## 3 Study on the Deformation under Seismic Loads
### Comparison between the Experimental and Calculated Values  
By analyzing the \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) values of two different panel forms of modular reinforced soil retaining walls under the action of WL waves and EL waves, the practicability of four calculation methods for the displacement prediction of modular reinforced soil retaining walls is judged. The meaning of \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) is shown in Table 6.  
3.1 Comparative Analysis of the Test Values and Measurement Values of the Single-Step Module Shaking Table  
The \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) obtained by the four calculation methods in Figures 9 and 10 show that with the increase of input ground motion, the relative difference under each calculation method increases gradually, indicating that the deviation between the calculated value and the measured value is getting larger and larger, and the difference between each method is increasing. When the \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) value was at the initial 0.1 g, each \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) value was the closest. With the increase of acceleration, the gap between each \(\eta_{1}\), \(\eta_{2}\) and \(\eta_{3}\), \(\eta_{4}\) values showed an increasing trend, and the size and trend of \(\eta_{1}\) and \(\eta_{2}\) were almost consistent from beginning to end. When the similarity ratio is 1:4, the WL wave is input. When the peak acceleration is less than 0.6 g, the \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) values are all greater than 0, and the calculated values are less than the measured values. When the peak acceleration reaches 1.0 g, the \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) values are all less than 0, and the calculated values are greater than the measured values. The calculated values are conservative. When the peak acceleration is 0.1-0.6 g, the \(\eta_{1}\) values are smaller than other \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) values, which can be predicted by the Richards and Elms upper bound method. When the peak acceleration is 0.6-1.0 g, the \(\eta_{1}<\eta_{2}<\eta_{4}<\eta_{3}\); that is, the [PERSON] and Elms upper bound method \(<\) Cai and Bathurst average upper bound method \(<\) [PERSON] upper bound method \(<\) [PERSON] and Liao average fitting method. Correspondingly, EL wave is input at the similarity ratio of 1:2. When the input peak acceleration is 0.1-0.6 g, \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) values are greater than 0, \(\eta_{1}\) values and \(\eta_{2}\) values are close to 0, and when the input peak acceleration is 0.8-1.0 g, \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) values are all less than 0, \(\eta_{3}\) and \(\eta_{4}\) are much larger than \(\eta_{1}\) and \(\eta_{2}\). At this time, \(\eta_{3}\) minimum distance from 0 line, and the [PERSON] and [PERSON] average fitting method is more suitable for predicting the displacement value. Comparing Figures 8 and 9, it can be seen that the \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) value under the Ausilio calculation method is generally closer to the 0 value line than that under the Muni method, so the Ausilio method is more suitable. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline \(\eta_{\text{n}}\) & **Implication** \\ \hline \(\eta_{1}\) & \(1-\text{[PERSON] method calculated value}/measured value \\ \(\eta_{2}\) & \(1-\text{[PERSON] method calculated value}/measured value \\ \(\eta_{3}\) & \(1-\text{[PERSON] method calculated value}/measured value \\ \(\eta_{4}\) & \(1-\text{[PERSON] method calculated value}/measured value \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Description of the method. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Peak**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Single-Step Block**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Two-Tiered Block**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ratio of Similitude 1:2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ratio of Similitude 1:4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ratio of Similitude 1:10**} \\ \hline  & WL wave & EL wave & WL wave & EL wave & WL wave & EL wave \\
0.1 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.04 & 0.05 & - & - \\
0.2 & 0.07 & 0.11 & 0.06 & 0.08 & 0.07 & 0.1 \\
0.4 & 0.09 & 0.17 & 0.1 & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.17 \\
0.6 & 0.12 & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.15 & - & - \\
0.8 & 0.16 & 0.26 & 0.13 & 0.