For instance, [PERSON] [7] presented a theory to calculate compaction-induced residual lateral earth pressures of a frictionless, rigid, vertical and non-yielding wall; [PERSON] [8] analytically examined the effects of compaction at various levels of fill behind a retaining wall; [PERSON] [9] used a \(K_{0}\)-based nonlinear and a \(K_{0}\)-based bi-linear models to simulate compaction operation of GRS mass and obtained good agreement between the simulated CIS results and the measured data of unreinforced earth retaining walls; subsequently, [PERSON] [10; 11] suggested that CIS could be calculated using either the simplified bi-linear model, or the nonlinear model but with the aid of finite element analysis; based on the studies of References [9; 10], References [12; 13] used a simplified stress path that was developed based on--(i) the model introduced by [PERSON] [9], (ii) the companion hand-calculation procedure for an unreinforced soil mass by [PERSON] [10], and (iii) the concept of average stress of SGC behavior proposed by [PERSON] [14], to demonstrate that the CIS at any given location, as a result of multiple passes of a compactor moving towards or moving away from that location, could be estimated by applying the compaction load directly at the location under review. Numerical methods have been extensively utilized for analyzing the behavior of GRS walls. References [15; 16] numerically simulated the response of a full scale GRS modular block retaining wall undertaken at Royal Military College and compared the simulated response with the physical data obtained from project; a series of paper by [PERSON] [17; 18; 19; 20] were aimed to validate the numerical procedures of modeling CIS and investigate the combined effects of different controlling factors (i.e., wall height, stresses induced during backfill compaction, reinforcement stiffness, toe conditions, and facing stiffness) on the response of GRS walls under working stress conditions; Reference [21] predicted the performance of two well instrumented wrapped-face walls reinforced with either a welded steel wire mesh or a biaxial polypropylene geogrid, the reinforcement was represented by a general hyperbolic (nonlinear) axial load-strain-time model and the result for the welded steel wire mesh wall showed a better agreement with the measured data than that of the biaxial polypropylene geogrid wall. If aided by experimental and field measured data, the numerical methods have many advantages such as obtaining more comprehensive results, and investigating the effects of various parameters, which are difficult or costly to achieve in the laboratory and field tests. Two-dimensional (2D) numerical studies have been conducted by References [6; 12; 22; 23] to evaluate the composite behavior of the GRS wall constructed by Reference [6] under static loading condition. In particular, Reference [6] conducted a series of finite element analyses to examine the effect of specimen dimensions on the resulting global stress-strain and volume change relationships of SGC mass with the aim to determine the proper dimensions of a generic SGC that will produce load-deformation behavior sufficiently close to that of a large SGC mass. Reference [12] compared the hand-calculated compaction pressure of a 6-m high SGC mass obtained from their proposed analytical CIS model with that obtained from the finite element analysis; [PERSON] [22] performed a series of parametric study to examine the effects of reinforcement spacing, reinforcement stiffness, and soil stiffness on volume change behavior of a SGC mass; while [PERSON] [23] numerically studied the effects of CIS, reinforcement strength, and soil dilation angle on the stress-deformation behavior of a SGC mass. Many studies (see, for examples, [PERSON] [6; 12; 13; 15; 16; 21; 24; 25]) have evaluated the CIS due to fill compaction by simply simulating the compaction load as a uniform load applied at the top surface of each newly placed fill layer as the wall was constructed from the bottom up.