Model Tests of Seismic Stability of Several Types of Soil Retaining Walls - Reinforced Soil Engineering: Advances in Research and Practice - page 327

Figure 15 Tensile forces in reinforcement layers measured at a distance of 2.5 cm from
facing of reinforced soil RWs in irregular shaking tests.
reinforcement, since it can effectively resist against the overturning moment
acting on the facing.
In relation to the above, the tensile force in the middle-height layer was not
large with reinforced soil RW type 2, although the length of the reinforcement at the
same height was largest among the three reinforced soil RWs. Thismay be caused by
the concentration of the mobilized tensile force in the extended uppermost
reinforcement. It should be noted that, with reinforced soil type 3 RW, the tensile
force was mobilized relatively rapidly at the middle-height reinforcement. In
contrast to these behaviors, with reinforced soil type 1 having the shortest
reinforcements, the tensile force was rather effectively mobilized at the lowest
reinforcement. The height of reinforcement where the tensile force is the most
effectively mobilized may depend on the arrangement of reinforcements.
Horizontal distributions of tensile forces in the three reinforcement layers
at different heights measured at every two shaking steps are shown in
Figs. 16 - 18 . For the type 1 RW with shorter reinforcements having an even