GEOSYNTHETICS ENGINEERING: IN

THEORY AND PRACTICE

Prof. J. N. Mandal

Department of civil engineering, IIT Bombay,

Powai , Mumbai 400076, India.
Tel.022-25767328
email: cejnm@civil.iitb.ac.in

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

 Module - 6
LECTURE - 28
Geosynthetics for reinforced soil retaining walls

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Recap of previous lecture..

Design factor of safety (FS) based on mode of failures

Ultimate limit state
Serviceability limit states
External stability under static loading
External stability under seismic loading
Internal stability

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay



Alternatively, Le can be expressed as per FHWA (1998),

F* = coefficient of pullout interaction
S v . h .FS pull between soil and geotextile.
Le
2 v .C r .F* .
= scale correction factor.

F* and for standard backfill materials except uniform

sand (Coefficient of uniformity, Cu < 4).

Type of reinforcement Default F* Default

Geogrid 0.8 tan 0.8
Geotextile 0.67 tan 0.6
Factor of safety for pullout should be 1.5. Minimum
embedment length (Le) is 1m.
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
Anchorage capacity of the reinforcement per unit width
(P) is expressed as,

P = 2 Le. v. Cr. F*.

P FSpull . Tmax

Tmax = Sv. h

For wrap-around face wall, geosynthetic overlap length

(Lo) can be expressed as,
S v . h .FSpull
L0
4 v .C r .F* . Minimum value of overlap (L0) is 1 m

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

c) Connection strength

For long-term creep and aging, consider a factor of

safety = 1.5
i) Connection testing for geosynthetic rupture (Simac et
al., 1993; Elias and Christopher, 1997):
Ts
Tac
RFD x RFCR x 1.5 Tac = maximum connection strength

Ts = Seam strength as per ASTM D 4884 for seams

RFD = Durability reduction factor for chemicals, stress
cracking, thermal oxidation and hydrolysis,
RFCR = Reduction factor for creep
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
ii) Connection testing for Pullout resistance of
geosynthetic (Elias and Christopher, 1997):

The maximum connection strength can be written as,

Tp
Tac
1 .5

TP = maximum pullout load per unit width of the

reinforcement or the pull out load at maximum
deformation of 20 mm, whichever occurs first

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

INTERNAL STABILITY CHECK FOR SEISMIC LOADING

The location of maximum tensile force line does not

change due to the rupture of the reinforcement or pull out
force during seismic loading.

Breakage failure

Tallowable.Cr
For static case: (Tmax )static
RF

Tallowable .C r
For dynamic case: (Tmax ) dynamic
0.75 RF

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

 Pull-out failure

Ppull .C r 2 x Fd* x
Tmax Ppull .C r
0.75 x FSp Tmax x L e . v .C r
0.75 x 1.5 0.75 x 1.5

Fd* (dynamic) = 0.8 F* (static)

= 0.6 (normally)

F* and = Pullout factor (default value)

Due to seismic loading, the overall stiffness of

geosynthetic will decrease. So, damping and
amplification may increase.
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
Step 6: Serviceability Limit State - Internal stability
Lateral displacement of wall face

Internal wall deformation

Determine the settlement of reinforced soil wall

External wall settlement

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

 COST CONSIDERATIONS

Koerner et al. (1998) compared the cost of geosynthetic

reinforced soil walls with various other retaining walls.
The cost of geotextile is about 25 % of the walls total
cost (Bell et al.1983).
In India, the cost for geosynthetics reinforced soil wall is
about 30% - 50% less than that of conventional gravity
retaining walls:
Geosynthetics and accessiroies = 35 %
Panel/block facing and mould =32 %
Labour =15 %
Margin/profit = 18 %
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
 800
Gravity Walls
700

600
Crib / Bin Walls
500
MSE (Metals)
400

300

200 MSE (Geosynthetics)

100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
After Koerner et al., 1998 Height of wall (m)

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

The material cost depends upon the following elements:
Modular block or Panel facia
Gravels as drainage material
Geosynthetics material as reinforcement (Geogrid,
Geotextile, Geocomposite)
Leveling pad
Cost of design
Soil and Geosynthetic testing
Site preparation and site assistance
Under drain pipe
Placement of backfill
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE FOR PRECAST
CONCRETE FACED WALLS
a) Foundation subgrade

Geogrid layers at the foundation Geocells as Foundation mattress

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

b) Leveling pad
The main objective of leveling pad is to erect the facing
elements.

Leveling pad (all dimensions are in mm)

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
 Plane cement concrete (P.C.C 1:2:4 lean concrete) is
placed beneath the leveling pad to minimize differential
settlement.

Leveling pad should be constructed continuously up to

20 m in length with a gap of 20 mm.

Curing for at least 24 hours prior to the placement of

the blocks / panels.

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

 c) Erection of facing elements

Cast with M-35 grade

concrete.

Erection of panel after curing

for 28 days.

The minimum thickness of

panel is 140 mm.

The Panels are square,

rectangular, hexagonal, cruciform
and diamond in shape.

Sequence of erection of panels

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
 Panel dimension of precast facia
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
Precast concrete modular blocks (After Bathurst
and Simac, 1994)

Face length = 200 mm-450 mm,

width = 200 mm-600 mm and
height = 150 mm - 200 mm.
weight of the block = 250 N to 500 N.
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
 The facing batter is not less than 1 in 40 but 6 degree
is preferable.

Minimum M 25 grade concrete should be used.

The facing units should be connected with the help of

shear keys, shear pins or shear lips.

The spacing between reinforcement should not be

more than 600 mm.

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Standard design of MSEW (After FHWA, 2009)
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
d) Placement of backfill and compaction

The backfill materials are compacted with a roller

compactor to achieve at least 95% modified Proctor
density. The lift thickness should not be more than 200 mm.

The light weight hand compactor not exceeding 75 kg

should be used to compact near to the facing elements.

Vibroplate compactor of maximum weight 1000 kg

should be used to compact within 1.5 m from the edge of
the facing elements.

No heavy equipment should be kept near to the face of

the walls.
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
 It is very important that during the compaction, both
horizontal and vertical alignment of facia panel or block
must be observed regularly.

e) Placement of reinforcement

After filling and compaction up to desired height,

geogrid reinforcement is connected with the facing
elements and placed horizontally.

The geogrid should be placed in the machine

direction perpendicular to the face of the wall.

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

e) Drainage (DDD)

Most of the reinforced soil structures fail (or collapse)

due to the development of excess hydrostatic pressure
at the back of the retaining walls.

Koerner and Soong (2001) documented that 20 out

of 26 mechanically stabilized earth walls fail either by
excessive deformation or collapse.

Therefore, proper design of drainage system is

needed.

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Drainage using a blanket with chimney drains
(After Collin et al. 2002)
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
Drainage system and geomembrane barrier for
reinforced soil wall (After FHWA, 2009)
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
f) Submission of materials and test reports by
manufacturer

The contractor should submit the following information to

the engineer,

Name of the manufacturer

Current full address
Polymer type for Geosynthetics
yarn/Fiber tie for Geosynthetic structure
Roll no of Geosynthetics, and
Certified test result.
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
g) Design critique

The mobilized strain in reinforced soil walls may be

relatively high because of the extensibility of
reinforcement.

It is recommended to use critical state shearing

resistance angle instead of peak friction angle of the soil
for design (Jewell, 1991).

At the end of construction, the serviceability strain

criteria for long design life of reinforced soil wall,

- 1.0 % for walls, and

- 0.5 % for bridge abutments
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
 Most of the reinforced soil structures fail due to the
lateral deformation at the top and bulging of the wall.

It is recommended to provide longer length

reinforcements at the top, middle and bottom of the
reinforced wall

For the remaining height of the wall, shorter length

reinforcements can be used.
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
 FAILURES OF STRUCTURES
The geosynthetic reinforced soil walls fail or collapse due to
several reasons:
Excess hydrostatic pressure
Excessive lateral deformation;
Improper selection of backfill materials
Local instability (distortion) of modular blocks or panels,
Contractors lack of workmanships for quality control,
Bearing capacity and deep-seated failure
Global failure also causing formation of huge heave in front
of the facia elements
No site-specific design and also Copycat and paste
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
 Heavy compaction within 1 to 1.5 m of wall face
No outlet drainage provided for internal drainage
Geogrid tension failure
Geogrid connection failure
Geogrid slippage or block wall failure
Poor attention to facing connection,
poor inspection,
Improper compaction
poor quality control and assurance
Inadequate design of the backfill slope and the foundation
Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay
Codes and design Standards

Strengthened / reinforced soil and other fills, BSI (1995)

Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil

slopes: Design and construction guidelines. FHWA, 2001.

Design manual for segmental retaining walls, NCMA Design

manual, 1996.

Segmental retaining walls seismic design manual, Dr. R.

J. Bathurst.

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

 Please let us hear from you

Any question?

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

 Prof. J. N. Mandal
Department of civil engineering, IIT Bombay,
Powai , Mumbai 400076, India.
Tel.022-25767328
email: cejnm@civil.iitb.ac.in

Prof. J. N. Mandal, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay