EPI International Journal of Engineering
Volume 2, Number 2, August 2019, pp. 116-126
DOI: 10.25042/epi-ije.082019.05

pISSN 2615-5109
eISSN 2621-0541

Evaluation of Numerical Analysis forEarthquake Resistance ofRetaining Wall Using Gabions
Tsuyoshi Nishia*, Tadashi Harab, Hiroshi Nakazawac , Daisuke SuetsugudaConstruction Project Consultants, INC. Email: t_nishi@cpcinc.co.jp
Centor for Disaster Prevention Promotion, University of Kochi. Email: haratd@kochi-u.ac.jpcEarthquake Disaster Mitigation Research Division, National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilience. Email:nakazawa@bosai.go.jpdDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty of Engineering, University of Miyazaki. Email:suetsugu@cc.miyazaki-u.ac.jpbAbstract
In developing countries, gabions are widely used in several construction works, like road, river, countermeasures against slope failure andso on, because of their easy operation and low cost. In 2015 Nepal Gorkha Earthquake, a lot of retaining walls using gabions were notdamaged against the strong earthquake because of their high flexibility. However, some deformation or declination were reported dpending
on retaining wall types and ground conditions behind retaining walls. Therefore, in order to evaluate the earthquake resistance and residual
deformations of retaining walls using gabions widely observed in Nepal, full-scale shake table tests and laboratory tests were conducted inprevious studies. In this study, elemental simulations for determination of the analysis parameters based on the results of triaxial compression
tests were carried out to check the validity of parameters. Then, a series of numerical analysis using proposed model was performed toreproduce the dynamic behaviors of full-scale shake table tests and evaluate the earthquake resistance of retaining wall using gabions.
According to the results of these numerical analysis, it was confirmed that proposal model adequately could simulate the dynamic responseof retaining walls in the full-scale shake table tests. and it was also cleared that the stepwise type retaining wall was superior to that of vertical
type from the standpoint of earthquake stability against sliding and overturning.
Keywords: Earthquake resistance; gabion; numerical analysis; retaining wall; shaking table test

1. BackgroundThe structures using gabions are widely used also in Japanas the structures on rivers, roads and coasts [1].
When the authors executed research of damage ofcivil/architectural structures caused by Nepal Gorkha
Earthquake in 2015, it was confirmed that the retaining walls
using gabions are widely used in Nepal [2]. Araniko
Highway, objective of the research, is located about 10km
west of the place where the biggest aftershock occurred(Dolakha county), and at Barhabise along the Highway 42%
of houses were completely destroyed [3]. Almost all of theretaining walls using gabions were gravity type that gabions
were straightly piled up, and some of them suffered fromstick out or fall forward that are considered to be affected byexternal factor such as earthquake (Nepal Gorkha
Earthquake) and rainfall. But in the area of the authors’
research, the retaining wall itself using gabions did not reach*Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-3-5337-4065
YSK Building 3-23-1 Takadanobaba Shinjuku-ku
Tokyo, Japan, 169-0075

the stage of collapse, but due to characteristics of soft
structure of retaining walls using gabions, it was confirmedthat minimum required performance to support life is held[2, 4-6]. That is to say, minimum earthquake resistance thatstructure is deformed but not collapsed is proved in these
retaining walls.
To evaluate the characteristics, and to grope more stablestructures, the authors executed full-scale shake tests[7-11].
As the result of test, it was proved that upright retaining wallwith height of 3m widely used in Nepal does not collapse
though big fall forward occurs by a large-scale earthquake[12]. This means that minimum performance proved in theabove-mentioned examples of damages in Nepal was
confirmed by the tests, but due to soft structure,measurement of deformation is considered to be in the range
of not-negligible for the use conditions such as traffic ofroads. Therefore, shape of leaning structure and stacking
structure with improved stability was proposed, and judging
from the deformed situation of structures, it was confirmedby tests that deformation related with stability such as fall
down or sliding can be deterred.
116

EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

In this report, aiming to obtain basic data for theevaluation of the seismic stability of the retaining wall using
gabions, reproductive analysis of the tests was conducted,
comparison of superiority of structural shape on the seismic
stability by the structural shape of the retaining wall using
gabions and evaluation of structural problems were made.

earthquake motion of tests was sine wave of 3Hz (peakshaking 12 waves) as the easily resonating frequency, andassumed maximum input acceleration was divided into 3
steps and was increased step by step. Further, test by whitenoise wave of 20gal of assumed maximum input
acceleration was executed.
Figure 1 shows residual displacement of retaining wallusing gabions as the result of tests. Legend in the Fig. shows
maximum acceleration of input earthquake motion in the
final stage. For the reference, maximum acceleration at thesurface point of background was 400gal~600gal for the
input acceleration. Input is sine wave, and as it has big
energy compared with normal earthquake motion, actual
earthquake motion works bigger than that shown in the
figure with maximum acceleration.
In Fig. 1, residual displacement of the retaining wall isbiggest in Case 1, and horizontal displacement in the levee

2. General Outline of Tests on the Earthquake
Resistance of The Retaining Wall using Gabions
Based on the utilization record of the retaining wall using
gabions in Nepal, full-scale shake table tests were conducted
to evaluate the earthquake resistance of them. This report isanalytic evaluation of tests, and first of all, outline of fullscale tests and objective structural shape are stated.
Tests were conducted in 2016 and 2017 at National
Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Resilienceof Japan. Table 1 shows the outline of them. Basis of input

Table 1. Test Case (Objectives of analysis are Case 1 & Case 2)
Test
Case

Characteristics

Model Shape
Shape

Structure

Soil container

Gabion retaining wall

Ground model constructed using Masado soil
Location of cracks generated by test

3-tieredseries wall

3.0m（1.0m×3 layer placing)

Case1

Greatest numberof shape ofretaining wall in
Arniko Highway,
Nepal. Manydamaged places.

4.0m

Road

location of penetration test of cone
1.5m

0.5m

3.0m

2.5m
8.0m

1.0m
11.6m

Soil container
Gabion retaining wall

3 steppedpiling up

Ground model constructed using Masado soil

1.4m

3.0m（ 1.0m×3 layer placing)Case2

Though cost is
low, quake
resistancedepends uponstability of background.

4.0m

Road

Location of cracks generated by test

location of penetration test of
2.5m

0.8m

3.0m

0.7m
0.5m

8.0m

1.0m

11.6m

Gravity form
(3 steps in 2
rows)

Gabion retaining wall

3.0m（ 1.0m×3 layer placing)

Case3

Though cost is
high, stability isgreat in spite ofback ground.

4.0m

Road

Ground model constructed using Masado soil

location of penetration test of cone
0.5m
0.5m

1.0m

1.0m

1.0m

3.0m

1.5m
7.0m

11.6m

117

EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

crown of 80cm occurred, but such displacement I Case 2 andCase 3 is less than 20cm which comparatively small. Angle
to lean forward in Case 1 is more than 15 degrees, but fromthe fact that the wall does not fall down in spite of pressureof background, effect of soft structure was confirmed. Aftershaking test, dynamic corn penetration test was conducted.
In case 1 and Case 3 straightly piled up, test was executed in
the nearest place to the back side of retaining wall using
gabions shown in Fig. 1, and the result shows that there is atendency that penetration resistance decreases after test, butthere was not a big change in Case 2.The reason for thedifference is that Case 1 and Case 3 shows gravity resistancebased on the self-standing structure of retaining wall using
gabions, while in Case 2 of leaning structure, displacementof back ground is small.
Table 2 shows displacement of back ground in Case 1 andCase 2. The place where crack occurred is shown in Fig. 1,
too. As a whole, there is a tendency that displacement ofback ground in Case 1 is bigger, but especially in Case 2,
first crack is occurred at very near the retaining wall using
gabions, and cracks after it are occurred at the places nearer
to the retaining walls than in Case 1. In this report, based on
the abovementioned features, analytical evaluation is madeabout Case 1 with gravity resistance and Case 2 with lean
forward structure surrounded by double red line in the table.
3.5
3.0

3.2. Damage survey in Aranico Highway

Height (m)

2.0

1.5
Before shaing(Case1)
Case1(257gal)
Case2(313gal)
Case3(302gal)

1.0
0.5

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 -200
Horizontal displacement (mm)Figure 1. Residual displacement of Gabion [8]Table 2. Situation of damages of back ground by test in Case 1 , case 2
Structure ofgabions

Input
Acceleration

65gal
132gal
Case1

Case2

3.1. Analysis Model1
Static analysis considering normal situation and dynamic
analysis to evaluate seismic dynamic behavior wereconducted. In static analysis, to get reference data for the
future design of retaining walls, inertia force was worked
statistically taking into consideration of measuring
earthquake intensity. For analysis general-purpose FEM
analysis program (Soil Plus) with two-dimensional finite
element procedure (FEM) was used. Filling materials of
gabions and back ground were modeled as plane twist factor,
and gabions were modeled as the spring to prevent fromdeformation of filling materials. Joint factor was set,considering evaluation of sliding behavior between thegabions on the vertical line. And joint factor was set between
gabions and back ground to consider sliding and detachment.
In static analysis, step analysis was made taking into
consideration of construction stage. As Step 1, support baseand earth tank were set, and in the order of 1st step ofgabions, 1st layer of back ground, 2nd step of gabions, 7
steps were set up to 3rd layer of back ground. The stressinside the ground under the above conditions was set as theinitial stress, and in the next step, horizontal inertia force wasworked from back ground side to the side of retaining wallusing gabions.

2.5

Case

3. Analysis Model

3-tiered series
wall

3-steppedpiling up

203galNo deformation
Crack is generated at o.7m from back faceof wall and sliding collapse was caused
cracks at 1.1m，1.6m，2.1m，2.8m
from wall
By development of cracks in the range of
1.1m, sliding collapse was caused

85gal

No deformation

162galCracks at 0.11m from wall

313gal3.2.1. Value of physical property used in static analysis

Situation of the back ground257gal244galFilling materials, background and support ground weremodeled as ground material with plane twist factor. Set
value of physical property of each material is shown in Table
3. Unit volume weight of filling material was set with weightof rocks filled in the gabions. Back ground and support
ground are set as solid ground compacted enough. Set
rigidity modulus, strength parameters and so on are shown
below. Characteristics of joint factor was set as very big
value (K=107kN/m2) so that joint rigidity in orthogonal
direction against joint face would not encroach. Shear
direction was set as Ks=104kN/m2which is a little bit bigger
than spring value of band of gabions, and friction coefficient
was set as μ=0.6 which is a little bit smaller than μ=0.67
comparable with inner friction angle of filling materials.

At 0.55m from wall cracks weregenerated and sliding collapse was caused
By development of cracks in the range of
1.1m, sliding collapse was caused

In static analysis, strength-deformation characteristics offilling materials was set based on hyperbolic model by
Duncan-Chang [13]. Fitting of hyperbolic model was basedon the result of triaxial compression test of materials withparticle size similar to filling materials used for test[14].
Figure 3 shows the result of triaxial compression test inlaboratory and outcome of fitting. Here, actual height ofretaining wall using gabions used for shaking table test was
3m, and as action stress was supposed to be maximum
50kN/m2, in fitting, conformity of σc=32kN/m2 with small

118

EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

Test
Case

Shape of Model
Back ground

Retaining wall of gabions

3rd stepLeveecrown ofgabions

Case1

Surface of back ground

Install joint element between
gabions and back ground andbetween top and bottom
gabions

2nd step

1st step

3rd layer
Considering slide/peeling of earthtank and back ground,rigid beam isinstalled at the edge of earth tank, andjoint element is set between background and earth tank.

2nd layer

Front of bearing ground,
Normal; vertical roller
Seismic; horizontal roller

1st layer
Rigid beam
Joint element

Bearing ground

Back ground

Retaining wall of gabions

Surface of back groundLevee
crown ofgabions

Case2

3rd step

Install joint element between
gabions and back groundand between top and bottom
gabions

2nd step

1st step

3rd layer

2nd layer

Front of bearing ground,
Normal; vertical roller
Seismic; horizontal roller

Considering slide/peeling of earthtank and back ground, rigid beam isinstalled at the edge of earth tank,and joint element is set between

1st layer

Bearing ground

Rigid beam
Joint element

Point of obseravation of the result of analysis
Figure 2. Model of analysis
2

confined pressure and 64kN/m was fully considered. Figure
4 shows result of triaxial compressive test (CD test) of
background and materials of support ground. From Fig. 4, it
was judged to be more appropriate to apply elasto-plasticity
conditions of by-linear type than applying hyperbolic modelto the relations of stress-twist of these materials, and nonlinear characteristics was evaluated with by-linear model by
Mohr-Coulomb. Figure 4 shows result of test and setting
value on analysis. Deformation coefficients are set, like thefilling materials, to conform to the area with confinedpressure. In test, phase difference was confirmed between
retaining wall using gabions and back ground. Therefore,
judging that tensile stress works on the back ground with thehorizontal power under the conditions that back ground is
not restrained after gabions move by themselves, model with
non-tension type was adopted.
In this study, as having been mentioned in the above,
influence of fictious force was considered in static analysis.
In tests, as deformation of back ground by shaking occurs
especially in the back of retaining wall using gabions, twist
is considered to reach the size of several % exceeding
rupture zone. Therefore, as peak strength in Table 3 can not
be exerted, in analysis to exert inertia force, strength of background was applied with residual strength shown in ( ) of
Table 3.

3.2.2. Value of physical property used in dynamic analysis(R-O model parameter)
Dynamic characteristics of filling materials and background are shown in Table 4. Here, non-linear nature wasconsidered by Ramberg-Osgood (R-O) model. For background dynamic deformation characteristic test by indoor
triaxial compressive test is conducted, and standard twist γ r
and maximum decay rate hmax were set to make fitting withthe test. Figure 5 shows the result of fitting. Here, standard
twist is set so that it would fit to the twist with size of
γ=1.0x10-3. In small twist area less than γ= 10-4 and large
twist area more than γ=10-2 there is a small gap, the reasonsfor having considered middle twist area of around γ=10-3 are
as follows; judging from size of shaking, test was supposed
to be in the twist area bigger than 10-4 , twist is not supposed
to be in the range evaluated by R-O model, because in thelarge twist area, ground rupture will be accompanied as areal phenomenon.
On the other hand, regarding filling materials, as there is
not any result of dynamic deformation test, value wasestimated from the existing documents. Tanaka.et.al.[15]conducted dynamic deformation characteristic test and theresult shows that reduction of rigidity occurs incomparatively small twist area (standard twistγr ≦4 × 10-4).
119EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

Table 3. Static value of physical property of ground material

Poisson ratioνYoung'smodulus
Ｅ(kN/m2)

Unit Volume
weightγ(kN/m3)

Strength parameter※)Angle of
Cohesive Forceinternal friction
2c(kN/m )φ(deg)
0.330
29,037
16.0
15.0
34.0
0.330
15,00020.0
20.5(4.0)
38.0(38.5)
0.330
20,00020.0※( )inside is residual strength

Name

Filling material
Back ground
Foundation

Remarks

DC modelMohr-Coulomb
Elasticity

Table 4. Dynamic value of physical property of ground material
Poisson`s
ratio
ν

Name

Velocity ofelastic wave
Vs(m/s)

Initial rate ofshear rigidity
G0(kN/m2)

Unit weightγ(kN/m3)

Non linear characteridtic

Standard confinedpressure ※)filling material

0.450

200.0

65,262Standard strain Maximum damping
γrfactor hmax
16.0
5.00E-050.20
σc=24kN/m2

Back ground

0.450

200.0

81,57720.0

1.60E-040.20

σc=50kN/m2

Foundation

0.450

200.0

81,57720.0

1.60E-040.20

σc=50kN/m2

Volumetic Strain(%) Deviator Stress2

σ1-σ3(kN/m )※)Rate of shear regidity and standard twist are supposed to be proportionate to 0.5th power of standard confined pressure

to be bigger than the result of test by Tanaka et.al. So,
standard twist under confined pressure at the height of centerof gabions (1.5m) was set as γr =5.0 x 10-5. As for maximum
decay rate hmax, hmax=0.20 as general value was set.
Among the dynamic values of physical property, initialshear modulus of rigidity G0 and standard twist in Table 4
are given as the value under standard confined pressure in
the Table, and these are set to change in proportion to powerof 0.5 of confined pressure.

500
400

σc=32kN/m22
σc=64kN/m
σc=128kN/m2

300
200
100
0
2
4
6
8
10
0

3.2.3. Value of physical property used in dynamic analysis(initial ratio of shear modulus of rigidity)
Test
DC model Fitting Result

2

4
6
Axial strain (%)

810Deviator Stress

σ1-σ3(kN/m2)

Figure 3. Deviator Stress-Axial Strain-Volumetic Strain Relation of Filling materials
500
Test Analysis model2
σc=20kN/m2
σc=50kN/m2
σc=80kN/m

400
300
200
100
0
0

Solid line is the set value for analysis

2

4
6
Axial Strain(%)

8

10

Figure 4. Deviator Stress-Axial Strain Relation of Back ground andFoundation

As filling materials are composed of rocks without finegrain, and confined pressure on the three-tiered gabions issmall, ratio of reduction of rigidity against twist is supposed

Initial shear modulus of rigidity G0 was obtained from thisfull scale test and full scale test of simple body of retaining
wall using gabions. Based on the response characteristics at
the moment of input of white noise wave, trial analysis withparameter of speed of shear bouncing wave Vs was
executed.
Figure 6 shows Fourier spectrum ratio (transfer function)
between response acceleration at levee crown and input
acceleration by white noise wave against simple body modelof retaining wall using gabions shown in Fig. 9. The resultsof analysis with the conditions of Vs =180m/s, 190m/s,
200m/s under standard confined pressure of gabions areshown with result of tests. In the cases of Vs=180m/s,
190m/s, primary peak of frequency is a little bit lower
compared with result of test, and the case of Vs=200
expresses most nearly result of tests. In Fig. 6, except
primary peak, result of analysis exceeds that of tests.
Therefore, in analysis it is possible to give rather big
response acceleration. There is possibility that frictional
force between rocks of filling materials influence toresponse, and decay effect bigger than supposition was born,
but tendency as a whole does not change so big. The purposeof Fig. 6 is setting of initial stiffness of filling materials of
retaining wall using gabions, from this viewpoint, as primary120

EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

1.2

0.3
G/G0～γh～γ
Test
Fitting curve

Test
Fitting curve

0.2

0.6
0.4

0.1

0 -6
10

10-5

10-4

10-3

Rigidity of wire
sheet is considered
to be spring on thehorizontal
direction. Spring
was divided into
generalpart
considering
deflectionofgabions, upper andbottompart
considering
rig idity of upperand bottom end ofwire sheet, andironwire partconsidering
rig idity of wire
sheet located in thecenter of gabions.

1 ,000

1,000

0.2
0
10-1

10-2

Shear Strain γ

1,000Figure 5. Dynamic deformation characteristics of Back groundand Foundation

Fourier spectrum ratio

10

Location of spring at upperand bottom end

Test result
Analysis（Vs=180m/s)
Analysis（Vs=190m/s)
Analysis（Vs=200m/s)

8Location of spring of iron
wire part

Figure 9. Modelization of band of gabions
6
4
2
0
0

10

20

Frequency(Hz)Figure 6. Transfer function of the gabions
Figure 10. Calculation model for bando of gabions

Displacement(mm)
変位(mm)
フーリエスペクトル比

80

Test result
Analysis

40
0

-40

50

Table 5. Spring coefficient band of gabions
実験結果
解析結果

2

30

40020

location
general part

Input Acc.=257gal

3

4

5

6

7

30

800

入力257gal
Test result
Analysis89Time(sec)

10

Input Acc.=257gal

0

0

-30

-40010
-60
-800
1
1
600

0
0

2

実験結果
解析結果
2

3

4

3

10

5

6

4

7

20

5

8
9
時刻t(sec)
Time(sec)
30

6

10

40

周波数(Hz)Figure入力257gal
7. Comparison of
the top response of gabions

400

加速度(gal)Accelerationl(gal)60

応答値/入力地震動
蛇籠天端

40

-80
1

200
0

-200

15

-400

Surface of Back ground
実験結果
解析結果
2

-600
1

Fourie spectrum ratio

G/G0

0.8

Damping Ratio h

1

.

1,000

3

4

Test result

5
Analysis
時刻t(sec)

6

30

40

10

5

0
0

10

20

Frequency(Hz)Figure 8. Transfer function of Test case1

upper and bottom end
iron wire

V alue269.8

U nit
kN/m/m4071.7
426.4

kN/m
kN/m

peak of result of test coincide with that of result of analysis,
it is concluded that there is applicability as a result.
Figure 7 shows response acceleration and response
displacement at the levee crown of retaining wall using
gabions at the time of inputting sine wave of 257gal in thesame model. In Fig. 6, though analysis showed possibility togive a little bit big acceleration, rather big acceleration is
given. Regarding response displacement, displacement
amplitude itself does not change so much between the resultof analysis and that of test, result of test is accumulated in
one direction. This is effect of asymmetric nature of
retaining wall using gabions, it is supposed that direction of
accumulation will differ by conditions of placement offilling materials with random form. The purpose of thisanalysis is evaluation of stability by structure shape. From
this viewpoint, comparatively good result including Fig. 6
was obtained.
Figure 8 shows, using model of Case 1 in Fig. 2, spectral
ratio of input acceleration at the levee crown of retaining
wall using gabions and at surface of back ground ( ref. Fig.
2) when Vs=200 is set under confined pressure of121

EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

background. In each point, primary proper period reproduces
result of test. Displacement of secondary and onwards peakis seen, but effect of boundary conditions by earth tankwhich are not expressed in two-dimensional analysis is
supposed. As shaking wave is basically 3Hz, effect of wave
of more than 10Hz to the result is supposed to be small. Likein Fig. 6, from the viewpoint that this figure aims setting of
initial stiffness of back ground, applicability of result isproved.
As above, Vs=200m/s is appropriate as Vs under standard
confined pressure of back ground. For the reference, initialstiffness ratio Go by dynamic deformation test of background is about 67000kN/m2, if it is converted to Vs, it
become about 180m/s. It is a little bit smaller than
supposition, but as difference is about 10%, it shows
comparatively good coincidence. If you compare Fig. 6 andFig. 8, proper period of the levee crown of retaining wallusing gabions are around 4Hz and 9Hz, differs by Figures.
It is supposed that in a model with back ground, response ofback ground with bigger mass will govern.

Item

Horizontal
Stress(kN/m2 )VerticalStress(kN/m2 )Case1

Large tensile force
at the bottom of thegabion back groundside
Large compressive
force on Foundation
groundA large tensile
force at thebottom of thegabion background side and alarge compressive
force at thebottom of theback ground

Case2

Tensile force
at upper loweredge

The lowerrow is weakly
compressed

Tensile force atthe bottom of theground side of theback side of eachgabions
Lower gabionback ground iscompressed

Figure 11. Horizontal and vertical stresses by static analysis(Deformation magnification 10x)3.3. Modeling of band of gabions (wire sheet)

4. Result of Analysis and Consideration

Retaining wall using gabions is a structure composed offilling materials and wire sheet holding them (here it is calledband of gabions). In modeling of band of gabions, it isnecessary to consider stereoscopic behavior, but in this study
two-dimensional model is used, and if beam model is applied
to band of gabions, constraint effect of filling materials
cannot be expressed. So, as Figure 10 shows, modeling was
made by supposing band of gabions as horizontal spring.
Value of spring was obtained as follows. Tensile
resistance of rhombus wire sheet used for band of gabions isaffected by compressive stiffness of filling materials. That is
to say, if deformation of filling materials does not occur,
deformation of band of gabions by pull force depends only
on tensile stiffness of wire sheet, but actually, bycompressive deformation of filling materials, band of
gabions become deformable. Considering this fact, as Fig. 10shows, under the conditions that compressive stiffness offilling materials is considered as confined spring of band of
gabions in the vertical direction, from the displacement
obtained by giving horizontal power to band of gabions,value of spring was calculated from relationship with active
horizontal power. Compressive stiffness of filling materials
is set based on Young’s modulus (E=5,000kN/m2) under thecondition of low confined pressure (σc=32kN/m2) based on
Fig. 3. Spring values of band of gabions obtained in the said
way are shown in Table 5. Spring is divided into general partthat deflection of gabions is considered as above, part of top
and bottom end considering stiffness of wire sheet set in the
top and bottom end of gabions, and part of iron wireconsidering stiffness of wire sheet put on the center ofgabions. In the table, as general part is supposed fromdisplacement of whole gabions, and the others are supposedfrom stiffness of wire sheet as iron wire, unit of both differs.

4.1. Static analysis
As the result of static analysis considering situation before
shaking,distribution of horizontal stress and vertical stress in
the ground is shown in Fig. 11. Minus of stress in the figure
shows compressed state. Here, deformation mode is shownwith condition that magnification ratio of deformation was
decupled of actual one.
In case where horizontal stress is compared, in Case 1,
pull force of more than 10kN/m2 works on retaining wallusing gabions in the bottom end on the side of back ground.
On the front side, tensile stress of more than 40kN/m2 works
on the support ground. This is considered to be caused bysliding power of retaining wall using gabions. On the other
hand, in Case 2, pull force occurs on the gabions put on
upper stage, but in the lower stage, there is not pull force
area, but whole lower stage become compression area.
In case where distribution of vertical stress is compared,in Case 1, tensile stress of more than 10kN/m2 occurs in thelower part of retaining wall using gabions on the side of background, and compression stress of more than 90kN/m2
occurs on the adjacent back ground. This phenomenon isconsidered to occur by fall down mode of retaining wall. On
the other hand, in Case 2, pull force area occurs on the upperstage and bottom end of middle stage of gabions, but lowest
stage is in compression state, structure that is difficult to fall
down is brought. If you consider relationship between stressof back ground and twist shown in Fig. 4, stability is notdiminished by stress inside ground, but stability against
sliding by external power of earthquake and rain fall etc．
and fall down is relatively low in Case 1.
Figure 12 shows minimum main stress at time of working
horizontal inertia force. Like Fig. 11, deformation mode isshown with condition that magnification ratio of122

EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

deformation was decupled of actual one. In the figure,location where crack occurs and area of sliding disruption
after final shaking which were obtained from damage stateof back ground at time of stage shake shown in Table 2.
While in Case 1 first crack occurs at the location of 70cm
from retaining wall, in Case 2 location of crack was the very
near point of 11cm from the retaining wall using gabions. In
Case 2, big tensile stress is generated at the point very near
the retaining wall using gabions, it is supposed that crack isgenerated very near the back side of retaining wall using
gabions. In case 1, such local tensile stress as being observedin Case 2 is not found, but work of tensile stress is observedin rather wide area near the surface layer. Range of tensilestress near the surface layer, both in Case 1 and Case 2, is
inclined to spread, and coincide with the process to generatecrack at the distant place from the retaining wall using
gabions with increase of shaking acceleration observed intest. Figure 13 presents maximum shear stress at time ofaction of horizontal inertia force. Like Fig. 12, location ofgenerating crack and range of sliding disruption are shown.
Like minimum principal stress, shear stress increases nearlocation of generating crack, the range with big shear stressspreads on the back side with the increase of earthquake
intensity. Both minimum principal stress and maximum
shear stress are bigger in Case 2 at the location of back sideof gabions shown in the figure. This is supposed to be causedby following factors. That is to say, as unit volume weightof back ground is bigger than that of filling materials of
gabions, acting load on back ground is bigger than that justbeneath the gabions. For this reason, vertical stress justbeneath the gabions differs from that of back ground near thegabions, and gap is generated on the ground under thegabions. Then, gabions fall down on the back ground. As theresult, shear force by friction is generated between background and the retaining wall using gabions, and local
sliding disruption occurs. Further, if inertia force is worked,
retaining wall using gabions leans forward and at the sametime, because of step shape, gabions on the step give upward
shear force to back ground, and with this big shear force andtensile force work to back ground near the gabions. For thisreason, crack is generated very near the gabions. If inertia
force increases, lean forward of retaining wall using gabions
increases, gap will be born between back ground. For thisreason, active disruption is generated on the back ground,
and with the increased lean of the retaining wall using
gabions, as gap progresses towards deep part, range of active
disruption is widened. On the other hand, in Case 1, size offall increases due to problem of stability of retaining wall
itself using gabions, back ground will be destabilized. In Fig.
12 and Fig. 13, leaning line of retaining wall using gabions
under conditions of intensity 0.2 was shown. Lean in Case 1
is a little bit bigger, and stability against falling is higher inCase 2.

Intensity

Case1

Case2

Area of sliding fall

Area of sliding fall
Due to weightof gabions
and back
ground anddifference ofstiffness

Kh =0.1

Area of sliding fall

Area of sliding fall

Inclined line

Inclined line

Kh =0.2

Place of generating cracks in test

Figure 12. Minimum principal stress under horizontal inertial force(Deformation magnification 10x)Intensity

Case1

Case2

Area of sliding fall
Shear stress isbig betweeb
gabions andback ground

Shear force is big
near the place ofgenerating cracks.

Kh =0.1

Shear force ingabions is big,
but is smaller
than in Case 1
on the surface ofbearing ground

Generating shear
stress fromgabions tobearing ground

Shear stress on
the surface ofback ground is
big at a littele
bit distantplace fromgabions

Area of sliding fall

Area of sliding fall

Shhea stress between
gabions and background increases andexpand the area.
Shear stress on
surface of background is big very
near the gabions.

Area of sliding fall

Kh =0.2
big shear stressin bearing
ground reachingbottom end of
gabions

Inclined line

Big shear stress isgenerated in thebottom of gabions,but it is smaller thanin Case 1 on theback ground

Inclined line

Place of generating cracks in test

Figure 13. Maximum shear stress under horizontal inertial force(Deformation magnification 10x)4.2. Dynamic analysis
Figures 14~17 show time history of acceleration anddisplacement by dynamic analysis at the levee crown of theretaining wall using gabions and on the surface of background (ref. Fig. 2). In every case, objective is 1st, 2nd stepof shaking step of sine wave. In the result of Case 1 shownin Fig. 14, underconditions of input acceleration 65gal,
acceleration at the at the levee crown of the retaining wallusing gabions and on the surface of back ground in the resultof test and that in the result of analysis almost coincide.
Regarding displacement, result of analysis shows a little bit123Top of the gabion

100
0
-100
-200
0

2

4

Test result
Analysis
8
10

6

150
Back ground surface
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
0
2
4

10

Top of the gabion

50
Test result
Analysis

-5
-10
0

2

4

6

8

Time(sec)

Test result
Analysis6

8

10

Time(sec)2

Displacement(mm)Acceleration(gal)Acceleration(gal)200

Back ground surface

1
0-1

Test result
Analysis

-2
0

10

2

4

6

8

Time(sec)10

Time(sec)

Figure 14. Response value in test case 1 (Input Acc.=65gal)
Top of the gabion

250
0
-250

Test result
Analysis

-500
0

2

4

6

8

100

Displacement(mm)Acceleration(gal)500

Top of the gabion

80
60
40

Test result
Analysis

20
0
0

10

2

4

6

4

6

8

Time(sec)

500

Displacement(mm)Acceleration(gal)Time(sec)
Back ground surface

250
0
Test result
Analysis

-250
-500
0

2

4

6

8

10

4

10

Back ground surface

2
0-2

Test result
Analysis

-4
0

2

8

Time(sec)10

Time(sec)6

Time(sec)

Acceleration(gal)150
Back ground surface
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
0
2
4

8

10

Test result
Analysis68Top of the gabion

0
Test result
Analysis-2.5

Test result
Analysis

4

5
2.5

10

Displacement(mm)Acceleration(gal)150
Top of the gabion
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
0
2

Displacement(mm)Figure 15. Response value in test case 1 (Input Acc.=132gal)

Time(sec)

-5
0
2

2

4

6

4

6

8

Time(sec)

10

Back ground surface

1
0
-1
-2
0

Test result
Analysis2

8

Time(sec)

10

Top of the gabion

250
0
-250
-500

0

500

Test result
Analysis
2

4

6

8

Time(sec)

10

Back ground surface

0

-500

0

Test result
Analysis
2

4

6

8

Time(sec)50
Top of the gabion
40
30
20
10
0
-10
0
2

Test result
Analysis

4

6

8

10

Time(sec)

250

-250

Displacement(mm)

500

10

Displacement(mm)Acceleration(gal)Figure 16. Response value in test case 2 (Input Acc.=85gal)

Acceleration(gal)bigger value on the surface of back ground, but result of test
and analysis almost coincide at the levee crown of theretaining wall using gabions. On the other hand, under theconditions of shaking 132gal shown in Fig. 15, acceleration
at the levee crown of the retaining wall using gabions in the
result of analysis is a little bigger at minus side than that in
the result of test, and displacement in the result of test shows
tendency to be accumulated by shaking, but accumulation of
displacement by shaking is small in the result of analysis. In
Case 2 shown in Fig. 16, result of test and result of analysisof acceleration at the stage of 85gal almost coincide, butdisplacement at the levee crown, like the case of shaking
132gal in Case 1, does not express accumulated
displacement in the result of test. Further, in the case of
162gal shaking shown in Fig. 17, acceleration at the levee
crown of the retaining wall using gabions in the result ofanalysis is smaller than that in the result of test, and thedisplacement at the same place in the result of analysis issmaller too than that in the result of test. From the above, it
can be concluded that at the stage of low shaking level, resultof test and result of analysis in Case 1 coincide well, but thatat the higher shaking level, result of analysis cannot express
result of test. In Case 2, in the degree of shaking 85gal, resultof analysis cannot express displacement of the retaining wallusing gabions in the result of test.
It is indicated that in the test, at the stage of low shaking
level, the retaining wall using gabions behaved as a unit, but
at the higher shaking level phase difference of response
occurs. It is possible that by the said behavior, relative
displacement occurs between the retaining wall using
gabions and back ground. From this, Figure 18 shows time
history of relative value, by analysis, of displacement
between the levee crown of the retaining wall using gabions(back ground side) at the time of shaking 132gal in Case 1
and the back ground at the same location. Relative
displacement (difference of displacement) has tendency to
be increased, but there is a moment of displacement 0 whenboth crashes.
Figure 18 shows the time when space between the both
become big (t=4.18 second and 4.16 second, input
acceleration 132gal), and Fig. 19 shows deformation mode
(magnification ratio of deformation 20 times) at the time ofcrash (t=4.36 second and 4.30 second, input acceleration
162gal). Upper line of the light green zone in Fig. 19
indicates horizontal stress. In Case 1, at the moment of
opening, tensile stress (plus side) in the horizontal direction
occurs, and at the moment of crash, stress at the side ofcompression (minus side) occurs on the whole.
If you consider real behavior in the test, back ground is
disrupted by the above mentioned repetition of compressiontensile, sliding disruption occurs by generation of cracks andprogress of them. Earth and sand on the sliding surface sinks
between the retaining wall using gabions and back ground at
the moment when space opens and fulfill the space. For thisreason, retaining wall using gabions cannot return to theoriginal location at the time of next closing behavior, and as

Displacement(mm)EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

3

Back ground surface

2
1
0
-1
0

Test result
Analysis
2

4

6

8

Time(sec)

Figure 17. Response value in test case 2 (Input Acc.=162gal)

a result, displacement cumulatively increases. At the stageof low shaking level, this influence is small and big
difference does not occur between the result of test and thatof analysis, but with increase of shaking level, difference of
displacement behavior increases, and result of test cannot beadequately expressed by analysis. Further, as adequate
evaluation of crash behavior between the retaining wall
124

10

Relative displacement(mm)EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

problems and so on. From this viewpoint, like evaluation of
local point of stress concentration by static analysis,
evaluation of behavior of each structure was made in theanalysis conducted this time.

Relative displacement=0

0

-5

-10
0

2

4

6

8

Time(sec)

10

Figure 18. Relative displacement of gabion retaining wall and background in test case1(Input Acc.=132gal)
Item

Case1(Input Acc.=132gal)

Case2(Input acc=162gal)

t=4.16sec

t=4.18sec

Inclined line

Inclined line
Horizontal
Stress(kN/m 2 )t=4.30sec

t=4.36sec

Figure 19. Deformation mode and horizontal stress distribution by dynamic
Analysis (Deformation magnification 10x)

using gabions and back ground is difficult, with the increaseof shaking level, difference of acceleration increases.
Regarding discordance of result of analysis in Case 2, as
Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 shows, local tensile stress and shear
stress work between the retaining wall using gabions andback ground, and though it cannot be confirmed visually, itis
possible that local breaking surface is generated very near
the retaining wall using gabions even at comparatively low
shaking level. Therefore, like the case of high shaking levelin Case 1, it is supposed that displacement at the levee crownof gabions takes behavior to increase cumulatively.
However, though in Case 2 local breaking behavior iswatched, as having been indicated, from the viewpoint of
stable behavior as a whole, stability is better than Case 1. In
Fig. 19, like Fig. 12 and Fig. 13, inclination line is shown
about the result of time when space expands, and angle ofinclination in Case 1 become comparatively bigger than inCase 2. For this reason, as Fig. 1 shows the result of test,
residual displacement after shaking in Case 2 is considerably
smaller than that in Case 1.
As above, in this analysis, there is a part that behavior in
test is not adequately evaluated. However, it is very difficult
to express in analysis behavior of cumulative displacement
generated by falling of local breaking surface, and it isconsidered to be limit of analysis. Purpose of this analysis iscomparison of superiority of structural shape with a view toestablish a future design method and evaluation of structural

5. Conclusion
With the retaining wall using gabions widely used in
Nepal, full-scale shake table test was conducted. From theoutcome of this test, about test Case 1 with gravity resistanceand test Case 2 of lean type, evaluation by static analysis
with finite element method (FEM) and dynamic analysis
were conducted. Findings obtained in the study are as
follows:(1) As the result of static analysis, from the viewpoint ofstability, it is possible that in Case 1 problems of sliding andfalling occur easily and stability of lean type in Case 2 ishigher.
(2) In case 2, partially big tensile stress and shear stressworks on the back ground near the retaining wall using
gabions. This is because of difference of weight of retaining
wall using gabions and back ground and difference of
behavior of retaining wall using gabions and back ground at
the moment when inertia force works, and with these
influence, in Case 2 cracks are easily generated very near theretaining wall using gabions.
(3) Both in Case 1 and Case 2, if static analytical powerincreases, the range where tensile stress and shear stress ofbackground increase is widened.
(4) From the result of dynamic analysis, in Case 1, at thestage of small shaking level, it comparatively well coincidewith result of test. On the other hand, if shaking level isincreased, analysis cannot express adequately displacementof retaining wall using gabions by test. As well, in Case 2, atthe stage of low shaking level, cumulative displacement
generated on the retaining wall using gabions cannot be
expressed. This comes from the fact that influence of local
ruin of back ground generated by collision of retaining wallusing gabions back ground and increase of local stresscannot be well expressed.
(5) From the tests and the results of dynamic analysis andstatic analysis, there is a possibility that in Case 2 of leantype, local cracks are easily generated on the back groundnear the retaining wall using gabions and it is supposed thata little bit of swelling is generated in gabions, but problem
of stability such as leaning forward is difficult to begenerated compared with Case 1, and therefore Case 2
shows the shape with better earthquake resistance.
Acknowledgements
This study was executed with grant of subsidy for scientificresearch fund (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
B(general) 16H04413 and Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research B (overseas academic research)16H05746). We
would like to express our deepest gratitude to the people
concerned.
125

EPI International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 2, Aug 2019, pp. 116-126

References[1] Association of Nationwide Disaster Prevention and Japan River
Association, Knowledge of gabion (in Japanese), p.166, 1963.
[2] Nakazawa, H., Manandhara, S., Hara, T., Suetsugu, D., Kuribayashi,K., Nishi, T., Sakuraba, T.,Kariya, T.,Ko-chi, Y. and Hazarika, H.,
Report on damages caused by the 2015 Nepal Gorkha Earthquake,
JAEE International Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, pp.2-36,
2015.
[3] Yamada, M., Hayashida, T., Mori., J, Mooney., W, Building damage
survey and microtremor measurements for the source region of the2015 Gokha, Nepal Earthquake，Annuals of Disas. Prev. Res. Inst,
Kyoto Univ., No.59 A,2016, pp.65-73, 2016.
[4] Hara, T., Nakazawa, H., Suetsugu, D., Kuribayashi, K., Nishi,T.,
Tadokoro, Y., Miyoshi, K., Zhang, H., Field survey on damages ofgabion structures caused by the 2015 Nepal Gorkha earthquake andexamination of specific measures for earthquake resilience
improvement，Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers A1,
Vol.74，No.4, pp.I_586- pp.I_597, 2018.
[5] Suetsugu, D., Hara, T., Nakazawa, H., Kuribayashi, K., Shinagawa,D., Nishi, T. and Zhang, H., Damage survey on 1gabion structures in
the 2015 Nepal Gorkha Earthquake – Physical properties of stonematerials packed in the gabion –, 51st Japan National Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering(in Japanese)， pp.1661-1662, 2016.
[6] Kuribayashi, K., Nishi, T., Zhang, H., Bhattarai, P. K., Hara, T.,
Suetsugu, D. and Nakazawa, H., Damage survey on gabion structuresin the 2015 Nepal Gorkha Earthquake – Construction method to fillingmaterials in gabions –, 51st Japan National Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering(in Japanes)， pp.1663-1664, 2016.
[7] Nakazawa, H., Hara, T., Suetsugu, D., Kuribayashi, K., Nishi, T. andHazarika, H., Residual deformation in full-scale shake table test of agabion retaining wall for road, The 15th International Symposium on
Geo-disaster Reduction (15th IS-GdR), p.109, 2017.
[8] Nakazawa, H., Hara, T., Suetsugu, D., Nishi, T., Kuribayashi, K.,
Miyoshi, K. and Shimomura, S. , Experimental evaluation onearthquake-resistance of road retaining wall using gabion, Journal ofDisaster Research , Vol.13, No.5, 2018.

[9] Nakazawa, Hara, T., H., Suetsugu, D., Nishi, T., Miyoshi, K.,
Shimomura, S., Usukura, K., Kuribayashi, K., Kimura, S., Shibahara,
R. ： Full scale experiments and stability evaluation on earthquake
resistance of gabion retaining wall -part1 overview of residual
deformation- ， Japan Society of Civil Engineers 73th Annual
Scientific Conference(in Japanese), pp.689-690, 2018.
[10] Usukura, K., Nakazawa, H., Nishi, T., Hara, T., Suetsugu, D., Miyoshi,
K., Shimomura, S., Kuribayashi, K., Kimura, S., Shibahara, R., Fullscale experiments and stability evaluation on earthquake resistance of
gabion retaining wall -part2 Stability evaluation-，Japan Society of
Civil Engineers 73th Annual Scientific Conference(in Japanese),
pp.691-692, 2018.
[11] Nishi, T., Nakazawa, H., Usukura, K., Hara, T., Suetsugu, D., Miyoshi,
K., Shimomura, S., Kuribayashi, K., Kimura, S., Shibahara, R, Fullscale experiments and stability evaluation on earthquake resistance of
gabion retaining wall -part3 Evaluation by FEM analysis- ，Japan
Society of Civil Engineers 73th Annual Scientific Conference(inJapanese), pp.693-694, 2018.
[12] Hara, T., Suetsugu, D., Manandhar, S., Nakazawa, H., Kuribayashi,K., Nishi, T., Sakuraba, T., Kariya, T., Kochi, Y. and Hazarika, H.:
Damage survey on gabion structures in the 2015 Nepal Gorkha
Earthquake – Outline of survey –, 51st Japan National Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering(in Japanese)，pp.1657-1658, 2016.
[13] Duncan, J. M. and Chang, C. , Nonlinear analysis of stress and strain
in soils, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
ASCE,Vol.96, No.SM5, pp.1629-1653, 1975.
[14] Hara, T., Tadokoro, Y., Shibahara, R., Suetsugu, D., Nakazawa, H.,
Nishi, T., Kuribayashi, K., Evaluation on earthquake resistance ofretaining wall using gabions by laboratory tests -Part.1 Shear strengths
characteristic of infilling materials-53st Japan National Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering(in Japanese), pp.1795-1796, 2018.
[15] Tanaka, Y., Kudo, K., Nishi, K., Okamoto, T., Kataoka, T. andUeshima,T., Small strain characteristics of soil in Hualien, Taiwan,
Soils and foundations, Vol.40, No.3, pp.111-125, June 2000.

126