post-earthquake investigation on several geosynthetic-reinforced … · 2003-12-17 ·...

Post-earthquake investigation on several geosynthetic-reinforced soilretaining walls and slopes during the Ji-Ji earthquake of Taiwan

Hoe I. Linga,*, Dov Leshchinskyb, Nelson N.S. Chouc

aDepartment of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, Columbia University, 500 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, USAbDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA

cChung Hwa University, and Genesis Group/Taiwan, 11-1 Fl., No. 268, Kuang Fu S. Road, Taipei, Taiwan 106, R.O.C.

Accepted 17 January 2001

Abstract

This paper gives an overview on the application of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures in Taiwan. Taiwan has an unique topography

and geotechnical conditions that rendered a less conservative and more challenging design compared to that of North America, Europe and

Japan. The Ji-Ji (Chi-Chi) earthquake of 1999 gave an opportunity to examine the behavior of reinforced soil structures. The performance of

several modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls and reinforced slopes at the vicinity of the fault was evaluated. Reinforced structures

performed better than unreinforced soil retaining walls. The failure cases were highlighted and the cause of failure was identi®ed. The lack of

seismic design consideration could be a major cause of failure. The compound failure mode, the inertia force of the blocks, and the

connection stiffness and strength relative to the large dynamic earth pressure, were among major items that would warrant further design

consideration. q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Seismic performance; Geosynthetic; Reinforced soil retaining wall; Reinforced slope; Modular block; Connection strength; Compound failure; Ji-

Ji/Chi-Chi earthquake

1. Reinforced soil applications in Taiwan

Taiwan is an island country of 360,000 km2 with over

21.9 million people [22]. The main island is densely popu-

lated (606 persons/km2), ranked second in the world. More

than 70% of the island is composed of slopes and moun-

tains. Reinforced soil retaining walls and reinforced slopes

have gained wide popularity in Taiwan over recent years

because of the many large-scale housing and industrial

development sites located at the slopes and hillsides.

Chou [8] gave an overview of the recent development of

geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures (GRSS) in Taiwan.

There are several unique features for GRSS constructed in

Taiwan compared to the technology that has been developed

and established in North America, Europe and Japan:

1. The topography and geotechnical conditions of Taiwan

are quite different from the rest of the world. Many recent

constructions are located along the slopes and mountains.

While GRSS constructed in US, Europe and Japan are

mostly near vertical and for a height of less than 10 m,

some of the reinforced slopes in Taiwan are over 30±

40 m, usually with a series of walls stacking over each

other (multiple walls).

2. The on-site soil is usually used as back®ll material. The

cost of granular sand is relatively high at its scarcity.

Disposal of on-site soils and transportation of granular

soils to the construction site, typically in the mountains,

are dif®cult and costly.

3. Wrap-around facing structure is commonly used for rein-

forcing slopes. The wall face is usually ®nished with a

vegetated facing.

4. For reinforced soil retaining walls, the modular block

facing structure is most popular. The height is typically

between 2 and 10 m.

5. Geogrids comprised more than 95% of the applications in

reinforced soil structures for economic reason. There are

several local geogrid manufacturers from Taiwan. The

geotextiles and metallic reinforcements are not popular.

6. The designs of GRSS are typically provided by the manu-

facturers. There is a lack of geotechnical consideration

for certain speci®c applications.

The reinforced soil technology has not been adopted widely

by the public sectors compared to the private developers, such

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 297±313

0267-7261/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0267-7261(01)00011-2

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (H.I. Ling).

as for residential and industrial facilities. So far, three sets of

design manual are available by the highway and railway

authorities, and the Society of Civil Engineers. The design

manual for the highway [4] is an adopted version of the

FHWA and AASHTO documentation. The version for the

railway structures [6] is based on the reinforced soil technol-

ogy developed by the Japan Railway Technical Research Insti-

tute. A design and construction manual is also issued by Taipei

Society of Civil Engineers [7].

In this paper, the performance of several geosynthetic-

reinforced soil structures during the 1999 Ji-Ji earthquake

is reported. The causes of failure are identi®ed and sugges-

tions leading to the improvement of design are made.

2. Seismic design

Seismic design of reinforced soil structures is typically

done using a pseudo-static approach. A seismic coef®cient

is used to express the earthquake inertia force as a percen-

tage of the deadweight of the potential failure soil mass.

There are a few design procedures proposed in recent

years, as brie¯y mentioned below:

Ling et al. [19,20] and Ling and Leshchinsky [21]

proposed a pseudo-static analysis considering the internal

(tieback) and external (compound failure and direct sliding)

stabilities of the reinforced soil structures. The procedure is

an extension of the design procedure proposed by Lesh-

chinsky (e.g. [16]). The result of study is compiled in the

form of design charts and also available for computerized

design [17,18]. The authors then extended the procedure for

a permanent displacement analysis.

From a series of parametric studies, the authors

concluded that in the event of large earthquake, external

stability, typically by direct sliding, may govern the design.

That is, a longer geosynthetic length is required for design in

addition to a stronger reinforcement in resisting the earth-

quake inertia force. The proposed procedure was veri®ed

with eight case histories for the 1994 Northridge earthquake

(M� 6.7), the 1995 Kobe earthquake (M� 7.3), the 1993

Kushiro-oki earthquake (M� 7.8) and the 1987 Chiba-ken

Toho-oki earthquake (M� 6.7). Among all these cases,

only the Tanata Wall of the Kobe earthquake was relevant

for the veri®cation of permanent displacement.

The effect of vertical acceleration on the performance of

geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures was also studied by

H.I. Ling et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 297±313298

Fig. 1. Location of epicenter and fault (information after CIA and CWB, Taipei).

Ling and Leshchinsky [21]. Vertical acceleration increases the

required reinforcement length and force. It was also concluded

that the vertical acceleration may reduce the stability, espe-

cially for direct sliding mode, if the corresponding horizontal

component of acceleration is very large.

A seperate seismic design procedure was also proposed

by Bathurst and Cai [1] and Bathurst et al. [2,3]. The proce-

dure was based on an extension of the Mononobe±Okabe

analysis. The procedure was subsequently adopted for the

design of modular block walls for the National Concrete

Masonry Association (NCMA, [11]).

The design manual issued by the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) has also included seismic design

procedure [9,13] and has been made available for compu-

terized design [18]. FHWA procedure was centered for the

reinforced soil structures with metallic reinforcements.

The previous earthquakes that occurred in the US and

Japan had proved that geosynthetic-reinforced soil struc-

tures are durable to minor and major shakings [10,12,23±

26]. However, most reinforced soil structures were subject

to minor shaking except for the 1995 Kobe earthquake. The

reinforced soil structures found around the Kobe area were

having rigid facing, which is different from most other types

of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls available in

other parts of the world. Moreover, the modular-block

reinforced soil retaining walls, an increasingly popular

structure in North America, were not constructed in Japan.

Thus, the occurrence of the 1999 Ji-Ji earthquake of Taiwan

provided another opportunity to evaluate the seismic perfor-

mance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures, particu-

larly the modular-block walls.

3. Ji-Ji (Chi-Chi) earthquake and performance ofreinforced soil structures

The Chi-chi earthquake occurred on 21 September 1999

at 1:47 a.m. with a magnitude of 7.3. More than 2200 people

were killed and devastating damages were recorded. The

main shock was recorded at 23.87oN, 120.75oE in central

Taiwan at a depth of 7 km [15]. The rupture surface was

observed at the Chelungpu fault for more than 85 km with a

vertical displacement of 1±6 m (Fig. 1). The maximum

horizontal peak ground acceleration was recorded for over

1 g. The ratio of vertical to horizontal acceleration was

large. For example, at the station TCU129, 13.5 km from

the epicenter, the E±W, N±S and vertical accelerations

were 983, 611 and 335 g, respectively.

Seismic design is conducted for the buildings and highway

structures in Taiwan. The main island is divided into four main

seismic zones: I-A, I-B, II and III (Fig. 2). The respective

accelerations used for design are 0.33, 0.28, 0.23 and 0.18 g.

It is obvious that the recorded accelerations, such as that at

station TCU129, far exceeded the design values.

The investigation on the performance of several geosyn-

thetic-reinforced soil structures was conducted on 28 and 29

January around central Taiwan. Although most severely

damaged buildings have been demolished, many soil struc-

tures were still unrepaired or undergoing repairing. A total

of six reinforced soil structures were investigated and

reported herein. Among these structures, two were geosyn-

thetic-reinforced slopes whereas four others were geosyn-

thetic-reinforced soil retaining walls with modular block

facing. The locations of these structures are marked as B

in Fig. 3. They were around Tai Chung City, Chung Hsin

New Village (the capital for former Taiwan Provisional

Government) and Pu Li. The locations are at a distance of

1 km or less from the fault, except Pu Li.

4. Modular-block geosynthetic-reinforced soil retainingwalls

4.1. Ta Kung housing development site, Tai Chung

The development site is located along the mountains. The

housing development project has been abandoned prior to the

Ji-Ji earthquake. Large cracks and settlements were found

along the slopes (Fig. 4(a) and (b)) which indicated that part

of the slope failed under seismic excitation due to the lost of

global stability. There was almost no obvious structural

damage to the frames of the buildings, except for some of

H.I. Ling et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 297±313 299

Fig. 2. Seismic Design Zones in Taiwan (after NCREE, 2000).

the foundations and slabs that were damaged by signi®cant

displacement resulting from the earthquake (Fig. 4(a)). Fig.

5(a) and (b) show conventional reinforced concrete retaining

walls that exhibited cracks along the horizontal and vertical

construction joints, respectively. Fig. 5(c) shows a typical case

of structural failure of the reinforced concrete retaining wall.

There was a modular-block retaining wall constructed at

this residential site (Fig. 6). The wall was 5 m high (24

blocks) at its tallest point and accessibility to the bottom

of this wall was not possible during the time of investiga-

tion. To the right of the structure is an unreinforced modular

block retaining wall that collapsed. The height of this

unreinforced wall was 2.4 m (12 blocks) and a failure

surface was observed 2.2 m behind the wall. It was noted

that the reinforced concrete wall, which was attached to one

of the ends of this modular block wall, titled signi®cantly.

The geosynthetic-reinforced retaining wall is found on

the left of the structure. The modular-block reinforced

retaining wall failed at two locations. At one location

close to the top of the wall, the blocks displaced outward

resulting in the exposure of the connection pins (Fig. 6(c)).

At the other location, the wall collapsed with the blocks

fallen apart (Fig. 6(d)). It can be seen from the pictures

that good quality back®ll material, the gravel, was used.

The reinforcement was a polyester geogrid. Because of

the problem of accessibility, the information related to the

spacing of geogrid was not obtained directly, though it is

expected to be three or four blocks based on Taiwanese

design practice. It has to be mentioned that behind the

wall, very large settlement of over 2 m was observed. The

large settlement damaged the foundation slab of the build-

ing (Figs. 4(a) and 6(b)). The distance from the major crack

to the wall was between 15±20 m.

4.2. Ta Kung Roadway 129, Tai Chung City

Along the earthquake affected areas, the stone walls, rein-

forced concrete walls and tie-back walls are widely used to

retain the slopes. There were many failure cases for the

conventional retaining walls. Geosynthetic-reinforced soil

retaining walls, with a modular-block facing, were

constructed at several locations along Roadway 129. At

one location, failure of a 3.4 m high modular-block geosyn-

thetic-reinforced retaining walls was found (Fig. 7). The

wall was constructed with a four-block reinforcement

spacing. Fig. 7(b) shows the largely deformed portion of


Fig. 3. Major sites of investigation.

the wall. The modular blocks were buried under the back®ll

soil (Fig. 7(c)). The back®ll material was a silty sand. A

polyester geogrid was used (Fig. 7(d)). Fig. 7(e) shows the

block that was used as facing for the reinforced soil retain-

ing wall.

Fig. 7(b) shows that the largest horizontal displace-

ment was at a height of eight blocks (1.6 m) from the

bottom of the wall. This point of maximum displacement

varied along the length of the wall. However, failure

could be initiated from the bottom of the wall, at the

region where the blocks totally collapsed, because of

excessive displacement. A major crack was observed at

a distance 5.6 m behind the wall. A minor crack was also

formed at about 2.5 m behind the wall, which corre-

sponded to the length of geogrid reinforcement. In

Taiwan, the length of geosynthetic reinforcement is typi-

cally selected as 70% the wall height for modular-block

reinforced soil retaining walls.

Note also that the transverse rib of the geogrid reinforce-

ment was torn at the location of the connection pins (Fig.

7(d)). Some of the pins were bent and yielded because of the

movement of the blocks. The results indicated that the


Fig. 4. Ta Kung housing development site: (a) failure and slabs and foundation, (b) rupture surfaces along the slope.


Fig. 5. Failure of reinforced concrete retaining walls in Ta Kung housing development site: (a) horizontal crack, (b) separation of walls, (c) structural

failure of wall.


Fig. 6. Ta Kung housing development site: (a) geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall, (b) large settlement and failure surface behind GRS-RW, (c)

deformation of modular blocks along the top of the wall, (d) collapse of GRS-RW.

transverse stiffness and strength of geogrid, as well as that of

the pins, are required to keep the modular blocks in place

under large dynamic earth pressure induced by the earth-

quake.

4.3. Chung-Hsin Stadium, Chung Hsin New Village

Modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls were used

extensively around Chung-Hsin Stadium. Two walls were

affected by the earthquake.

The ®rst wall was located along the side of the Stadium,

of height 2 m or less (Fig. 8(a)). A series of lampposts were

installed very close to the wall. It was observed that the

blocks dislocated around the location of the lampposts

(Fig. 8(b)). The connection pins were seen through the

spacing between the blocks. The deformations were due to

the movement of the foundation of the lamppost. The post

de¯ected inward and thus pushing the foundation outward to

the wall. The problem could be avoided by installing the

post at a distance away from the wall, or with a deeper

foundation.

The second wall was located behind the Stadium, 3 m

high (Fig. 9(a)). At the crest of the wall, two cracks

were observed. The ®rst crack was about 0.5 m from the

blocks whereas the second crack was more than 2 m

from the block. The blocks moved away from the back-

®ll for over 30 cm. This wall collapsed at the lower

corner. A close view of the bottom corner is given in

Fig. 9(b). Note that the length of reinforcement at the

corner is likely less than normal because of the limited


Fig. 6. (continued)

Fig. 7. Ta Kung Roadway 129 geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall: (a) front view of collapsed section, (b) side view, (c) back®ll soil, (d) geogrid

reinforcement, (e) block with the connection pins.


Fig. 7. (continued)


Fig. 8. Chung Hsin Stadium: (a) geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall along the side of stadium, (b) the gap exposing the connection pins at the location

of lamp post.

space available behind the wall. The reinforcement used

was a polyester geogrid, with a vertical spacing of three

blocks. Thus, the top layer had a spacing of ®ve blocks

or 1 m. The ®rst crack should correspond to the sliding

surface of the top back®ll soil layer.

4.4. Chung Hsin Nai Lu Shi Park, Chung Hsin New Village

The Park is located near to the Stadium. There were two

reinforced soil structures constructed opposite to each other

in this Park. Both structures were composed of three stacked

walls (Fig. 10(a)). Part of the structure facing west collapsed

whereas the structure facing east was stable. The collapsed

portion of the wall was unreinforced and was supported at

the back by the H-steel piles. Note that some of the blocks

were also damaged structurally (Fig. 10(b)). The portion of

the wall at the second level, which was reinforced, remained

stable (Fig. 10(c)). In this stable wall, the ®rst reinforcement

layer was placed two blocks from the base, followed by

four-block, three-block, and ®ve-block spacings, as marked

by the dry leaves in the picture.

This case history demonstrated the earthquake resistance

of reinforced soil retaining wall compared to the unrein-

forced wall. The difference in performance between the

walls facing east and west could be related to the accelera-

tions of the earthquake.

5. Reinforced slopes

5.1. Chi-Nan University, Pu Li

Pu Li is the town that was most severely damaged by

the earthquake. It is located at about 25 km from the

epicenter. The reinforced slope, 40 m tall, was located

at the front gate of National Chi-Nan University, facing

east. The geogrids were used as reinforcement and the

slope was back®lled by on-site soil, which was a silty

clay. The slope had a wrap-around facing. The reinforced

structure was constructed by stacking a series of rein-

forced slopes, with a reinforcement spacing of 1 m. The

reinforced slopes, after failure, is shown in Fig. 11(a)

(side view) and (c) (front view).

The back®ll soils and concrete structures from the slope

moved for more than 10 m and buried the road. The security

of®ce was damaged (Fig. 11(b)). A close view of the slope is

shown in Fig. 11(d), where the reinforcements are seen to

pull out of the slope. Note that the concrete pavement


Fig. 9. Chung Hsin Stadium: (a) geosynthetic-reinforced retaining wall behind the stadium, (b) closer view of the failure section.


Fig. 10. Chung Hsin Lu Shi Park: (a) overall view of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall, (b) collapse of unreinforced section of the wall, (c) the

reinforced section (the leaves indicating location of reinforcement layers).

around the site, at the foot and crest of the slope, deformed

excessively (Fig. 11(e)).

It is, however, not certain if the failure of this reinforced

structure was attributed to the seismic excitation alone.

Excessive deformation of this reinforced slope was reported

previously following an excavation at the foot of the slope

in 1994 [8]. The original con®guration of this reinforced

slope and the con®guration after failure in 1994 are shown

in Fig. 12 [14].

5.2. Nai Lu housing development site, Chung Hsin New

Village

A 35 m high reinforced structure, located near Chung

Hsin New Village, remains stable after the earthquake.

The structure was composed of six multiple reinforced

slopes, facing south±west. The slope has a wrap-around

facing and was fully vegetated (Fig. 13(a)). The details of

this reinforced slope were given by Chou et al. [5]. It was the

tallest reinforced soil structures at the time of completion of

construction. Note that the road pavement along the slope

suffered signi®cant damage (Fig. 13(b)).

Fig. 14 shows the con®guration of this structure. The

slope was constructed on a V-shaped valley having an incli-

nation of 2(V):1(H) back®lled with on-site soils. The slope

was designed for seismic stability with a seismic coef®cient

of 0.15. A HDPE geogrid was used. The spacing of rein-

forced slope was 50 cm and the reinforcement was 18.5 m

long with an overlapping length of 2.5 m.

Note that the width of this slope was less than that of Chi-

Nan University and the orientation was different as well.

This reinforced slope behaved as an arch-like structure (see

[5]). The end effects could have improved the stability.

6. Conclusions

The Ji-Ji earthquake caused some damages to the geosyn-

thetic-reinforced soil structures in Taiwan. A few modular-

block geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls and rein-

forced slopes were damaged. Some of the lessons learned


Fig. 11. Chi-Nan University geosynthetic-reinforced slope: (a) side view of failure, (b) damaged security of®ce, (c) front view of failure, (d) close view of

failure showing the reinforcement and back®ll soil, (e) settlement of concrete pavement along the foot of slope.


Fig. 11. (continued)

from the post-earthquake investigation are:

² Taiwan is located in a seismically active region, but it is not

clear if seismic design was conducted for most reinforced

soil structures. While the design of geosynthetic-reinforced

soil structures is believed to be very conservative in other

parts of the world, the design conditions are more severe in

Taiwan because of the topography and economic reasons,

such as the use of on-site back®ll soil, above normal height,

stacked walls and slopes.

² The seismic design of reinforced soil structures has gained

attention world wide only in recent years. However, most of

the seismic design procedures do not incorporate

compound failure analysis. The cracks behind the wall indi-

cated that a few of the structures suffered compound failure

or did not have adequate global stability.

² The failure of modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls

could be attributed to a lack of professional design as seen

by arbitrary spacings used in several of the reinforced soil

retaining walls, and with a mixture of unreinforced and

reinforced retaining walls within a common structure.

² The connection between the modular blocks and reinforce-

ment is vital for a satisfactory performance of the structure

under high seismic load. The strength and stiffness of the

pins, and that of the reinforcement in the transverse direc-

tion, should be large enough to sustain the dynamic earth

pressure.

² The inertia of the modular blocks led to excessive

deformation under seismic excitation. The structures,

such as the lampposts, should not be installed at the vicinity

of the modular-block walls.

² For the sites where reinforced and unreinforced soil retain-

ing structures were found, a better performance was

achieved for the reinforced soil structures.

The information obtained from post-earthquake investiga-

tion is invaluable for the veri®cation and improvement of

seismic design procedure.


Fig. 11. (continued)

Fig. 12. Con®guration of Chi-Nan University before and failure of 1994 (after Huang, 2000).


Fig. 13. Nai Lu housing development site: (a) stable geosynthetic-reinforced slope with vegetated facing, (b) severely cracked pavement along the road to the

slope.

Fig. 14. Cross-section of Nai Lu housing development site (Chou et al., 1995).

Acknowledgements

The material is based upon work supported by the

National Science Foundation (Grant No. CMS-0084449)

with Dr Richard J. Fragaszy as the Program Director. Any

opinions, ®ndings, and conclusions or recommendations

expressed in this material are those of the authors and do

not necessarily re¯ect the views of the National Science

Foundation. The source of all seismic information included

in this paper was from the Seismology Center, Central

Weather Bureau (CWB), Taipei, Taiwan.

References

[1] Bathurst RJ, Cai Z. Pseudo-static seismic analysis of geosynthetic-

reinforced segmental retaining walls. Geosynthetic International

1995;2(5):787±830.

[2] Bathurst RJ, Cai Z, Alfaro M, Pelletier M. Seismic design issues for

geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls. In: Wu, editor.

Mechanically stabilized back®ll. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balk-

ema, 1997. p. 79±97.

[3] Bathurst RJ, Alfaro MC. Review of seismic design, analysis and

performance of geosynthetic-reinforced walls, slopes and embank-

ments. In: Ochiai, Yasufuku, Omine, editors. Earth reinforcement.

Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema, 1997. p. 887±918.

[4] Chen R-H, et al., editors. Technical manual for reinforced soil struc-

tures. Taiwan Area National Expressway Engineering Bureau, Minis-

try of Transportation and Communications, 1990 (in Mandarin).

[5] Chou NNS, Hew JHC, Rimoldi P. 35 m-high geogrid-reinforced

slope: new heights and innovative construction. In: Proceedings of

the Fifth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes

and Related Products, 1994. p. 473±8.

[6] Chou NNS, editors. Study on reinforced soil structures for high-speed

railways. Bureau of Taiwan High-Speed Rail. Ministry of Transporta-

tion and Communications, 1996 (in Mandarin).

[7] Chou NNS, et al., editors. Design and construction manual for reinforced

soil structures. Taipei Society of Civil Engineers, 1998 (in Mandarin).

[8] Chou NNS. Latest development of reinforced soil retaining structures

in Taiwan. In: Chou, Fang, editors. Proceedings of Symposium on

Latest Development of Reinforced Soil Retaining Structures, Taipei,

2000. p. 26±45.

[9] Christopher BR, Gill SA, Giroud J-P, Juran I, Mitchell JK, Schlossser

Dunnicliff J. Reinforced soils, vol. 1. Design and construction guide-

lines. FHWA-RD-89-043, Federal Highway Administration, US

Department of Transportation, 1990.

[10] Collin JG, Chouery-Curtis VE, Berg RR. Field observations of rein-

forced soil structures under seismic loading. In: Ochiai et al, editors.

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement.


[11] Collin JG. Design manual for segmental retaining walls. 2nd ed.

Herndon, VA: National Concrete Masonry Association, 1997.

[12] Eliahu U, Watt S. Geogrid-reinforced wall withstands earthquake.

Geotechnical Fabric Report, March, Industrial Fabric Association

International, 1991. p. 8±13.

[13] Elias V, Christopher BR. Mechanically stabilized earthwalls and rein-

forced soil slopes design and construction guidelines. FHWA-SA-96-

071, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transporta-

tion, 1999.

[14] Huang C-C. Performance of reinforced soil structures during Ji-Ji

and Hanshin earthquakes, and slope reinforcement method of

Japan High Speed Railways after the earthquake. In: Chou,

Fang, editors. Proceedings of Symposium on Latest Development

of Reinforced Soil Retaining Structures, Taipei, 2000. p. 70±102

(in Mandarin).

[15] Lee WHK. Report no. 1 on the Chi-Chi (Taiwan) earthquake. US

Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025, 1999.

[16] Leshchinsky D, Ling HI, Hanks G. Uni®ed design approach to

geosynthetic reinforced slopes and segmental walls. Geosynthetics

International 1995;2(5):845±81.

[17] Leshchinsky D. ReSlope. Geotechnical Fabric Report, 15(1), Indus-

trial Fabrics Association International, 1997. p. 40±6.

[18] Leshchinsky D. Putting technology to work: MSEW and

ReSlope for reinforced soil structure design. Geotechnical

Fabric Report, 17(3), Industrial Fabrics Association Interna-

tional, 1999. p. 34±8.

[19] Ling HI, Leshchinsky D, Perry EB. A new concept of seismic design

of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures: permanent displacement

limit. In: Ochiai, Yasufuku, Omine, editors. Earth reinforcement.


[20] Ling HI, Leshchinsky D, Perry EB. Seismic design and performance of

geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. Geotechnique 1997;47(5):933±

52.

[21] Ling HI, Leshchinsky D. Effects of vertical acceleration on seismic

design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. Geotechnique

1998;48(3):347±73.

[22] ROC. The Republic of China at a glance. Government Information

Of®ce, Republic of China, 2000. http://www.gio.gov.tw/info/nation/

en/glance/

[23] Sandri D. A summary of reinforced soil structures performance in the

Greater Los Angeles area after the Northridge earthquake. In: Wu,

editor. Mechanically stabilized back®ll. Rotterdam, The Netherlands:

Balkema, 1997. p. 433±42.

[24] Tatsuoka F, Tateyama M, Koseki J. Behavior of geogrid-rein-

forced soil retaining walls during the Great Hanshin-Awaji

Earthquake. In: Ishihara, editor. Proceedings of the First Interna-

tional Symposium on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,

1995. p. 55±60.

[25] Tatsuoka, Koseki, Tateyama. Performance of reinforced soil struc-

tures during the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nambu earthquake. In: Ochiai,

Yasufuku, Omine, editors. Earth reinforcement. Rotterdam, The

Netherlands: Balkema, 1997. p. 979±1008.

[26] White D, Holtz RD. Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced slopes

and walls during the Northridge California earthquake of January 17,

1994. In: Ochiai, Yasufuk, Omine, editors. Earth reinforcement.



post-earthquake investigation on several geosynthetic-reinforced … · 2003-12-17 ·...

Documents