## 2 Study on the Deformation under Static Forces
### Comparison of the Measured Data and Calculation Methods  
To analyze the applicability of the deformation calculation methods, this paper uses the measured values of 10 modular reinforced soil retaining walls to calculate the results of the FHWA (F) method, GeoService (G) method, CTI (C) method, [PERSON] (1,2) method, [PERSON] (A) method, and [PERSON] (W) method, and analyzes the practicability of seven calculation methods. Table S2 summarizes the parameters of the 10 structures. Models 1, 2, 3, and 4 are practical engineering, models 5, 6, 7, and 8 are indoor prototype tests (1:1 indoor model test is carried out according to the test prototype), and models 9 and 10 are indoor model tests (according to the test prototype, the indoor model test designed by similarity ratio). Table S3 lists the measured values of 10 cases and the calculated values of 7 calculation methods under static P (kPa). Figures 4-6 show the comparison between the calculated values and the measured values (M) under each working condition. Because the calculated results of the IBW PAN method and He Wei method are negative and inconsistent with the actual situation, they are not included in the table. In this paper, the \(\eta\) value (1-calculated value/measured value) is defined. When \(\eta\) is 0, the predicted value is the same as the measured deformation. When the \(\eta\) value is greater than 0, the prediction method is not conservative, and the prediction method with an \(\eta\) value less than 0 represents the conservative prediction method. In 10 cases \(\eta\) the values are shown in Table 2 and Figure 5. The displacement value of case 9 under FHWA method in Figure 5 is \(-466.71\), which is excessively conservative, so it is not shown in Figure 5.  
Figure 4: Comparison between measured value and calculated value in case 1–4. Figure 5: Comparison between measured value and calculated value in case 5–8. The seven calculation methods are note applicable to all cases, and there may not be parameters in the formula in the case. The L/H values of case2-4 under FHWA method are 1.778-2.667, 1.355-2.033, 1.355-2.033, respectively, which are not between 0.3 and 1.175, which do not meet the conditions of formula, so the permanent displacement value cannot be obtained. In case 1 of the Wu (1) method, the reinforcement stiffness (K) parameter is missing. Case 9 cannot get a displacement because L/H = 0.5 is less than 0.7. In cases 1-4 and 10 under Wu (2) method, due to the lack of the friction angle (\(\delta\)) between the module bricks and the friction angle between the brick and soil (\(\beta\)), in case 9, since L/h is 0.5 less than 0.7, the displacement value cannot be obtained. Due to the lack of data in case 1 and case 10 under the Adams method, the displacement value cannot be obtained. Under the W method, case 1 lacks the geogrid elastic modulus (\(E_{r}\)) geogrid Poisson's ratio (\(v_{r}\)), cases 2-4 lack the geogrid elastic modulus (\(E_{r}\)) and the fill elastic modulus (\(E_{s}\)), and case 9 and case 10 lack the fill elastic modulus (\(E_{s}\)), so the calculated value cannot be obtained. As can be seen from Figure 7, the calculation results under seven calculation methods, \(\eta_{n}\) value analysis shows that, in 10 cases, the relative difference between the CTI method and the GeoService method is the smallest, because most \(\eta_{n}\) value is less than 0, so the existing calculation methods are conservative in predicting deformation, and the FHWA method is the most conservative. In cases 1-4 of the practical engineering cases, the GeoService method and CTI method show good practicability. Although the two methods need accurate reinforcement strain in calculation, the CTI method has less difference, so the CTI method is more accurate in displacement prediction in practical engineering.