A Case Study of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining Wall

Failure in the State of Tennessee; Recommendations for Future Design and

Constructions

Hossein Alimohammadi, Ph.D., P.E. 1, Ashfaq A. Memon, P.E. 2

1, 2- Terracon Consultants, Inc., Nashville, TN, USA 37217

[email protected]
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This study presents an investigation into the failure of a MSE retaining wall in Tennessee,
USA. The wall was constructed to support an embankment development, but it failed
catastrophically, causing damage to the road and posing a significant safety risk to the public.
The investigation involved a comprehensive site visit, field data collection, laboratory testing,
and numerical modeling. This investigation revealed that the failure of the retaining wall was
caused by inadequate construction practices. Specifically, the wall was not constructed in
accordance with design specifications, and the backfill material used was not properly
compacted. The construction issues resulted in the differential settlement of the wall, which
ultimately caused it to fail. Based on findings this study, a set of recommendations were
proposed for the design and construction of future retaining walls in similar geotechnical
conditions. The recommendations include the proper selection and use of backfill material,
proper compaction of backfill, and adherence to design specifications. The results of this study
are expected to contribute to the development of improved design standards and construction
practices for MSE retaining walls in Tennessee and other regions with similar geotechnical
conditions.

INTRODUCTION

Retaining walls are an essential component of civil engineering projects, providing support to
the soil, rock, and other materials that are prone to collapse or erosion [1]. However, the failure
of MSE retaining walls can be attributed to various factors such as poor design, improper
construction, inadequate drainage, substandard materials, poor site preparation, overloading,
and natural disasters. Inadequate design specifications, selection of materials, and calculation
of loads and forces can impact the wall's strength and durability. Non-compliance with design
specifications can also lead to the inability of the wall to withstand the forces it is subjected to,
resulting in failure. The absence of proper drainage systems can cause water to accumulate
behind the wall and exert pressure on it, leading to failure. The quality of materials such as soil,
reinforcement, and geosynthetic fabrics can also impact the wall's strength and durability [2]–
[4]. Insufficient site preparation can lead to soil instability, causing the wall to shift or settle
over time. Overloading due to changes in the use of the area adjacent to the wall or an increase
in the weight of stored materials can also cause the wall to fail. Natural disasters such as
earthquakes, landslides, or heavy rainfall can also contribute to the failure of MSE retaining
walls. Regular inspections, proper design, construction, and maintenance procedures must be
followed to prevent the failure of MSE retaining walls. Several studies have investigated the
causes of retaining wall failures and proposed remediation plans. These plans include
reconstruction with improved design, construction techniques, and installation of drainage
systems or geosynthetic reinforcement.

Poor construction quality is the most common cause of retaining wall failures, which include
issues such as inadequate compaction, poor drainage, and inadequate reinforcement. H. Binici,
et al. (2010) [5] investigated the failure of a case study retaining wall and found that poor
construction quality was the primary cause of the failure. The retaining wall was constructed
using poor-quality materials, and the construction techniques used were not in accordance with
the design specifications. In another study, Kong et al. (2021) [6] illustrated that inadequate
design was the primary cause of retaining wall failure in their case study. The study proposed
a remediation plan that involved reconstructing the retaining wall with improved design and
construction techniques.

Other researchers investigated retaining wall failures and identified poor construction quality
and inadequate drainage as the primary causes [7]–[12]. They proposed various remediation
plans, including the installation of a new retaining wall with improved construction techniques
and materials or the installation of geosynthetic reinforcement, reconstruction of the
foundation, and installation of additional reinforcement. Also, retaining wall failures were
investigated in other studies [13]–[17] and identified inadequate design and construction as the
primary causes. The proposed remediation plans involved reconstructing the retaining wall
with improved design and construction techniques, installation of drainage systems, and use of
higher quality materials and additional reinforcement. Further researches [18]–[22]
investigated retaining wall failures and identified poor drainage, inadequate reinforcement,
poor compaction, inadequate soil reinforcement, and poor maintenance as the primary causes.
The proposed remediation measures included reconstruction of the retaining wall, installation
of a new drainage system, or installation of a new retaining wall with improved construction
techniques and materials.

This case study aimed to investigate the causes of the retaining wall failure that occurred in the
state of Tennessee, USA, where a retaining wall constructed using MSE blocks failed, resulting
in significant damage to an embankment road and posing a threat to public safety and propose
appropriate remediation measures. This paper discusses the factors that led to the retaining wall
failure, the assessment methods used to determine the cause of failures, and the remediation
measures taken to repair the retaining wall. The study also highlights the importance of proper
design and construction, regular inspection and maintenance, and the use of appropriate
assessment methods to prevent retaining wall failures. The results of this study are expected to
contribute to the development of improved design standards and construction practices for
MSE retaining walls in Tennessee and other regions with similar geotechnical conditions.
METHODOLOGY AND BACKGROUND

The case study involved a comprehensive investigation that combined field data collection,
laboratory testing, and numerical modeling. A site visit was conducted to assess the damage
caused by the retaining wall failure, and the wall's design and construction were analyzed to
identify potential weaknesses. Field data collection involved conducting geotechnical
investigations to assess the engineering properties of the soil and rock strata in the area [23]–
[27]. The laboratory testing program included assessing the properties of the soil and rock strata
and examining soil samples in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
[28]. The USCS classification system is widely used in geotechnical engineering and provides
a framework for describing the physical and mechanical properties of soils. Numerical
modeling was conducted to simulate the behavior of the retaining wall under different loading
conditions. The numerical models were validated using field data, and the results were used to
identify potential causes of the retaining wall failure. Finite element analysis was used to model
the retaining wall and simulate the behavior of the wall under various loads and conditions.
The finite element analysis revealed that the retaining wall was well-designed to resist the
lateral earth pressure and vertical loads from the roadway above and utilized low-quality
materials or construction were the factors that led to the retaining wall failure.

The location of this case study project is situated in Davidson County, TN, to the southeast of
Nashville, and encompasses an existing development, infrastructure, and a retaining wall. The
project area, as mapped by metro GIS [29] topography, is characterized by a general slope from
east to west, with the retaining wall situated at an elevation of approximately 578 to 580 feet,
MSL, near the top, and around 582 feet at/near the existing building. The ground in front of the
wall sharply descends to the west, with an elevation range from approximately 572 feet at the
top to 551 feet MSL at the bottom of the slope, creating a slope height of up to 21 feet along
the wall and 26 feet in areas where no wall exists. The site location map and topographic layout
of the site and the retaining wall's position are depicted in figures 1a and 1b respectively.
a) b)
Figure 1 a) site location map b) topographic layout of the site and the retaining wall's
position from Metro GIS

The retaining wall at the site has experienced partial failure along a section of its length,
resulting in a loss of retained materials and consolidation of adjacent pavements. This MSE
retaining wall was constructed using precast concrete panels interlocked with an anchorage
system comprising concrete stretchers in the upper part of the wall and tandem epoxy-coated
rebars with concrete deadman anchors in the lower portions. The approximate exposed height
of the wall is estimated to be up to 10 feet tall. The wall was constructed to support new fill
associated with the original grading of the existing development. However, a large portion of
the wall has either failed or had its stability compromised. In some locations, the wall has
completely collapsed, with the obvious failure of the wall anchorage system at its connection
to the precast concrete facing panels. Figures 2a and 2b illustrate the current state of the failed
retaining wall.

a) b)
Figures 2a and 2b) The current state of the failed retaining wall

In order to support the recommendations outlined in this study and to gain insight into the
construction of the current retaining wall, we conducted both geotechnical borings and
excavated test pits to collect subsurface information regarding material stratification and
strength. The field exploration program involved six borings, each extending to a depth of 30
ft or until auger refusal, and three pits, each excavated to a depth of 10 ft or until refusal, located
in the backfill zone of the retaining wall. The subsurface exploration plan is presented in Figure
3, while Figures 4 a and b illustrate the excavated test pits and subsurface conditions found in
the backfill of the retaining wall.

A truck-mounted rotary drill rig equipped with continuous flight augers was utilized to advance
the borings, while the test pits were excavated using an excavator. The final logs for both
borings and test pits were prepared by the Geotechnical Engineer, based on the field logs, and
included modifications based on observations made during the exploration program. Soil
samples collected were described and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS), and laboratory tests were performed to determine the backfill
soil water content and Atterberg limits.

Figure 3 subsurface exploration plan

a) b)
Figures 4a and 4b) Excavated test pits and subsurface conditions found in the backfill of the
retaining wall
The investigation conducted in the backfill of the retaining wall revealed the presence of fill
material up to a depth of 10 feet. The composition of the fill was highly variable, ranging from
predominantly rock fill (with a majority of rock size <6”) containing a small amount of clay to
mostly clay with some limestone fragments. Additionally, occasional large-size rocks were
observed during test pit excavations. Out of six borings, four were obstructed by large-size
rocks before reaching the natural ground. At one of the boring locations, asphalt debris/pieces
were encountered within the fill at a depth of approximately 13½ feet below the existing grade.
The Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) conducted within the existing fill indicated erratic N-
values, ranging as low as 4 to 5 bpf, indicating the presence of poorly compacted
(compressible) material in some layers. Below the existing fill, the soil was found to consist of
stiff to very stiff natural residual clay (lean clay) extending to a depth of about 20 feet without
encountering bedrock.

GEOTECHNICAL OVERVIEW

Based on our subsurface exploration and observations, the MSE retaining wall comprises
precast concrete panels that are interconnected using some form of interlocking mechanism.
Additionally, an anchorage system consisting of concrete stretchers in the upper part of the
wall and tandem epoxy-coated rebars with concrete deadmen anchors in the lower portions of
the wall is used. The height of the exposed wall varied along its length and was observed to be
as tall as 10 feet. However, our findings indicate that a significant portion of the wall has either
failed or is compromised in terms of stability. At several points, we also observed a complete
collapse of the wall, indicating an obvious failure of the wall anchorage system at its connection
to the precast concrete facing panels.

The assessment of the retaining wall failure revealed additional concerns beyond just wall
movement. Both vertical settlement and lateral movement of the asphalt pavement and concrete
curbs were observed over the reinforced backfill zone of the retaining wall. Our investigation
suggests that the accumulation of surface water runoff from the parking lot, illustrated in figure
2a, has been directed towards the wall over time, instead of flowing into the designated site
stormwater drainage system. The failure of the retaining wall seems to have occurred due to a
connection failure at the facing panels, where the anchorage system pulled out of or sheared
off the panels as illustrated in figure 2b. This failure may have been caused by backfill
settlement and the added hydrostatic pressure imposed on the wall from the migration of
surface water runoff into the backfill. Our examination also revealed anchor system failures
both at the wall panel connection locations as well as within the concrete deadmen anchors,
where rebars appeared to have pulled out from the concrete anchor block.

The intrusion of water into the soil rock mixture has resulted in the loss of strength in the
backfill material, which has settled over time. It is noteworthy that most MSE wall systems of
this type are designed using a free-draining granular backfill material. However, at several
locations, the wall backfills contained significant amounts of clay that hindered the drainage of
water entering the reinforced zone. As a consequence, lateral earth pressures acting on the wall
system may increase, not only due to the added weight of the backfill material but also due to
the likelihood of hydrostatic pressures imposed on the wall. Additionally, we observed the
absence of any drainage system in the retaining wall such as weep holes, perforated drainage
pipes, or other similar features. A chimney drain system may be located at the back of the
reinforced zone, which was unable to be detected during our exploration, or a drainage system
may run underneath the wall and empty onto the slope below, which was obscured by
vegetation.

NUMERICAL MODELLING

One method of analyzing the behavior of retaining walls is numerical modeling, which involves
simulating the behavior of the wall using computer software. In this research, we use the
SLOPE/W software to model the behavior of a MSE retaining wall under different conditions
and loads. The numerical models were validated using field data, and the results were used to
identify potential causes of the retaining wall failure. Finite element analysis was used to model
the retaining wall and simulate the behavior of the wall under various loads and conditions.

The numerical modeling in this research was performed using the SLOPE/W software, which
is a powerful tool for analyzing the stability of slopes and retaining structures. The software
uses finite element analysis to model the behavior of the retaining wall, taking into account
the properties of the soil, the wall geometry, and the loads it will be subjected to. The
numerical models were validated using field data, which were collected from the site of a
retaining wall failure.

The MSE retaining wall that was analyzed in this research was constructed using low-quality
materials, and it failed due to a combination of factors, including inadequate drainage, poor
compaction, and overloading. The numerical models were used to simulate the behavior of the
wall under different loads and conditions, including different angles of internal friction,
different wall heights, and different surcharge loads. Table 1 illustrates material properties and
Figure 5 shows a simulated MSE retaining wall using SLOPE/W software.

Table 1 material properties

Unit
Material Material Depth Strength Cohesion Phi
Color Weight
name type (ft) type (psf) (deg)
(lbs/ft3)
Material 1 Fill yellow 10 90 Mohr- 0 20
Coulomb
Material 2 Lean green 20 110 Mohr- 250 32
clay Coulomb
 Figure 5 simulated MSE retaining wall using SLOPE/W software

The finite element analysis revealed that the retaining wall was well-designed to resist the
lateral earth pressure and vertical loads from the roadway above. However, the use of low-
quality materials and poor construction practices led to the retaining wall failure. The numerical
models showed that the wall was most susceptible to failure under high surcharge loads, which
caused the wall to tilt and lose stability. The models also showed that the use of geogrid
reinforcement and proper compaction of the soil could significantly improve the stability of the
wall.

The finite element analysis revealed that the retaining wall was well-designed to resist the
lateral earth pressure and vertical loads from the roadway above and utilized low-quality
materials or construction were the factors that led to the retaining wall failure.

RECOMMENDATIONS

When dealing with retaining wall failure, several factors must be considered in order to make
informed decisions and provide effective recommendations. Firstly, the type and cause of the
failure must be determined in order to choose the appropriate solution. Common causes of
retaining wall failure include poor construction, soil erosion, inadequate drainage, and seismic
activity. Secondly, the severity of the failure will dictate the course of action, as minor damage
may only require minor repairs, while a complete reconstruction may be necessary for
significant collapses. Site conditions, such as soil type, slope, and groundwater level, must also
be taken into account when developing a repair or replacement plan. Environmental factors
like rainfall, temperature, and seasonal changes can also impact the performance of the
retaining wall and must be considered when developing a solution. Additionally, the available
budget and resources will determine the feasibility and scope of any repair or replacement
work. Compliance with local regulations and requirements is also critical to ensure the safety
and structural integrity of the retaining wall. Finally, the planned future use of the area may
influence the design and construction of any repair or replacement work.
There are several methods used to assess the causes of retaining wall failures, including visual
inspections, soil testing, and structural analysis. Visual inspections involve examining the wall
for signs of damage or distress, such as cracks, bulges, or leaning. Soil testing can help
determine the soil's properties, including its shear strength, compaction, and moisture content.
The structural analysis involves using mathematical models to analyze the wall's behavior
under various loads and conditions. All these assessment methods are important and necessary
to identify the root cause of the failure [30]–[39]. Once the cause of the retaining wall failure
is identified, remediation measures can be taken to repair the wall and prevent future failures.
These measures may include reinforcing the wall with additional materials or support
structures, repairing any damage, improving drainage, and implementing regular inspection
and maintenance programs. The remediation measures taken should be based on the specific
cause of the failure and should be designed to address the underlying problem. Proper design
and construction, regular inspection and maintenance, and appropriate assessment methods are
all critical to preventing retaining wall failures [40]–[46]. A well-designed and constructed wall
that is regularly inspected and maintained is less likely to fail. If a failure does occur,
appropriate assessment methods can help determine the cause of the failure, and remediation
measures can be taken to prevent future failures. It is important to recognize that retaining walls
are complex structures that require expertise in design, construction, and maintenance.
Therefore, it is essential to hire qualified professionals who have experience in these areas to
ensure the safety and stability of the retaining wall.

Retaining walls can fail if not constructed correctly, leading to property damage, personal
injury, and legal disputes. One critical factor that can prevent retaining wall failure is the proper
selection and use of backfill material. Backfill is the material placed behind the retaining wall
to provide support and counteract the force of the retained soil. The choice of backfill material
depends on several factors such as soil type, groundwater level, and wall height. The backfill
material should be free of debris, large rocks, and organic matter that can create voids and
affect the wall's stability. Moreover, the backfill material should be compacted correctly to
minimize settlement and lateral movement. The backfill material should be placed in layers
and compacted using appropriate equipment and techniques to achieve the required density and
moisture content. The use of geotextiles and drainage systems can also improve the backfill's
performance and prevent water build-up and hydrostatic pressure.

The Backfill material required to achieve design grade should be classified as structural fill.
Structural fill is material used below, or within 10 feet of the retaining wall, pavements, or
constructed slopes. Compacted structural fill should meet the material property requirements
mentioned in table 1.

Table 1 Structural fill material requirements

1
Soil Type USCS Acceptable Parameters (for Structural Fill)
Classification
Low CL Liquid Limit < 45 Plasticity index < 25
Plasticity Not recommended for reuse below and behind the wall
Cohesive
 High CH Liquid Limit > 50, Plasticity index >30
Plasticity not recommended for reuse
“Fat”
Cohesive 2
Granular GW 3 Less than 5% Passing #200 sieve, can be used at all locations and
elevations. Terracon recommends any fill material used within the
geogrid reinforced wall backfill should be granular fill with rock size less
than 3 inches. The actual wall backfill material should be as specified by
the designer of the retaining wall.
Existing Fill CL A large portion of the existing fill may not be suitable for reuse due to the
presence of clay in the rock fill. However, if the fill contains
predominantly clean well-graded rock (particle size <6”) this material can
be reused as engineered fill below the wall bearing or beneath the
pavement area in the retained zone of the wall if approved by the
geotechnical engineer
Clean well -- Can be used at all locations and elevations except in the reinforced
graded backfill zone of the retaining wall
processed
rock,
surge stone
(max. rock
size 6 inches)
4

1. Structural fill should consist of approved materials free of organic matter and debris. Frozen material
should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type
should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for evaluation prior to use on this site.
2. CH soils should not be used.
3. Similar to TDOT Section 903.05 Type A, Grading D crushed limestone aggregate, limestone
screenings, or granular material such as well-graded gravel or crushed stone.
4. Approval of surge stone should be made prior to placement. Any rock fill containing clay fines should
not be used as engineered fill.

Another critical factor in preventing retaining wall failure is adherence to design specifications
and proper compaction of the backfill material. The retaining wall's design should be based on
the site's soil conditions, slope angle, and anticipated loads. The design should include details
on wall height, thickness, reinforcement, drainage, and backfill material. The contractor should
follow the design specifications and use the appropriate construction methods and materials.
Proper compaction of the backfill material is crucial to prevent settlement and lateral
movement, which can affect the wall's stability. The compaction should be done in layers, using
the appropriate equipment, and testing the density and moisture content. The contractor should
also monitor the wall's performance during and after construction to detect any signs of
movement, cracking, or distress. Regular maintenance and inspection can also prevent
retaining wall failure by identifying and addressing any issues before they become critical.
Backfill Compaction Requirements should meet the requirements in table 2.

Table 2 Backfill compaction requirements

 Item Structural Fill
Maximum Lift Thickness 9 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction
equipment is used
4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping
jack or plate compactor) is used

Minimum 98% of the material’s standard Proctor maximum for granular fill material
Compaction
Requirements 1, 2 The surge should be placed in max. 9-inch thick lifts. and compacted with a
heavy-duty vibratory smooth drum roller or D-6 class dozer
Each lift of shot rock or surge fill should be compacted using a minimum of ten
passes, five in one direction and five that are at a right angle to the initial passes.
A complete pass consists of complete coverage of the surface with the tracks
(roller).
Water Content Range 1 Cohesive: -1% to +3% of optimum
Granular: -2% to +2% of optimum
1. Maximum density and optimum water content as determined by the standard Proctor test (ASTM D 698 [47]).
2. If the granular material is coarse sand or gravel, or of a uniform size, or has a low fines content, compaction
comparison to relative density may be more appropriate. In this case, granular materials should be compacted to
at least 70% relative density (ASTM D 4253 and D 4254 [48]).

In this case study, the retaining wall on the north side has failed and requires complete removal
and reconstruction to support the pavement and backfill. Various retaining wall systems are
available for construction, a gravity wall concept was recommended for this site, such as Redi-
Rock or gabion basket wall systems, or an MSE retaining wall system over traditional cast-in-
place concrete retaining walls, soldier pile or secant pile walls for their cost-effectiveness. To
ensure suitable bearing and limit settlement to tolerable limits, the new retaining wall should
be supported on engineered fill, and the existing fill must be undercut and replaced with
approved engineered fill. However, a portion of deeper fill (below 15') may not require
replacement if it can be recompacted to a non-yielding state and reinforced with a layer of
geogrid prior to the placement of newly engineered fill and any wall construction. It is crucial
to compact each lift of new fill, not exceeding 9 inches, according to our recommendations.

Additionally, a proper drainage system is imperative for the long-term performance of the
retaining wall. Incorporating relief drains at the bottom of the rock fill is recommended, which
may be daylighted on the face of the slope to bleed off any trapped water within the backfill.
Furthermore, pavement near and around the retaining wall should slope away from the wall
and collect into the site stormwater drainage system. All grades must provide effective drainage
away from the wall during and after construction and should be maintained throughout the life
of the wall.

The results of borings and test pits conducted in the wall backfill area revealed that the fill was
placed up to a depth of 10 feet against and below the retaining wall. During drilling, Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT) conducted within the existing fill indicated the presence of poorly
compacted and compressible material layers. Consequently, in this case study it is
recommended to excavate the existing fill to a depth of 15 feet below the existing grade or until
stiff natural clay is reached, whichever comes first. The recommended undercutting should
extend laterally at least 5 feet beyond the wall-bearing footprint on both sides. The exposed
existing fill should be scarified or over-excavated and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent
of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density. Next, a single layer of geogrid should
be placed directly on top of the recompacted fill subgrade, followed by at least 12 inches of
crushed rock-engineered fill. Any subsequent fill above this layer should consist of either
crushed rock engineered fill, well-graded clean surge stone (rock size <6 inches), or material
specified by the designer of the new retaining wall.

It is essential to ensure that retaining walls are constructed with high-quality materials,
appropriate foundations, and proper drainage systems. Regular inspections and maintenance
can help identify any signs of deterioration or structural weaknesses, allowing for timely repairs
or replacements to prevent failure [49]–[56]. The use of appropriate assessment methods, such
as geotechnical evaluations and structural analysis, can provide valuable insights into the
integrity of the retaining wall, identifying potential problems before they become major issues.
Proper design, construction, inspection, maintenance, and assessment are all critical
components in preventing retaining wall failures and ensuring the safety and longevity of the
structure and the people who rely on it. By prioritizing these factors, we can create a safer and
more sustainable built environment.

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MSE RETAINING WALL

In this journal paper, we provide recommendations and parameters for the construction of a
new MSE wall. Our proposed design assumes that the wall will be supported on an engineered
fill that meets the outlined recommendations. When designing the retaining wall foundations,
a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf can be used in this case study, while
the recommended net allowable bearing pressure should provide a factor of safety of 3 (2 for
MSE Wall) with respect to anticipated shear strength.

MSE retaining walls are typically composed of modular concrete block face units, geogrids for
reinforcement, and compacted soil or select granular material that creates a reinforced soil mass
acting as a gravity-type retaining wall. Design considerations for the MSE wall should include
geotechnical parameters such as the unit weight and strength of in-place native materials,
compacted soil for the reinforced zone, and foundation subgrade. The parameters used in the
design and global stability analyses of the MSE retaining wall should not exceed those outlined
in provided tables 3 and 4. It is also important to consider any surcharge loading that will be
placed on the completed wall. It is crucial to exercise caution in the design and construction
stages to establish and sustain swift and positive drainage away from the retaining wall area.
Also, an effective surface drainage is necessary to prevent water from flowing over the wall
face and saturating the fill behind the wall or subgrade soils at the base of the wall.
Before commencing construction of the MSE wall, it is essential to collect and analyze samples
of the fill material proposed to be used in constructing the reinforced zone for the wall. This
laboratory testing is critical to confirm that the engineering properties of the backfill align with
the assumed properties utilized in the design. Additionally, it is recommended that qualified
geotechnical personnel conduct field testing and observations during the MSE wall's
construction. Table 3 illustrates recommended MSE wall soil strength parameters for
foundation soils and table 4 shows recommended MSE wall soil strength parameters for
backfill materials.

Table 3 Recommended MSE wall soil strength parameters – foundation soils

Total Stress Effective Stress
Moist Unit Weight (Undrained) (Drained)
Material Type (pcf) Parameters Parameters
cu, psf , degrees c’, psf ’, degrees
New engineered granular 110 0 32 0 32
fill

Table 4 Recommended MSE wall soil strength parameters – backfill materials

Total Stress Effective Stress
Moist Unit Weight (Undrained) (Drained)
Material Type (pcf) Parameters Parameters
Cu, psf , degrees c’, psf ’, degrees
No. 57 Stone or Surge 105 0 34 0 34
Stone
Crushed rock 135 0 32 0 32
1
engineered fill
1. Fill should be compacted to at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density.

The retaining wall failure under investigation was found to be caused by construction practices.
The wall was not built to withstand the lateral forces exerted by the embankment and soil
retention. Other factors, such as unsuitable backfill materials, inadequate compaction, and poor
drainage, were also found to have contributed to the failure. A remediation plan was proposed
based on our findings, which involved reconstructing the retaining wall using improved design
and construction techniques. The proposed design included additional reinforcement and
drainage systems to prevent the accumulation of water and soil pressure. This study's results
are expected to contribute to the development of better design standards and construction
practices for retaining walls in Tennessee and other regions with similar geotechnical
conditions. The study emphasizes the importance of proper design, construction, and
maintenance practices in ensuring the long-term stability and safety of retaining walls. The
value of a comprehensive investigation that combines field data collection, laboratory testing,
and numerical modeling to identify the causes of retaining wall failure and propose appropriate
remediation measures is also demonstrated by this study.

CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the case study involved a comprehensive investigation that combined field data
collection, laboratory testing, and numerical modeling to identify potential causes of a retaining
wall failure in Davidson County, TN. The investigation revealed that the retaining wall was
well-designed to resist the lateral earth pressure and vertical loads from the roadway above;
however, utilizing low-quality materials or construction was the factor that led to the retaining
wall failure. Based on the subsurface exploration and observations, it was evident that the
retaining wall in question was compromised in terms of stability. The assessment of the
retaining wall failure revealed additional concerns beyond just wall movement, such as the
presence of poorly compacted (compressible) material in some layers and the occurrence of
occasional large-size rocks. The findings from this investigation highlight the importance of
proper design and construction of retaining walls. The study provides insights into the need for
careful consideration of soil properties and design loads, as well as the use of appropriate
materials and construction techniques. The investigation also underscores the importance of
regular monitoring and maintenance of retaining walls to identify and address potential issues
before they result in catastrophic failure. Overall, this case study provides insights into the
investigation of retaining wall failures and highlights the importance of proper design,
construction, monitoring, and maintenance of retaining walls. The study findings can be useful
for geotechnical engineers, contractors, and developers involved in the design and construction
of retaining walls.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the engineers in the soil mechanic laboratory facility,
the field group members, and the drilling crews who performed SPT in the Terracon company
in Nashville, TN, and thank them for their help in providing the data for this research. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions presented herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect any sponsors.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Satvati, H. Alimohammadi, M. Rowshanzamir, and S. M. Hejazi, “Bearing Capacity of

Shallow Footings Reinforced with Braid and Geogrid Adjacent to Soil Slope,” Int. J.
Geosynth. Gr. Eng., vol. 6, no. 41, p. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00226-x, 2020.
[2] H. Alimohammadi, J. Zheng, A. Buss, V. R. Schaefer, and G. Zheng, “Evaluating the Rutting
Performance of Hot Mix Asphalt and Warm Mix Asphalt Mixtures by Using Viscoelastic
Finite Element Simulations,” Int. Conf. Transp. Dev. 2020, p.
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784483183.009, 2020.
[3] H. Alimohammadi and B. Izadi Babokani, “Finite element electrodynamics modeling of a
layered piezoelectric composite shell with different materials by using numerical software,”
ISSS J. Micro Smart Syst., 2020.
[4] H. Alimohammadi, J. Zheng, V. Schaefer, J. Siekmeier, and R. Velasqueze, “Evaluation of
 Geogrid Reinforcement of Flexible Pavement Performance: A Review of Large-Scale
Laboratory Studies,” Transp. Geotech., p. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100471, 2020.
[5] H. Binici, “Retaining Wall Failure due to Poor Construction and Design Aspects A Case
Study:” .
[6] S. M. Kong, D. W. Oh, S. Y. Lee, H. S. Jung, and Y. J. Lee, “Analysis of reinforced retaining
wall failure based on reinforcement length,” Int. J. Geo-Engineering, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–14,
Dec. 2021.
[7] Nasar Ali.R, “Measures to prevent retaining wall distress and failures, a review in light with
previous available work,” IJCRT, 2022.
[8] C. Yoo, A. M. Asce, and H.-Y. Jung, “Case History of Geosynthetic Reinforced Segmental
Retaining Wall Failure.”
[9] D. Kazmi, S. Qasim, • I S H Harahap, and • Syed Baharom, “Landslide of Highland Towers
1993: a case study of Malaysia.”
[10] M. Abu-Farsakh, H. Alimohammadi, and L. N. Mohammad, “Finite Element Analysis to
Evaluate the Benefits of Geosynthetic Reinforcement in Flexible Pavements Over Weak
Subgrade for Low-Volume Traffic Roads,” Transp. Res. Board Conf. 99th Annu. Meet., 2020.
[11] A. Sesha, S. Raghuram, and · S M Dasaka, “Forensic Analysis of a Distressed RE Wall and
Rigid Pavement in a Newly Constructed Highway Approach,” Int. J. Geosynth. Gr. Eng., vol.
8, no. 3, p. 38, 2022.
[12] H. Alimohammadi, “A framework for evaluation of existing pavement conditions and
selection of feasible maintenance/rehabilitation alternatives; a case study in some routes of
Livingston Parish in the state of Louisiana,” SN Appl. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, p. 289, Feb. 2020.
[13] E. J. Nelson et al., “Lessons Learned from Foundation and Slab Failures on Expansive Soils,”
2016.
[14] Y. Tan, M. Asce, and Y.-Y. Long, “Review of Cave-In Failures of Urban Roadways in China:
A Database,” 2021.
[15] T. Mulugeta, · Workineh, and T. Ayele, “Assessment of Irrigation Scheme Failure Factors: a
Case Study on Marza Irrigation Scheme Fogera, Amhara, Ethiopia,” vol. 1, p. 3.
[16] J. L. M. Clemente, K. A. Lamote, J. R. Davie, and M. R. Lewis, “Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation for Mechanically-Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls—Perspectives from an EPC/EPCM
Contractor,” Geotech. Struct. Eng. Congr. 2016 - Proc. Jt. Geotech. Struct. Eng. Congr. 2016,
pp. 314–328, 2016.
[17] G. Zheng, H. Alimohammadi, J. Zheng, and V. R. Schaefer, “Effectiveness of Geosynthetics
in the Construction of Roadways: A Full-Scale Field Studies Review,” in IFCEE 2021, 2021,
pp. 223–232.
[18] R. M. Koerner and G. R. Koerner, “A data base, statistics and recommendations regarding 171
failed geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls,” Geotext.
Geomembranes, vol. 40, pp. 20–27, Oct. 2013.
[19] R. M. Koerner and G. R. Koerner, “An extended data base and recommendations regarding
320 failed geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls,” Geotext.
Geomembranes, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 904–912, Dec. 2018.
[20] J. Y. Wu, M. Asce, N. N. Chou, and F. Asce, “Forensic Studies of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Structure Failures,” 2013.
[21] W. Sun, C. Yan, W. Xu, Y. Shi, Z. Zhang, and Y. Xie, “Deformation of Geogrid-Reinforced
Segmental Retaining Wall due to Insufficient Compaction of Loess Backfill: Case Study in
Shaanxi Province, China,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 33, no. 6, Dec. 2019.
[22] M. S. Hossain, G. Kibria, M. S. Khan, J. Hossain, and T. Taufiq, “Effects of Backfill Soil on
Excessive Movement of MSE Wall,” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 793–802,
Dec. 2012.
[23] H. Alimohammadi and J. N. Tahat, “A Case Study Pile Load Testing (PLT) to Evaluate
Driven Pile Behaviors,” Indian Geotech. J. 2022, pp. 1–10, Apr. 2022.
[24] H. Alimohammadi, V. R. Schaefer, J. Zheng, and H. Li, “Performance evaluation of
geosynthetic reinforced flexible pavement: a review of full-scale field studies,” Int. J.
Pavement Res. Technol., 2020.
[25] H. Alimohammadi, V. Schaefer, J. Ashlock, A. Buss, C. Rutherford, and B. Li, “Effectiveness
of geogrids in roadway construction; determine a granular equivalent (G.E.) factor.”
[26] M. Y. Abu-Farsakh, Alimohammadi, Hossein, and Mohammad, Louay N., “Finite Element
Analysis to Evaluate the Benefits of Geosynthetic Reinforcement in Flexible Pavements over
Weak Subgrade for Low Volume Traffic Roads,” Geosynth. Int., 2020.
[27] H. Alimohammadi, J. Zheng, A. Buss, V. R. Schaefer, C. Williams, and G. Zheng, “Field and
simulated rutting behavior of hot mix and warm mix asphalt overlays,” Constr. Build. Mater.,
vol. 265, p. 120366, Dec. 2020.
[28] “ASTM D2487 Unified Soil Classification System - ANSI Blog.” [Online]. Available:
https://blog.ansi.org/2018/03/unified-soil-classification-astm-d2487-17/#gref. [Accessed: 24-
Feb-2023].
[29] “Parcel Viewer.” [Online]. Available: https://maps.nashville.gov/ParcelViewer/. [Accessed:
24-Feb-2023].
[30] H. Alimohammadi, V. Schaefer, J. Zheng, and D. White, “A full-scale field approach for
evaluating the geogrid reinforcement effectiveness in flexible pavement,” 22nd Int. Conf. Soil
Mech. Geotech. Eng., 2022.
[31] H. Alimohammadi and · Jamal Tahat, “A case study experimental pile load testing (PLT) for
evaluation of driven pile behaviors,” Arab. J. Geosci. 2022 159, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1–11, Apr.
2022.
[32] H. Alimohammadi, M. Amirmojahedi, and J. N. Tahat, “A Case History of Application of
Deep Compaction Method with Comparison to Different Ground Improvement Techniques,”
Transp. Infrastruct. Geotechnol., pp. 1–26, Mar. 2022.
[33] S. Satvati, H. Alimohammadi, M. A. Rowshanzamir, and S. M. Hejazi, “Evaluation the Effects
of Geosynthetic Reinforcement on Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations in Soil Slopes,”
101st Transp. Res. Board Annu. Meet., 2022.
[34] H. Alimohammadi and J. Tahat, “A State-of-The-Art Evaluation of Driven Pile Behaviors
Using Pile Load Testing (PLT),” 101st Transp. Res. Board Annu. Meet., 2022.
[35] H. Alimohammdi, V. R. Schaefer, J. Zheng, C. T. Jahren, G. Zheng, and D. White,
“Effectiveness of Geotextiles/Geogrids in Roadway Construction; Determine a Granular
Equivalent (GE) Factor,” Minnesota Dep. Transp., 2021.
[36] T. Mahmood, “FAILURE ANALYSIS OF A MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH
(MSE) WALL USING FINITE ELEMENT PROGRAM PLAXIS,” 2009.
[37] A. R. Kashani, C. V Camp, K. Azizi, and M. Rostamian, “Multi-objective optimization of
mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall using evolutionary algorithms,” 2022.
[38] B. J. Khan, M. Ahmad, M. M. S. Sabri, I. Ahmad, B. Zamin, and M. Niekurzak,
“Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall with
Deformed Steel Bars Embedded in Tire Shred-Sand Mixture,” Buildings, vol. 12, no. 5, 2022.
[39] F. K. Nagy-Göde and Á. Török, The probabilistic analysis of steep lakeside slopes;
geotechnical-geological-hydrogeological constraints and numerical analysis, an example from
Hungary. 2022.
[40] H. Alimohammadi, V. Schaefer, J. Zheng, D. J. White, and G. Zheng, “A State-of-the-art
Large-scale Laboratory Approach to Evaluating the Effectiveness of Geogrid Reinforcement in
Flexible Pavements,” Geosynth. Conf. 2021, 2021.
[41] H. Alimohammadi, A. Buss, V. R. Schaefer, J. Zheng, and G. Z. Christopher Williams, “Finite
element viscoelastic simulations of rutting behavior of hot mix and warm mix asphalt overlay
on flexible pavements,” Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol., 2020.
[42] H. Alimohammadi, A. Buss, V. Schaefer, C. Williams, and M. Mina, “Rutting behavior of
laboratory, field, and finite element simulated hot mix and warm mix asphalt overlays.”
[43] H. Alimohammadi, J. Zheng, A. Buss, V. R. Schaefer, and G. Zheng, “Rutting Performance
Evaluation of Hot Mix Asphalt and Warm Mix Asphalt Mixtures by Using Dynamic Modulus,
Hamburg Wheel Tracking Tests, and Viscoelastic Finite Element Simulations,” 2020, pp. 83–
94.
[44] J. Zheng, H. He, and H. Alimohammadi, “Three-dimensional Wadell roundness for particle
angularity characterization of granular soils,” Acta Geotech., vol. 9, p.
 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01004-9, 2020.
[45] B. Leshchinsky, “Limit Analysis Optimization of Design Factors for Mechanically Stabilized
Earth Wall-Supported Footings,” Transp. Infrastruct. Geotechnol., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 111–128,
2014.
[46] V. S. Dantal, “Material Characterization and Design Recommendations for Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls. (Doctoral Dissertation). Texas A&M University, USA.,” no.
December, 2013.
[47] “Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard
Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)).” [Online]. Available: https://www.astm.org/d0698-
12r21.html. [Accessed: 24-Feb-2023].
[48] “ASTM D4253 - 00 Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of
Soils Using a Vibratory Table.” [Online]. Available:
https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/D4253-00.htm. [Accessed: 28-
May-2020].
[49] H. Alimohammadi, K. Yashmi Dastjerdi, and M. Lotfollahi Yaghin, “The study of progressive
collapse in dual systems,” Civ. Environ. Eng., vol. 16, 2020.
[50] H. Alimohammadi, J. Zheng, A. Buss, V. Schaefer, C. Williams, and Guangfan Zheng,
“Performance Evaluation of Hot Mix and Warm Mix Asphalt Overlay Layers Based on Field
Measurements and Finite Element Viscoelastic Simulations,” Transp. Res. Board Conf. 99th
Annu. Meet., 2020.
[51] H. Alimohammadi, A. Hesaminejad, and M. Lotfollahi Yaghin, “Effects of different
parameters on inelastic buckling behavior of composite concrete-filled steel tubes,” Int. Res. J.
Eng. Technol., vol. 6, no. 12, 2019.
[52] H. Alimohammadi, M. D. Esfahani, and M. L. Yaghin, “Effects of openings on the seismic
behavior and performance level of concrete shear walls,” Int. J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 2019.
[53] H. Alimohammadi, “Finite element analysis of a Piezoelectric layered plate with different
materials,” Int. J. Eng. Appl. Sci., vol. 6, no. 7, 2019.
[54] H. Alimohammadi and M. Lotfollahi Yaghin, “Study on the Effect of the Concentric Brace
and Lightweight Shear Steel Wall on Seismic Behavior of Lightweight Steel Structures,” Int.
Res. J. Eng. Technol., vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1358–1362, 2019.
[55] H. Alimohammadi and M. Abu-Farsakh, “Finite Element Parametric Study on Rutting
Performance of Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements,” Transp. Res. Board, vol. 98th,
2019.
[56] H. H. Muteb and M. W. Falah, “IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
Mechanically Stabilized Earth MSE Walls Applications: Review Mechanically Stabilized
Earth MSE Walls Applications: Review.”