Coefficient ) 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 0.075 6 of 13

Note: The effect of soil’s relative density on the friction angle has not been taken into account.

Figure 3. Geometry of the reinforced retaining wall.

Table 1. Geometric Figure 3. Geometry

and geotechnical of the reinforced
characteristics of theretaining wall.
wall used for the parametric study.

5.1. Influence of Seismic Acceleration Coefficients

Characteristics Value Average Value

Variation Reinforced retaining wall height (H)

of the normalized 6m
tensile force K with friction angle was3
—
also evaluated for
3
various
Soil density (γ) 16–21 kN/m 18.5 kN/m
seismic acceleration coefficients.  is
Soil cohesion (c) fixed as 20 kN/m 3, while is c is treated as 0. The horizontal
0–15 kN/m2 10 kN/m2
seismic acceleration coefficient
Internal angle ofksoil
h [36] is calculated
friction (ϕ) by: 28–38◦ 33◦
Coefficient of horizontal seismic acceleration (kh ) 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 0.15
Coefficient of vertical seismic acceleration (k1v )  max
kh = ( ),0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 0.075
(23)
2 friction
Note: The effect of soil’s relative density on the g angle has not been taken into account.
while kh and kv need to fulfill the relationship of:
5.1. Influence of Seismic Acceleration Coefficients
Variation of the normalized tensile force K with friction angle was also evaluated for various
seismic acceleration coefficients. γ is fixed as 20 kN/m3 , while is c is treated as 0. The horizontal seismic
acceleration coefficient kh [36] is calculated by:

1 αmax
kh = ( ), (24)
2 g

while kh and kv need to fulfill the relationship of:

kh
ϕ> tan−1 ( ) (25)
1 − kv

Figures 4 and 5 show the influence of seismic acceleration coefficients on the normalized tensile
force, while Figure 6 illustrates the influence of seismic acceleration coefficients on the inclination angle.
It can be identified that normalized tensile force increases with the increase of seismic acceleration
coefficient, especially when kh is increased from 0.1 to 0.2. Comparing Figure 4; Figure 5 shows that kv
also contributes to K, but it only has limited effect. This implies that the horizontal seismic load is the
dominant force for a reinforced retaining wall. It also shows that when the friction angle increases,
the normalized tensile force will decrease. This means that the use of a well-graded backfill material
with a large friction angle will be beneficial to the stability of the reinforced retaining wall under
seismic loads [37]. Figure 6 shows that the slip surface is almost linear from the toe to the middle
part of the wall, since the variation of the inclination angle for each slice is very small, while from the
middle to the top surface of the wall, the slip surface is a vertical line parallel to the wall. It also shows
that the slip surface of the retaining wall moves toward the wall side with the increasing seismic load.
 thethe friction
friction angle
angle increases,
increases, thethe normalized
normalized tensile
tensile force
force will
will decrease.
decrease. This
This means
means that
that thethe
useuse
of ofa a
well-graded backfill material with a large friction angle will be beneficial to the stability of thethe
well-graded backfill material with a large friction angle will be beneficial to the stability of
reinforced
reinforced retaining
retaining wall
wall under
under seismic
seismic loads
loads [37].
[37]. Figure
Figure 6 shows
6 shows that
that thethe slip
slip surface
surface is almost
is almost linear
linear
from the toe to the middle part of the wall, since the variation of the inclination angle for each slice is is
from the toe to the middle part of the wall, since the variation of the inclination angle for each slice
veryvery small,
small, while
while from
from thethe middle
middle to to
thethe
toptop surface
surface of of
thethe wall,
wall, thethe slip
slip surface
surface is is a vertical
a vertical lineline
Appl. Sci.parallel
2019, 9, 2175
to the wall. It also shows that the slip surface of the retaining wall moves toward the 7 of 13
wall
parallel to the wall. It also shows that the slip surface of the retaining wall moves toward the wall
sideside with
with thethe increasing
increasing seismic
seismic load.
load.
0.45
0.45
kh= 0.0
kh= 0.0
kh= 0.1
0.40 kh= 0.1
0.40 kh= 0.2

Normalized tensile value K

kh= 0.2

Normalized tensile value K

0.35
0.35

0.30
0.30

0.25
0.25

0.20
0.20 28 30 32 34 36 38
28 30 32 34 36 38
Friction angle φ/°
Friction angle φ/°

Figure 4. Normalized
Figure4.4.Normalized
Figure tensileforce
tensile
Normalized tensile
force of reinforcement
force of of
reinforcement under
under
reinforcement under
seismic load
seismic
seismic load
load when kv =kv0.= k0.v = 0.
when
when

0.55
0.55
kh=0.0
kh=0.0
0.50 kh=0.1
0.50 kh=0.1
kh=0.2
Normalized tensile value K

0.45 kh=0.2
Normalized tensile value K

0.45
0.40
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15 28 30 32 34 36 38
28 30 32 34 36 38
Friction angle φ/
Friction angle φ/
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
Figure 5. Normalized tensile force of reinforcement under seismic load when kv = 0.5 kh .
Figure 5. Normalized tensile force of reinforcement under seismic load when kv = 0.5 kh.
Figure 5. Normalized tensile force of reinforcement under seismic load when kv = 0.5 kh.

Figure 6. Inclination
Figure angle
6. Inclination angleofofslip
slipsurface and horizontal
surface and horizontaldirection
direction
forfor kh. kh .
various
various

5.2. Influence of Soil

5.2. Influence Parameters
of Soil Parameters
Figure 7 shows
Figure the influence
7 shows of cohesion
the influence of cohesionof soil
of on
soilnormalized
on normalized tensile force
tensile (k =(k0.5
force kh , γ
= 0.5 kh,= 20
= kN/m
20
3,

ϕ = 33 ◦ ), while
kN/m 3,
 = Figure 8 illustrates
33°), while the influence
Figure 8 illustrates of cohesion
the influence of soil on
of cohesion the on
of soil inclination angle.
the inclination It shows
angle.
that with increased soil cohesion, the normalized tensile force tends to increase,
It shows that with increased soil cohesion, the normalized tensile force tends to increase, and its and its increment is
obvious. It canisbe
increment identified
obvious. from
It can Figure 8 that
be identified from the slip8surface
Figure that theof thesurface
slip retaining
of the wall moveswall
retaining toward
the wall
moves side with the
toward increasing
wall sidecohesion. To investigate
with increasing cohesion. To theinvestigate
effect of soil unit weight,
the effect of soil unitsoil cohesion
weight, soil and
cohesion
friction angleand are friction
fixed atangle
10 kPaare and
fixed33at◦10
, respectively, k = 0.5, andkk==0.5,
kPa and 33°, respectively, and
0.2. It kcan
= 0.2.
beItseen
can be inseen
Figure 9
in Figure 9 that bigger unit weight leads to higher normalized tensile force. This
that bigger unit weight leads to higher normalized tensile force. This implies that better stability of the implies that better
stability
retaining wallofwill
the beretaining
achieved wallbywill be achieved
using lightweightby using lightweight
backfill materials. backfill
Figure materials. Figurethat
10 illustrates 10 the
illustrates that the slip surface of the retaining wall moves toward the wall side with increasing soil
slip surface of the retaining wall moves toward the wall side with increasing soil unit weight. Figure 11
unit weight. Figure 11 shows the influence of soil friction angle on normalized tensile force (k = 0.5, k
= 0.2,  = 20 kN/m3, c = 10 kPa), and that normalized tensile force decreases with the increased soil
friction angle. Therefore, increasing the soil friction angle (such as by using some coarse materials)
will contribute to the stability of the retaining wall. As demonstrated in Figure 12, the slip surface of
the retaining wall moves toward the wall side with increments of friction angle.
1.4
 It shows that with increased soil cohesion, the normalized tensile force tends to increase, and its
increment is obvious. It can be identified from Figure 8 that the slip surface of the retaining wall
moves toward the wall side with increasing cohesion. To investigate the effect of soil unit weight, soil
cohesion and friction angle are fixed at 10 kPa and 33°, respectively, k = 0.5, and k = 0.2. It can be seen
in Figure
Appl. 9 that
Sci. 2019, bigger unit weight leads to higher normalized tensile force. This implies that better
9, 2175 8 of 13
stability of the retaining wall will be achieved by using lightweight backfill materials. Figure 10
illustrates that the slip surface of the retaining wall moves toward the wall side with increasing soil
shows the influence
unit weight. Figure 11of shows
soil friction angle onofnormalized
the influence soil frictiontensile force
angle on (k = 0.5, ktensile
normalized = 0.2, force
γ = 20(kkN/m
3
= 0.5, k,
c= =0.2,
10 kPa),
 = 20 and that3normalized
kN/m , c = 10 kPa),tensile force
and that decreases with
normalized theforce
tensile increased soil friction
decreases angle.
with the Therefore,
increased soil
increasing the soil friction angle (such as by using some coarse materials) will contribute to the stability
friction angle. Therefore, increasing the soil friction angle (such as by using some coarse materials)
of the retaining wall. As demonstrated in Figure 12, the slip surface of the retaining wall moves toward
will contribute to the stability of the retaining wall. As demonstrated in Figure 12, the slip surface of
the wall side with increments of friction angle.
the retaining wall moves toward the wall side with increments of friction angle.
1.4 kh=0.05
kh=0.1
1.3 kh=0.15
Normalized tensile value K

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9
5 10 15
Cohesion c/kpa
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER7.
Figure REVIEW
Effect of cohesion on normalized tensile force of reinforcement. 9 of 13
Figure 7. Effect of cohesion on normalized tensile force of reinforcement.

Figure 8. Inclination angle of slip surface and horizontal direction for various levels of cohesion.
Figure 8.
Figure Inclination angle
8. Inclination angle of
of slip
slip surface
surface and
and horizontal
horizontal direction
direction for
for various
various levels
levels of
of cohesion.
cohesion.

Figure 9. Effect of soil unit weight on normalized tensional force of reinforcement.

Figure 9. Effect of soil unit weight on normalized tensional force of reinforcement.
Figure 9. Effect of soil unit weight on normalized tensional force of reinforcement.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175 9 of 13
Figure 9. Effect of soil unit weight on normalized tensional force of reinforcement.

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x 10.
Figure FORInclination
PEER REVIEWangle of slip surface and horizontal direction for various unit weights. 10 of 13
Figure 10. Inclination13angle of slip surface and horizontal direction for various unit weights.
13
12
K K

12
valuevalue

11
tensile

11
10
tensile
Normalized

10
9
Normalized

9
8

8
7
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
7
28 29 30 31 Friction
32 33angleφ/°
34 35 36 37 38
Friction angleφ/°
Figure 11. Effect of soil friction angle on normalized tensional force of reinforcement.
Figure 11. Effect of soil friction angle on normalized tensional force of reinforcement.
Figure 11. Effect of soil friction angle on normalized tensional force of reinforcement.

Figure 12. Inclination angle of slip surface and horizontal direction for various friction angles.
Figure 12. Inclination angle of slip surface and horizontal direction for various friction angles.
Figure 12. Inclination angle of slip surface and horizontal direction for various friction angles.
5.3. Influence of the Reinforcing Structure
5.3. Influence of the Reinforcing Structure
Vertical distance between reinforcements (Sy,j) is the main parameter influencing the tensile
forceVertical
of the reinforcement.
distance between It can be identified from
reinforcements Equation
(Sy,j) is the main(21) that tensile
parameter force hasthe
influencing a positive
tensile
relationship
force with the vertical
of the reinforcement. It distance between reinforcements.
can be identified from Equation (21) In other
that words, the tensile
tensile force has aforce will
positive
increase with increasing vertical distance between reinforcements. Thus, reducing
relationship with the vertical distance between reinforcements. In other words, the tensile force willthe vertical
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175 10 of 13

5.3. Influence of the Reinforcing Structure

Vertical distance between reinforcements (Sy,j ) is the main parameter influencing the tensile
force of the reinforcement. It can be identified from Equation (22) that tensile force has a positive
relationship with the vertical distance between reinforcements. In other words, the tensile force will
increase with increasing vertical distance between reinforcements. Thus, reducing the vertical distance
between reinforcements is beneficial to reduce the tensile force, which is favorable for wall stability.
Equation (22) also indicates that the reinforcing structure will not have a direct impact on the slip
surface of the retaining wall.

5.4. Discussion
Based on a parametric analysis of the tensile force of reinforcement in a retaining wall, it can
be seen that the horizontal seismic load, the vertical distance between reinforcements, and the soil
friction angle are the three dominant factors influencing the tensile force. The findings are in agreement
with Saeed and Ali [38] and Nouri et al. [23,32,39]. Vertical seismic load and soil cohesion have an
insignificant impact on the tensile force of reinforcement, which is also close to the conclusions drawn
by Nimbalkar et al. [34], Syed et al. [40], and Chandaluri et al. [41]. In summary, the HSM method
adopted in this study could lead to similar results from a pseudostatic or experimental approach in
previous research, proving that this method is suitable for analyzing the tensile force of reinforcement
in retaining walls under seismic loads.

6. Conclusions
The horizontal slice method was adopted to analyze the stability of the reinforced retaining wall
under seismic loads, while the slip surface was assumed to have a log spiral shape. Formulas for
calculating the tensile force of reinforcement were established in this study. Parametric studies revealed
that normalized tensile force increases with increased seismic acceleration coefficient and soil unit
weight, while the tensile force of reinforcement will decrease with the increment of soil friction angle.
Moreover, the influence of soil cohesion on normalized tensile force is not significant. Regarding the
log spiral slip surface, it looks similar in various cases. It is almost linear from the toe to the middle
part of the wall, since the variation of the inclination angle for each slice is very small, while from the
middle to the top surface, it is a vertical line parallel to the wall. The slip surface of the retaining wall
will move toward the wall side with increasing seismic load, soil cohesion, unit weight, or friction
angle. The findings in this paper can provide theoretical basis and guidance for the design of reinforced
retaining wall, and they could also strengthen the safety management of a reinforced retaining wall by
considering earthquake conditions.

Author Contributions: The authors confirm their contributions to the paper as follows: L.J. and S.H. proposed
the idea and wrote the paper; N.L. revised the manuscript; W.W. and K.Y. reviewed the results and approved the
final version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 51568044,
41772311) and the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number LY17E080016).
Acknowledgments: The Program of Study Abroad for Middle Age and Young Scholars supported by Lanzhou
University of Technology is also acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175 11 of 13

Nomenclature
St,i shear force acting on the ith slice τf shear strength on the sliding surface
NN,i normal force acting on the ith slice τr shear stress on the sliding surface
length of reinforcement in the slip zone
lai kv vertical seismic coefficient
behind the wall
lei length of reinforcement in the anchorage zone kh horizontal seismic coefficient
FN,i normal force acting on the top of the ith slice αh horizontal seismic acceleration
FN,i+1 normal force acting on the bottom of the ith slice αv vertical seismic acceleration
horizontal seismic force acting on the
Qhi H height of wall
top of the slice
n
P maximum sum of forces to maintain
Qvi vertical seismic force acting on the top of the slice Ti
i=1 stability of the reinforced wall
inclination angle of slip surface of the slice and
αi Ti tensile force of ith layer reinforcement
horizontal direction
normalized form of required total force
Wi weight of the ith slice K Pn
Ti to maintain stability of the wall
i=1
Sy,j vertical distance between reinforcements γ soil density
n number of reinforcement layers ϕ soil friction angle
Fs safety for each slice c soil cohesion
vertical distance between jth reinforcement
hj
and the top of the wall

References
1. Bathurst, R.J.; Hatami, K. Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall.
Geosynth. Int. 1998, 5, 127–166. [CrossRef]
2. Chen, Y.; Zhao, W.; Jia, P.J.; Han, J.Y.; Guan, Y.P. Dynamic behavior of an embedded foundation under
horizontal vibration in a poroelastic half-Space. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 740. [CrossRef]
3. Subramaniam, P.; Banerjee, S. Factors affecting shear modulus degradation of cement treated clay. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 2014, 65, 181–188. [CrossRef]
4. Ngo, V.L.; Kim, J.M.; Chang, S.H.; Lee, C. Effect of height ratio and mass ratio on structure-soil-structure
interaction of two structures using centrifugal experiment. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 526. [CrossRef]
5. Liu, S.Q.; Huang, X.W.; Zhou, A.Z.; Hu, J.; Wang, W. Soil-rock slope stability analysis by considering the
non-uniformity of rocks. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 3121604. [CrossRef]
6. Qin, C.; Chian, S.C. New perspective on seismic slope stability analysis. Int. J. Geomech. 2018, 18, 06018013.
[CrossRef]
7. Lu, W.H.; Miao, L.C.; Zhang, J.H.; Zhang, Y.X.; Li, J. Characteristics of deformation and damping of cement
treated and expanded polystyrene mixed lightweight subgrade fill under cyclic load. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 167.
[CrossRef]
8. Zhang, L.; Goh, S.H.; Liu, H. Seismic response of pile-raft-clay system subjected to a long-duration earthquake:
Centrifuge test and finite element analysis. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 92, 488–502. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, L.; Liu, H. Seismic response of clay-pile-raft-superstructure systems subjected to far-field ground
motions. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2017, 101, 209–224. [CrossRef]
10. Liu, Y.; Zhang, L. Seismic response of pile–raft system embedded in spatially random clay. Géotechnique 2018.
[CrossRef]
11. Okabe, S. General theory on earth pressure and seismic stability of retaining wall and dam. J. Jpn. Soc. Civ.
Eng. 1924, 10, 1277–1323.
12. Basha, B.M.; Babu, G.S. Seismic rotational displacements of gravity walls by pseudodynamic method with
curved rupture surface. Int. J. Geomech. 2009, 10, 93–105. [CrossRef]
13. Zeng, X.; Steedman, R.S. On the behaviour of quay walls in earthquakes. Géotechnique 1993, 43, 417–431.
[CrossRef]
14. Ling, H.I.; Leshchinsky, D. Effects of vertical acceleration on seismic design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
structures. Géotechnique 1998, 48, 347–373. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175 12 of 13

15. Kwak, C.; Park, J.; Jang, D.; Park, I. Dynamic shear degradation of geosynthetic–soil interface in waste
landfill sites. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 1225. [CrossRef]
16. Shahgholi, M.; Fakher, A.; Jones, C.J.F.P. Horizontal slice method of analysis. Géotechnique 2001, 51, 881–885.
[CrossRef]
17. Choudhury, D.; Singh, S. New approach for estimation of static and seismic active earth pressure. Geotech. Geol.
Eng. 2006, 24, 117–127. [CrossRef]
18. El-Emam, M.M.; Bathurst, R.J. Experimental design, instrumentation and interpretation of reinforced soil
wall response using a shaking table. Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 2004, 4, 13–32. [CrossRef]
19. Guler, E.; Enunlu, A.K. Investigation of dynamicbehavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining structures
under earthquake loads. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 7, 737–777. [CrossRef]
20. Jia, L.; Zhu, Y.; Lai, C. Stability analysis of reinforced earth retaining wall under earthquake. J. Southwest Jiao
Tong Univ. 2016, 51, 698–703. (In Chinese)
21. Jia, L.; Guo, J.; Yao, K. Seismic stability analysis of reinforced soil slope using horizontal slice method. J. Basic
Sci. Eng. 2018, 26, 168–176. (In Chinese)
22. Lo, S.R.; Xu, D.W. A strain-based design method for the collapse limit state of reinforced soil walls or slopes.
Can. Geotech. J. 1992, 29, 832–842. [CrossRef]
23. Nouri, H.; Fakher, A.; Jones, C.J.F.P. Development of horizontal slice method for seismic stability analysis of
reinforced slopes and walls. Geotext. Geomembr. 2006, 24, 175–187. [CrossRef]
24. Jiang, J.; Yang, G. A New Slice Method for Seismic Stability Analysis of Reinforced Retaining Wall.
In Computational Structural Engineering; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 167–172.
25. Lin, Y.-L.; Leng, W.-M.; Yang, G.-L.; Zhao, L.-H.; Li, L.; Yang, J.-S. Seismic active earth pressure of
cohesive-frictional soil on retaining wall based on a slice analysis method. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2015, 70,
133–147. [CrossRef]
26. Gao, Y.; Yang, C.; Wu, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, F. Evaluation of oblique pullout resistance of reinforcements in soil
wall subjected to seismic loads. Geotext. Geomembr. 2014, 42, 515–524. [CrossRef]
27. Lin, Y.; Cheng, X.; Yang, G. Shaking table test and numerical simulation on a combined retaining structure
response to earthquake loading. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 108, 29–45. [CrossRef]
28. 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. [CrossRef]
29. Peng, J.; Zhu, Y.; Zhou, Y. Derivation of Shukla’s generalized expression of seismic passive earth pressure on
retaining walls with cohesive-frictional backfill by the inclined slice element method. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
2018, 114, 225–228. [CrossRef]
30. Trandafir, A.C.; Kamai, T.; Sidle, R.C. Earthquake-induced displacements of gravity retaining walls and
anchor-reinforced slopes. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2009, 29, 428–437. [CrossRef]
31. Askari, F.; Totonchi, A.; Farzaneh, O. Application of admissible stress fields for computation of passive
seismic force in retaining walls. Sci. Iran. 2012, 19, 967–973. [CrossRef]
32. Nouri, H.R.; Fakher, A. The Effect of Amplification on the Seismic Stability of Reinforced Soil Slopes Using
Horizontal Slice Method. Geotech. Earthquake Eng. Soil Dyn. IV 2008, 1–10. [CrossRef]
33. Ahmad, S.M.; Choudhury, D. Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic design for waterfront reinforced soil-wall.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2008, 26, 291–301. [CrossRef]
34. Nimbalkar, S.S.; Choudhury, D.; Mandal, J.N. Seismic stability of reinforced soil-wall by pseudo-dynamic
method. Geosynth. Int. 2006, 13, 111–119. [CrossRef]
35. Reddy, G.N.; Madhav, M.R.; Reddy, E.S. Pseudo-static seismic analysis of reinforced soil wall—Effect of
oblique displacement. Geotext. Geomembr. 2008, 26, 393–403. [CrossRef]
36. Boulanger, R.W. Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures. Earthq. Spectra 2002, 18, 579–580. [CrossRef]
37. GuhaRay, A.; Baidya, D.K. Reliability coupled sensitivity-based seismic analysis of gravity retaining wall
using Pseudostatic approach. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016010. [CrossRef]
38. Shekarian, S.; Ghanbari, A. A pseudo-dynamic method to analyzeretaining wall with reinforced and
unreinforced backfill. J. Seismol. Earthq. Eng. 2008, 10, 41–46.
39. Nouri, H.; Fakher, A.; Jones, C.J.F.P. Evaluating the effects of the magnitude and amplificationof pseudo-static
acceleration on reinforced soil slopes and wallsusing the limit equilibrium Horizontal Slices Method.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2008, 26, 263–278. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2175 13 of 13

40. Syed, M.; Deepankar, C. Seismic internal stability analysis of waterfront reinforced-soil wall using
pseudo-static approach. Ocean Eng. 2012, 52, 83–90.
41. Chandaluri, V.K.; Sawant, V.A.; Shukla, S.K. Seismic Stability Analysis of Reinforced Soil Wall Using
Horizontal Slice Method. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 2015, 1, 23. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).