## 4 Results and Discussion  
### Reinforcement Strain and Lateral Displacement of Sgc Mass  
#### 4.1.1 Effect of Compaction Procedures on Reinforcement Strain  
Figure 3 shows the axial strain of the geotextile reinforcement at depths 0.4 m and 1.2 m from the top surface of the model. Three different types of compaction procedures (Figure 2b) have been simulated, each with different compaction loads of \(q\) of 10, 30, 44, 60 and 70 kPa for the 0.2 m thick soil lift. At the end of the compaction stage, a surcharge load \(p\) of 600 kPa was applied to the top surface of the GRS walls specimen.  
Figure 3a,b indicates that the types of compaction procedures shown in Figure 2b do not have any effect on the axial strain developed in the reinforcement; there were, however, some minor variations from both ends of the reinforcement. Compaction procedure Type-III with \(w\) = 0.7 m generated the largest axial strain while procedure Type-II generated the least axial strain at both ends.  
Reference [20] performed a 2D numerical modelling on the full-scale reinforced soil wall No. 1, which was built at the Royal Military College of Canada ([15]). The wall was 3.6 m high, with a facing inclination of 8\({}^{\circ}\) to the vertical. The length of the geogrid was 2.52 m while the vertical spacing of the geogrid was 0.6 m. The 2.52 m long reinforcement terminated some 42% into the soil backfill, which has a width of 5.95 m. Reference [20] observed that Type-I generated the largest axial strain; furthermore, the effect of compaction procedures on  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Materials Properties** & **2 m SGC Mass** & **6 m GRS Mass** \\ \hline \hline
**Block-Block Interface** & & \\ \hline Model & Mohr-Coulomb & N/A \\ Stiffness modulus (kPa) & 3 \(\times 10^{6}\) & N/A \\ Unit weight \(\gamma\) (kN/m\({}^{3}\)) & 0 & N/A \\ Poisson’s ratio \(\
u\) & 0.45 & N/A \\ Friction angle \(\phi\) (\({}^{o}\)) & 33.33 & N/A \\ Apparent cohesion \(c\) (kPa) & 46.67 & N/A \\ Stiffness modulus (kPa) & 74,829.711 & N/A \\ \hline \hline
**Soil-Reinforcement Interface** & & \\ \hline Model & Mohr-Coulomb & Mohr-Coulomb \\ Unit weight \(\gamma\) (kN/m\({}^{3}\)) & 0 & 0 \\ Poisson’s ratio \(\
u\) & 0.45 & 0.45 \\ Friction angle \(\phi\) (\({}^{o}\)) & 40 & 36 \\ Apparent cohesion \(c\) (kPa) & 56 & 0 \\ Stiffness modulus (kPa) & 106,685.26 & 88,000 \\ \hline
**Geometrical Configuration** & & \\ \hline Wall height \(H\) (m) & 2 & 6 \\ Wall aspect ratio L/H & 0.7 & 0.7 \\ Reinforcement vertical spacing \(S_{\mathrm{v}}\) (m) & 0.2 & 0.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Defined for zero thickness interface element. \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) Soil properties of Model A were derived from the triaxial testing by Reference [6]. \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) Material properties of the facing block and the soil of Model B were extracted from Reference [6].  
\end{table}
Table 3: _Cont._reinforcement strain was found to be much more obvious in Reference [20] than that observed in this study.  
It should be noted that the geometrical configuration simulated by Reference [20] is different from that simulated in this study. The reinforcement simulated in this study was almost half (1.4 m) the length used in Reference [20]. In addition, during the compaction stage, the 1.4 m long reinforcements were \"partially\" fixed at both ends by the facing blocks.  
On the other hand, the strain profiles were different for reinforcement at different depths. At the shallower depth, Figure 3a, the maximum strain of 0.67% was observed to develop at the locations 0.2 m from the both ends of the reinforcement, while at the deeper depth, Figure 3b, the maximum strain of 0.9% was seen to develop at the middle of the reinforcement. The maximum strain levels observed in this study are comparable to that observed in Reference [20], which is less than 1.4%. The slightly larger axial strain generated in Reference [20] was probably because their wall was 1.8 times taller than the one used in this study.