Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 697e702

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full length article

Interaction analysis of back-to-back mechanically stabilized earth

walls
Sadok Benmebarek*, Samir Attallaoui, Naïma Benmebarek
NMISSI Laboratory, Biskra University, Biskra 07000, Algeria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Back-to-back mechanically stabilized earth walls (BBMSEWs) are encountered in bridge approaches,
Received 22 December 2015 ramp ways, rockfall protection systems, earth dams, levees and noise barriers. However, available design
Received in revised form guidelines for BBMSEWs are limited and not applicable to numerical modeling when back-to-back walls
11 May 2016
interact with each other. The objective of this paper is to investigate, using PLAXIS code, the effects of the
Accepted 14 May 2016
Available online 15 July 2016
reduction in the distance between BBMSEW, the reinforcement length, the quality of backfill material
and the connection of reinforcements in the middle, when the back-to-back walls are close. The results
indicate that each of the BBMSEWs behaves independently if the width of the embankment between
Keywords:
Back-to-back walls
mechanically stabilized earth walls is greater than that of the active zone. This is in good agreement with
Numerical analysis the result of FHWA design guideline. However, the results show that the FHWA design guideline un-
Geosynthetic derestimates the lateral earth pressure when back-to-back walls interact with each other. Moreover, for
Factor of safety closer BBMSEWs, FHWA design guideline strongly overestimates the maximum tensile force in the
Lateral earth pressure reinforcement. The investigation of the quality of backfill material shows that the minor increase in
Maximum tensile force embankment cohesion can lead to significant reductions in both the lateral earth pressure and the
Reinforcement maximum tensile force in geosynthetic. When the distance between the two earth walls is close to zero,
the connection of reinforcement between back-to-back walls significantly improves the factor of safety.
Ó 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction (1) Case 1: When the distance between the MSE walls, D, is
greater than H1tan (45
 4/2), where H1 is the height of the
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are well-recognized higher wall and 4 is the friction angle of the backfill, the
alternatives to conventional retaining walls due to many advan- width of the ramp or embankment allows for construction of
tages such as ease of construction, economy, and aesthetics. For two separate walls with sufficient spacing between them to
this, limit equilibrium and numerical methods were basically used ensure that each wall can act independently. Hence each wall
to evaluate the stability of MSE walls (Leshchinsky and Han, 2004; can be designed individually.
Han and Leshchinsky, 2006, 2007, 2010). In recent years, back-to- (2) Case 2: When D ¼ 0 and the overlap length exceeds 0.3H2,
back MSE walls (BBMSEWs) have been increasingly used for where H2 is the height of the lower wall, two walls are still
bridge approaches, ramp ways, rockfall protection systems, earth designed independently for internal stability but no active
dams, levees and noise barriers. However, there are insufficient thrust to the reinforced zone is assumed from the backfill. In
studies and guidelines concerning the behavior of BBMSEWs. other words, no active earth thrust from the backfill needs to
FHWA design guideline (Berg et al., 2009) addressed the design of be considered for external stability analysis. In this case, the
back-to-back walls, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Berg et al. (2009) divided two walls are assumed to act as a whole, without backfill to
back-to-back walls into two cases: exert an external destabilizing thrust.

For intermediate geometries between Cases 1 and 2, when

0 < D < H1tan (45
 4/2), Berg et al. (2009) suggested to inter-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +213 670071109. polate linearly the earth pressure between full active earth pressure
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Benmebarek). in Case 1 and zero earth pressure in Case 2. However, no justifica-
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi- tion was provided for this suggestion. Using numerical modeling
nese Academy of Sciences.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.05.005
1674-7755 Ó 2016 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
698 S. Benmebarek et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 697e702

is the MohreCoulomb model. The properties of the two soils are

shown in Table 1. The Tensar UX-1400 uniaxial geogrid was
45°+φ/2 45°+φ/2
adopted to reinforce the BBMSEWs. The soils were simulated us-
ing 15-node triangular elements and the geogrid was modeled
using an elastic-perfectly plastic model defined by the stiffness
and tensile strength of geogrid. The vertical spacing of each layer
H2 of geogrid is 0.75 m. The length of reinforcement, L ¼ 4.2 m, was
H1
selected to give L/H ¼ 0.7. This ratio is the minimum value rec-
ommended by the FHWA design guideline for static design (Berg
et al., 2009), except for Case 2 where L/H ¼ 0.6 for the geome-
try with the overlap length, LR, greater than 0.3H. The geogrid
properties used in modeling are summarized in Table 2. The well-
L2 D L1 known segmental precast concrete panels were considered in the
current study to simulate the wall. Each wall contains 4 segmental
(a) Case 1.
concrete panels of 1.5 m in width and height and 0.14 m in
LR thickness. The panels are modeled as a linear elastic material. For
the panels, the Young’s modulus E ¼ 25 GPa, the Poisson’s ratio
n ¼ 0.2, and the unit weight g ¼ 23.5 kN/m3 Table 3 summarizes
the panel properties as inputs to PLAXIS. The base of the wall is set
to be hinged (i.e. the displacement of the wall is limited in vertical
direction, but it is free to rotate and move in the horizontal
L1
H2 H1 direction).
In the numerical modeling, the geostatic stresses are firstly
L2 generated for the base soil. Secondly, the walls are constructed in
stages, simulating the real construction process of these structures.
The working stresses, strains, deformations, and tensile forces in
Wb
the reinforcement are also evaluated in this phase. Then, reductions
(b) Case 2.
in 4 and c (Brinkgreve et al., 2008) are conducted in models to
determine the factor of safety. Finally, the methodology described
Fig. 1. Back-to-back mechanically stabilized earth walls (after Berg et al., 2009). above is validated by simulating the well-instrumented Founders/
Meadow segmental bridge abutment reported by Abu-Hejleh et al.
(2002).
for the case of limit equilibrium state (i.e. the factor of safety FS ¼ 1),
Han and Leshchinsky (2010) indicated that the FHWA design
guideline underestimates the interaction distance, and for W/H1 (W
is the distance between two opposing wall facings) ranging from 2 W=(1.4–3)H
to 3, the back-to-back walls still interact with each other. Recently, L=4.2 m D 4.2 m
El-Sherbiny et al. (2013) analyzed different wall width to height Precast concrete
ratios of BBMSEW using the finite element modeling. The numer- panels
ical model was validated against an instrumented large-scale test Reinforced
0.75 m & retained fill
wall (Won and Kim, 2007). It was indicated that when D/H1 < 1, the
H=6 m

two MSE walls interact with each other and the earth pressure
Reinforcement
behind the wall decreases because the failure wedge behind the UX-1400
wall is not fully developed. 5m
In the above-mentioned studies, the interaction distance was
45°+φ/2
2m

identified when the critical failure surfaces in two opposing walls Stiff foundation
did not intercept each other. This seems to be not identical to that
(a) Case 1.
defined by the FHWA design guideline as shown in Fig. 1. In other
words, a single failure surface may occur in one wall.
W=(0.8–1.4)H
LR
2. Numerical modeling

In this study, the PLAXIS software was utilized to perform the

two-dimensional (2D) numerical analysis in the condition of plane
H=6 m

L=(0.6–0.7)H
strain. The geometry of the baseline model of BBMSEW (Fig. 2)
considered in this study has the same configuration as that re-
ported by Han and Leshchinsky (2010). The height of the walls is
kept constant, equal to 6 m; and the soil foundation depth is equal
to 2 m. The distance between the walls varies from 3H to 0.8H
(large to narrow backfill width). Two soils are distinguished:
backfill and base soils. The backfill material used for reinforced
soil walls is assumed to be granular fill. A stiff soil like rock is (b) Case 2.
chosen as the base soil to minimize its influence on the behavior
of reinforced soil. The constitutive relation used for both soil types Fig. 2. Dimensions and parameters of the models.
 S. Benmebarek et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 697e702 699

Table 1
Material properties of backfill and base soil.

Model Materials Unit weight, g (kN/m3) Friction angle, 4 (
) Dilation angle, j (
) Cohesion, c (kPa) Elastic modulus, E (MPa) Poisson’s ratio, n

Elastic perfectly plastic Backfill soil 18 30, 35, 40 5 0 30 0.3

MohreCoulomb Base soil 22 30 0 100 200 0.2

Table 2
Properties of geosynthetic soil reinforcement.
equilibrium state to determine the interaction between two back-
to-back walls, while this study is based on a working stress and
Model Ultimate tensile Allowable tensile Axial stiffness the failure planes are not formed in the numerical models when
strength (kN/m) strength, Ta (kN/m) (kN/m)
FS > 1.4. This finding is different from Han and Leshchinsky (2010)
Elastoplastic 70 25.6 1100 based on the limit equilibrium state (i.e. FS ¼ 1). Decreasing D leads
to the increase in the factor of safety for different friction angles.
Fig. 4 shows the factor of safety of back-to-back walls when
3. Computation results D  0 and the friction angle of backfill material 4 ¼ 35
. It is shown
that the responses of the BBMSEW with overlapping and contin-
3.1. Overall factor of safety uous reinforcements are different.

The factor of safety against shear failure was obtained using a

shear strength reduction technique (Brinkgreve et al., 2008) for D
values ranging from 0 to 1.6H (W/H ¼ 1.4e3). The calculated factors
3.4
of safety for Case 1 are presented in Fig. 3. The results are shown as LR=0.4H Continuous layer
the normalized distance between the back-to-back walls (D/H).
3.2 Overlapping layer L/H=0.7
For soils with different friction angles (4 ¼ 40
, 35
and 30
, as LR=0.4H
Overlapping layer L/H=0.6
shown in Fig. 3), the factor of safety of the BBMSEW decreases 3
firstly with the increase in the distance between the walls and then LR=0.3H LR=0.3H
converges to a constant value, indicating the total attenuation of 2.8
the interaction between two walls. For 4 ¼ 40
, 35
and 30
, the
Factor of safety

LR=0.2H
interaction distance D, based on the FHWA design guideline (Berg 2.6
LR=0.2H
et al., 2009), as shown in Fig. 3, is found to be equal to 0.47H,
0.52H and 0.58H, respectively. It is clearly illustrated that the 2.4
interaction distance obtained from the numerical analysis is LR=0.1H
smaller than that from the FHWA method. This is because that, in 2.2
the FHWA method, the Rankine failure plane is assumed in the limit LR=0.1H
2
LR=0.0H
1.8
Table 3 LR=0.0H
Properties of facing panels (as input to PLAXIS). 1.6
0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Model Axial stiffness, Bending stiffness, Thickness, Weight, w Poisson’s Wall width to height ratio, W/H
EA (kN/m) EI (kN m2/m) d (m) (kN m2) ratio, n

Elastic 3.5  106 5717 0.14 3.29 0.2 Fig. 4. Factor of safety of narrow walls when D  0 (W/H  1.4).

6
2.25 D=0
FHWA design guideline D=Htan(45°–φ/2)
D=0.3H
2.15 D=0.47H D=0.6H
4.5 D=1.6H
2.05
Rankine
φ=40° At-rest
1.95
Wall height (m)
Factor of safety

φ=35°
1.85
D=0.52H φ=30° 3 φ=35°
1.75 c=0 kPa

1.65
c=0 kPa
Ta=25.6 kN 1.5
1.55
D=0.58H
1.45

1.35 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 0 10 20 30 40 50
Normalized distance between back-to-back walls, D/H Lateral earth pressure behind reinforced wall (kPa)

Fig. 3. Factor of safety of separate walls when D  0 (W/H ¼ 1.4e3). Fig. 5. Distribution of lateral earth pressure behind the reinforced wall.
700 S. Benmebarek et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 697e702

110 For the case of D ¼ 0, the comparison between connected and

Present study unconnected walls shows that the connection significantly im-
Normalized lateral force behind reinforced wall (%)

100 proves the factor of safety. This can be explained by the fact that the
90 pullout from the middle becomes impossible and each reinforce-
D = 0.52H (FHWA) ment can mobilize all its strength.
80 The factor of safety continues to increase with the decrease in
FHWA design guideline φ=35° the distance between the walls for the case of overlapping rein-
70
c=0 kPa forcement. This is due to the increasing reinforcement overlapping
60 length. However, for the case of walls with continuous layers of
geogrid, the factor of safety slightly decreases with the decreasing
50
Case 2 Case 1 W/H ratio. This may be related to the slight reduction in critical
40 LR=0.3H D=0.52H failure surfaces within walls. Furthermore, the decrease in the
reinforcement length from 0.7H to 0.6H, as suggested by FHWA
30 design guideline (Berg et al., 2009) for Case 2, induces the decrease

100%
36.6%

20 in the factor of safety.

10 Linear interpolation of active earth thrust

3.2. Lateral earth pressure behind the reinforced wall
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Normalized distance between back-to-back walls, D/H The lateral earth pressure behind the reinforced wall is pre-
sented in Fig. 5. The average lateral earth pressure behind the wall
Fig. 6. Percentage of lateral thrust behind the reinforced wall. is close to the active Rankine lateral earth pressure when the value
of D/H is large. Nevertheless, in the lower 1/4 of the wall, corre-
6
sponding to the first precast segment, the lateral earth pressure
increases and approaches the at-rest earth pressure. This is
5 attributed to the restraint imposed at the base of the wall by the
precast wall foundation, as clearly observed by wall displacements.
Similar observations have been made from full-scale walls (Won
4 and Kim, 2007; Huang et al., 2010). However, when the spacing D
decreases from 1.6H to 0, the lateral earth pressure decreases. It is
Wall height (m)

evident that the lateral earth pressure exists behind the reinforced
3 wall even for D ¼ 0.
The ratio of the active lateral thrust behind the reinforced wall
W/H=1.4 to the theoretical active Rankine lateral thrust is presented in Fig. 6,
2 which shows the influence of D/H on the mobilization of the lateral
W/H=2
thrust. The lateral earth thrust exceeds the active Rankine earth
W/H=3 thrust when D/H is greater than 0.6. This is related to the increase in
1 lateral earth pressure at the wall base. Nevertheless, the lateral
Ka γzSv
earth thrust evidently decreases when D is lower than 0.5H. The
lateral earth thrust decreases to 77% of the active Rankine lateral
0
0 5 10 15 20 thrust as D approaches 0.
Maximum tensile force in reinforcement, Tmax (kN/m)
(a) D>0.
6
6

5
4.5
W=1.4H
4
W=0.8H
Wall height (m)

Wall height (m)

3 3

2
W/H=1.4 connected
1.5
1 W/H=1.4 unconnected

0
5 10 15 20 0
Maximum tensile force in reinforcement, Tmax (kN/m) 0 0.005 0.01
(b) D=0. Normalized displacement, δx/H

Fig. 7. Maximum tensile force in reinforcement at the end of construction. Fig. 8. Wall displacement at the end of construction.
 S. Benmebarek et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 697e702 701

6 geometries between Cases 1 and 2, it is underestimated by FHWA

guideline. For instance, when D ¼ 0 and no connection exists, the
c=0 kPa active earth thrust obtained in the present study is 77% of the active
Rankine lateral thrust, whilst the interpolation as suggested by
5 c=5 kPa
FHWA gives 36.6%. A great value of lateral earth thrust (85% at
D ¼ 0) was also found by Han and Leshchinsky (2010).
φ=35°
W/H=2
4 3.3. Tensile force in the reinforcement
Wall height (m)

Soil reinforcement in MSE walls causes tensile forces to develop,

which helps to stabilize the sliding mass of the wall. The tensile
3 force developed in each layer of reinforcement is not uniform. The
maximum tensile force in each layer of reinforcement obtained
from the numerical analyses is presented in Fig. 7. For the case of
D > 0 (Fig. 7a), the tensile forces in the reinforcement at different
2
W/H ratios are found very close. The theoretical values for the
normalized tensile force in each reinforcement layer using limit
equilibrium methods based on Coulomb theory are also shown in
1 Fig. 7a for comparison purpose based on the analyses of one wall,
without consideration of wall interaction. These values are given by
KagzSv (Berg et al., 2009), where Ka is the active earth pressure
coefficient, g is the unit weight of the soil, z is the depth of rein-
0 forcement layer under consideration, and Sv is the vertical spacing
0 10 20 30 40 50 between reinforcement layers. The computation results of tensile
Lateral earth pressure behind reinforced wall (kPa) forces in the reinforcement for different W/H ratios covering Cases
Fig. 9. Effect of cohesion on lateral earth pressure.
1 and 2 of FHWA design guideline (Berg et al., 2009) match with the
results obtained by the limit equilibrium method, which vary lin-
early with depth, except the lower quarter of the wall where the
tensile force decreases due to the toe restraint at the base of the
The comparison of the present numerical results to the values wall, as observed by Huang et al. (2010).
given by FHWA guideline (Berg et al., 2009), which suggested that When D ¼ 0 (W/H ¼ 1.4), the tensile forces in the reinforcement
the lateral earth pressure for external analysis should be ignored if (Fig. 7b) for both connected and unconnected walls are found very
D ¼ 0 and the overlapping length exceeds 0.3H, and that estimated close. From the obtained results, we can conclude that the tensile
by linear interpolation for D between 0 (LR ¼ 0.3H) and 0.52H forces in the reinforcement layers are lowly sensitive to the distance
shows that the pressure given by FHWA guideline (Berg et al., 2009) between the BBMSEWs. The limit equilibrium method can be used
agrees well with the estimated one for Case 1, but for intermediate for computing the tensile forces with security for back-to-back

c=0 kPa
Plastic
point

Tension
point

c=5 kPa
Plastic
point

Tension
point

Fig. 10. Effect of cohesion within walls at W/H ¼ 2.

702 S. Benmebarek et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (2016) 697e702

6 stability of BBMSEW where the limit equilibrium method is rarely

used. By comparison of computation results in this study with
c=0 kPa
those of FHWA design guideline, the following conclusions can be
c=5 kPa drawn:
5
(1) The results of this study are consistent with those of
FHWA design guideline that considers the significant
interaction between the back-to-back walls when
4
D < Htan (45
 4/2).
(2) The FHWA design guideline underestimates the lateral earth
Wall height (m)

φ=35° pressure when back-to-back walls interact with each other.

The interaction is marked by both the decrease in the lateral
3
earth pressure behind the reinforced wall and the increase in
the factor of safety against shear failure.
(3) When D is close to zero, connection of reinforcement in back-
2 to-back walls significantly improves the factor of safety.
(4) The maximum tensile force in reinforcement layers is
nearly independent of the distance between the BBMSEWs
even for very close walls. The maximum tensile force
1 computed is found very close to that obtained by the limit
equilibrium method. Thereby, for closer BBMSEWs, FHWA
design guideline strongly overestimates the maximum
tensile force.
0 (5) The results of this study indicate that a minor increase in
0 5 10 15 20 embankment cohesion induces significant reductions in
Maximum tensile force in reinforcement, Tmax (kN/m) both lateral earth pressure and maximum tensile force in
Fig. 11. Effect of cohesion on the maximum tensile force in geosynthetic.
geogrid.

stabilized retaining walls. The present computation results contra-

dict those of the FHWA design guideline (Berg et al., 2009), which Conflict of interest
stated that the connected reinforcement creates an unyielding
structure, developing an at-rest stress state (K0) from the top to the The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
bottom of the wall, resulting in much higher tensile forces in rein- interest associated with this publication and there has been no
forcement than the FHWA design guideline (Berg et al., 2009). Berg significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
et al. (2009) suggested that, to determine the tensile force in the enced its outcome.
reinforcement and connection, the increases in lateral stress must be
considered in the design of facing elements. For closer BBMSEWs
with multi-layer of geogrid running across the wall and for the case References
of overlapping reinforcement, the present computation results at W/
Abu-Hejleh N, Zornberg JG, Wang T, Watcharamonthein J. Monitored displacements
H ¼ 1.4 and 0.8 indicate that the wall’s lateral displacements at the of unique geosynthetic-reinforced soil bridge abutments. Geosynthetics Inter-
end of construction (Fig. 8) are more sufficient to develop the active national 2002;9(1):71e95.
earth pressure rather than the at-rest earth pressure. Berg RR, Christopher BR, Samtani NC. Design and construction of mechanically
stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes e Volume 1. Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-10e024. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation,
3.4. Effect of cohesion Federal Highway Administration; 2009.
Brinkgreve R, Swolfs W, Engin E. PLAXIS finite element code. Delft, Netherlands:
Delft University of Technology, PLAXIS bv; 2008.
The effect of embankment cohesion is examined by increasing it El-Sherbiny R, Ibrahim E, Salem A. Stability of back-to-back mechanically stabilized
from 0 to 5 kPa, which may cover practical values. As illustrated in earth walls. In: Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2013: Stability and Performance of
Fig. 9, the lateral earth pressure behind the reinforced wall de- Slopes and Embankments III. Reston, USA: American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE); 2013. p. 555e65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784412787.058.
creases with the increase in soil cohesion. It is observed that the Han J, Leshchinsky D. Analysis of back-to-back mechanically stabilized earth walls.
lateral earth pressure at c ¼ 5 kPa is equal to about zero at the top Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2010;28(3):262e7.
1 m of the wall, as the cohesion greater than zero allows a tensile Han J, Leshchinsky D. Stability analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced earth structures
using limit equilibrium and numerical methods. In: Proceedings of the 8th
crack to develop at the wall top (Fig. 10).
International Conference on Geosynthetics (8ICG). Yokohama, Japan; 2006.
It can be also seen from Fig. 11 that the maximum tensile force in p. 1347e50.
geosynthetic decreases with the increase in soil cohesion at an Han J, Leshchinsky D. Stability analysis of back-to-back MSE walls. In: Proceedings
of the 5th International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement (IS Kyushu’07).
average rate of 40%.
Fukuoka: Japan; 2007. p. 487e90.
Huang B, Bathurst RJ, Hatami K, Allen TM. Influence of toe restraint on reinforced
4. Conclusions soil segmental walls. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2010;47(8):885e904.
Leshchinsky D, Han J. Geosynthetic reinforced multitiered walls. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2004;130(12):1225e35.
The finite element code PLAXIS was used to investigate the ef- Won MS, Kim YS. Internal deformation behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
fect of the wall width to height ratio on internal and external walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2007;25(1):10e22.