RESEARCH PAPERS

BEHAVIOR OF 22M TWO TIERED GEOGRID

REINFORCED SOIL WALL
By
ANKESH SHRIVASTAVA * D. KISHAN **
* Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Sati Vidisha.
** Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Manit Bhopal.

ABSTRACT
Two types of 22m Two Tiered and 44m Four Tiered high geogrid reinforced soil walls with same kinds of concrete block
wall facing were constructed in Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh in which 22m high vertical reinforced soil wall with concrete
block wall facing has been started and using for the transportation purpose. From the beginning of the 22m reinforced
wall construction stage, wall displacement or strain of the geogrid, earth pressure, settlement of the foundation ground,
etc. were measured for a long period of time. The long term behavior of the geogrid reinforced soil walls was evaluated
based on these measurements and observations. This paper present a case history illustrate the use of finite-element
procedure as a design aid for the design and analysis of 22m two tiered soil wall by software PLAXIS 8.2. The finite-element
analysis provides relevant information on the mechanical behavior that was otherwise difficult to obtain from the limit-
equilibrium based current design approaches.
Keywords: 22m Geogrid, Reinforced Soil Wall, PLAXIS 8.2

INTRODUCTION of 22m two tiered geogrid reinforced soil walls based on

A 22m high reinforced two tiered soil walls with hollow
concrete block wall has constructed using geogrids and
analysis is done by a finite element programmed PLAXIS
8.2. From the construction stage, the wall displacement or
strain of the geogrid, the earth pressure at the bottom of
the reinforced soil walls, etc. were measured by PLAXIS 8.2
revealing that no substantial change of the environments
around any of these soil walls has occurred, and by using
BS 8006-2000, and M. Koerner (1980). A text book for use
of geosyntheticsin soil wall initial designing of the wall has
been carried out.
The use of geogrids to build reinforced soil walls has been
increasing year by year since the geogrid rein- forced soil
method was first introduced to Japan in 1983. Because
the method was at the research and development stage
when it was introduced, many of the reinforced soil walls
were applied as temporary or trial construction, with the
result that there were few full-scale reinforced soil wall built
using geotextiles that have been measured continually
for more than 10 years.
This report describes the results of a study of the behavior
these measurements and observations.
1. Outline of the Reinforced Soil Walls and Survey
The requirement of the road for the transportation purpose
continuously increases, and it is necessary invent new
technique to minimize the use of cement concrete in
structures and generate a new environment friendly
techniques for the construction of road. Ghat roads are
major issue for how to make roads in hilly areas. Therefore,
in the present study, designing and analysis of two tiered
22m soil reinforced wall has been carried out with the help
of using finite element program PLAXIS.
Finally, a model is proposed to evaluate the performance
of a reinforced soil wall reinforced by SR-2/UX-1700
geogrid with backfill soil, with respect to evaluate
settlement, stress-strain relations, axial forces, shear
forces, incremental deflection, and displacement.
1.1 Reinforced soil walls
Reinforced soil wall of 22m high with slope gradients of
1:0.1. The wall facing used to build by hollow concrete
blocks was constructed with wall facing by wrapping the soil

26 i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 1 l

No. 1 l
March - May 2012
RESEARCH PAPERS

Min. Max. reinforced soil wall, drainage sand layer were taken by
X 0.000 15.4 placing horizontally and vertically behind the wall facing as
Y 0.000 22
shown in Figure 1. The banking material was compacted to
Table 1a. Model Dimensions
be 85% or more of maximum dry density. The out line of
Model Plane strain
Element 15-Noded geogrid reinforced soil wall is shown in Table 1.
Table 1b. Models The arrangement of geogrids was designed in order to
Identification EA [kN/m] ν satisfy the design safety factor (Fs=1.2) through stability
SR-2/UX-1700 64.10 0.00 calculations. It is reported that, reinforced earth retaining
Table 1c. Geotextile Data Sets Parameters
structures, beside its outstanding performance, a cost
Table 1. Outline of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Walls
saving of up to 30% to 50% below alternate solutions have
bags using a geogrid. The concrete blocks and the
been achieved. Seismic loading, differential heave and
geogrids were connected by attaching steel bars linked to
settlement requirements make rigid masonry and concrete
the geogrids to hooks installed in the concrete blocks. The
cantilever walls very difficult to achieve the desired safety
banking material was sandy soil, and because it contained
factor. Whereas, reinforced earth system when subjected to
fine-grain as reinforced soil as banking material of
seismic loads and differential earth movement has shown

Figure 1. Reinforced Soil Wall

Figure 2. Cross Section of 22m MSE Wall

i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 1 l

No. 1 l
March - May 2012 27
RESEARCH PAPERS

exceptional performance due to its flexibility and displacement tends to advance through- out the entire
inherent energy absorption capacity. wall height. Although these displacement distributions
1.2 Outline of the survey seem to vary slightly according to the gradient of the wall,
these results are the typical displacement characteristics
Wall consisting of height of 22 meter with 2 tiered each of
corresponding to the structures of the wall facing.
11m consisting14 layer of SR2/UX-1700 geogrid
reinforcement of ultimate design strength of 175 kN/m2, Figure-3 (b) & (c) shows change over time of the horizontal
the length of reinforcing layer in first tiered wall is of 20m displacement of the 1st & 2nd tiered wall from the
and second tiered heaving 15m reinforcing layer, the size beginning of banking work. The longitudinal axis
of reinforcing layer depends up on the angle (tan30) of represents the horizontal displacement value which is the
failure envelope. With minimum spacing of 0.5m and value obtained by dividing the average horizontal
maximum spacing of 2.65m. Carry a surcharge loading displacement of the wall by the wall height.
of IRC class 'A' loading. For the facing work modular block
of M-30 grade of size 300X300mm in plan and 200mm in
height were to be used. A 1m with height of 200mm P.C.C
(Plan Cement Concrete) work is done for providing proper
plane surface. In the original design construction
specification required that the backfill material be
compacted to a minimum of 95% of standard proctor. A
chimney with the height of 22 meter is also design to drain
of the runoff water. The wall shows the total displacement (a)
is about .048mm.
Measurements were conducted from the beginning of
the construction stage, continuing after its completion
and analysis is done by using PLAXIS 8.2. As shown in Figure
2, the vertical and horizontal displacement of the wall, the
strain of the geogrid, the vertical earth pressure at the
bottom of the reinforced soil wall and the vertical earth
pressure at the bottom of the reinforced soil wall has been
analyzed.
2. Measurement Results
2.1 Deformation of the wall (b)

Figure-3 (a) shows the distribution of the horizontal

displacement of the wall after the completion of wall. To
exclude the effect of displacement of the foundation
ground, the reference point was set at the bottom of the
wall facing to represent the displacement as the relative
displacement. If relatively flexible wall facing material is
used the displacement of top layer of wall tends to lean
forward. If, however, relatively stiff wall facing material is
used, an arc-shaped distribution with the maximum point
near the middle of the wall height is formed and the ( c)
Figure 3. lateral displacement of wall

28 i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 1 l

No. 1 l
March - May 2012
RESEARCH PAPERS
The speed of displacement tended to decrease, as the
deformation of the body of the reinforced soil wall settled.
Differences based on the stiffness of the wall facing
appeared conspicuously in displacement during banking
work. The stiffness of the wall facing is extremely effective
in restraining the deformation.
The maximum horizontal displacement of the wall is 0.30
mm. These are values that fall below the control reference
value (allowable maximum value of 3.0% (0.03H)) of wall
horizontal displacement for the vertical reinforced wall
with concrete panel wall facing.
2.2 Strain of the geogrids
Figure-4 shows the typical distributions of strain of the
geogrids classified according to wall facing. If relatively
flexible wall facing is used, the strain of the geogrid at
each layer has a distribution shape resembling a
parabola with its peak near the active failure line. If stiff wall
surface material is used, the strain of each geogrid at
each level has a distribution shape that is uniform or
triangular with its peak near the wall facing, revealing the
effects of differences in the form of the wall facing. In this
way, the strain distributions in Figure-5 can be assumed as
characteristic distribution shapes according on
differences in the form of wall facing. The quantity of strain
of geogrid in the reinforced soil with stiff wall facing is
Figure 4. Lateral displacement of both walls with respect to time
i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 1 l
No. 1 l
March - May 2012
overall smaller than that with relatively soft wall facing, and
it is assumed that the confining effects for the
embankment due to the longitudinal stiffness of the wall
facing is high.
It shows that in Figure-5 the rate of increase of the strain is
high near the wall surface in all geogrids, and that
localized increase in tension occurs through the entire
height of the soil wall. In particular, the largest strain
increase rate was found in geogrids installed near the
middle of the wall height 5m from the top in 1st tier, and
11m from the top i.e. in 2nd tier.
In Figure-5, the settlement by settlement plates (No. 1 to
No. 5) installed inside and at the top of the wall are
substituted for the relative settlement to the settlement of
the bottom of the wall facing to plot change over time
from the beginning of the banking work. Here upon, the
settlement of the bottom of the wall facing is assumed as
the settlement at each point of the wall facing
considering the stiffness of the wall facing material.
Therefore, a characteristic of the settlement of the
reinforced soil body is that at the foundation ground level
(No. 1), the settlement of the wall facing is dominant to the
embankment side, but inside the embankment (No. 2 to
No. 5), the embankment side tends to settle down larger
than the wall facing, and in particular, the largest relative
Curve 1 (blue) at top displacement of wall (2nd tier)
Curve 2 (red) at below foundation of wall (2nd tier)
Curve 3 (yellow) at top of wall (1st tier)
Curve 4 (pink) at below foundation (1st tier)
29
RESEARCH PAPERS

settlement occurs at the middle of the embankment the surcharge banking. The design values of vertical earth
height (settlement plate No. 2). This conforms to the pressure do not represent the actual distribution, and the
location of the geogrid where the rate of increase of the present design model that presumes.
strain near the wall facing shown in Figure-5 is highest. And The reinforced soil area to be a gravity retaining wall
the relative settlement of the embankment fluctuates until cannot be used to appropriately evaluate the behavior of
about 400 days and it is linked to the tendency of the a reinforced soil wall. The vertical earth pressure of a
increase of the strain of the geogrid. Consequently,
differences in the settlement of the banking material and
of the wall facing can be inferred as the principal cause of
the localized rise of strain of the geogrid near the wall
facing.
2.3 Vertical earth pressure at the bottom of reinforced
soil wall
Figure 6 shows the distribution of the vertical earth pressure
at the bottom of the MSE wall from the beginning of
banking work. In the case of relatively flexible wall facing,
the banking process caused vertical earth pressure
equivalent to the overburden pressure to act on the entire
bottom of the reinforced soil area. With stiff wall facing,
high earth pressure that exceeds the overburden pressure
is produced at the bottom of the wall facing from the initial
stage of the banking, and behind the wall facing, a
unique distribution that is far lower than the overburden
pressure is applied in a range that extends almost to the
active failure zone. These distributions are characteristics
dependent on the structure of the wall facing, and little
Figure 6. Vertical earth pressure at the bottom of reinforced soil wall
change can be seen, even approximately one year after

Curve 1(blue) strain curve for top of 2 tier wall

Curve 2 (red) strain curves below the foundation of 1 tier wall
Curve 3 (yellow) strain curve top of 1 tier wall
Curve 4 (pink) strain curves below the foundation of 2 tier wall

Figure 5. Strain vs. Depth

30 i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 1 l

No. 1 l
March - May 2012
RESEARCH PAPERS
reinforced soil wall could be considered to be equivalent to
the overburden pressure. Hence, it will be important to study
a design model that can be used to appropriately express
the earth pressure at the bottom of reinforced soil wall.
2.4 Deformation of the reinforced soil body
Figure 7 shows the change of the measured vertical earth
pressure at the bottom surface of the reinforced soil wall
from the beginning of banking work. As above stated, it
has been shown that the banking process caused
localized high increase in the earth pressure at the bottom
of the wall facing. But the vertical earth pressure at all
measuring points including the bottom of the wall facing
changed to almost steady. Therefore, even as ground
settlement continued, the functions of the reinforced soil
wall were maintained.
Figure 7 shows change over time of the inclination of the
foundation ground and of the wall facing under the
effects of settlement after the completion of the
surcharge banking.
Reinforced soil walls with concrete blocks as their wall
facing are used often in Europe and U.S. to take
advantage of their ability to improve the scenery. But, as
seen in the results of the measurement, it is necessary to
estimate an appropriate design value by preparing a
model that can quantitatively evaluate various
phenomena such as the localized increase of tensile strain
of the geotextile near the wall facing or a discontinuous
vertical earth pressure distribution at the bottom.
3. Results of Observations of the Reinforced Soil Walls
The external appearance of wall was observed practically
and part of each reinforced soil wall was excavated to
observe its interior in order to examine the state of
vegetation on their wall surfaces, the soundness of
structure of the wall facing, etc.
The visual observations of the laid geogrids as
reinforcement at the excavated points found no
evidence of any defects such as tears or other damage.
Figure 7. Deformation of the Reinforcement (geogrid)
i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 1 l
No. 1 l
March - May 2012
Within the observation of the excavation portions, no
defects such as breakage or other damage could be
seen on the connections between the geogrid and the
concrete blocks used as wall facing on the MSE walls. And
the roots of shrubs growing naturally on the top and other
parts of the reinforced soil walls were still growing after
passing through the geogrids.
The finite element analyses performed in this study have
indicated that geotextile reinforcement may be an
effective method of improving the performance of
embankments constructed over ghat road. The stabilizing
effect of the geotextile was seen to increase as the
geotextile modulus increased. The effect was greatest for
shallower deposits. The effect of geotextile reinforcement
was compared with alternative Construction techniques
which involved the use of light weight fill or berms alone and
in conjunction with geotextile reinforcement. In particular, it
was found that the combined use of geotextile
reinforcement and light weight fill may be a very effective
means of improving the performance of embankments
over hilly terrains. Sandy soil with cohesion shows less wall
movements than cohesionless soil. Hence it is
recommended that some cohesion can be added in
backfill soil by some additives or by soil stabilization.
Increased value of grid strength will end up with smaller
displacement therefore geogrid with higher strength is
recommended to use.
Conclusion
Various measurements of reinforced soil walls such as
displacement of wall, strain of geogrid, vertical earth
pressure at the bottom of reinforced soil wall, settlement
of embankment and foundation ground, etc. were
analyzed by FEM Method (PLAXIS). And part of each
reinforced soil wall has been observed and after complete
analysis it has obtained the following knowledge
concerning the behavior of geogrid reinforced soil walls
over a long period of time and actual condition of wall
facing and geogrid laid inside the embankment.
·Concerning the deformation of the wall after
construction, in the case of relatively flexible wall facing
material, displacement advances in the top layer, but in
the case of relatively stiff wall facing material, arc- shaped
31
RESEARCH PAPERS
deformation with its peak close to the middle of the wall
height appears.
·Concerning the increase of horizontal displacement
of the wall, for all three types of reinforced wall, most of the
increase occurs during banking, and the increase of
displacement after the completion is gentle gradual
increase and tends to settle the foundation.
·Strains of the geogrid are, in the case of flexible wall
facing, distributed in the shape of a parabola with its peak
close to the active failure line, and if relatively stiff wall
facing is done, its distribution is shaped like a triangle with
its peak close to the wall facing.
·In the case of relatively stiff wall facing, in all the laid
geogrids, a localized high strain increase rate is observed
near the wall facing, with the highest rate of strain increase
confirmed in geogrid laid particularly close to the middle
of the wall height.
·Concerning the vertical earth pressure at the bottom
of reinforced soil walls, in the case of flexible wall facing,
earth pressure equivalent to the overburden pressure is
produced across the entire bottom of the rein- forced soil
area, while in the case of stiff wall facing work, the earth
pressure has a unique distribution with high localized
pressure at the bottom of the wall facing.
·The study has also confirmed that the geogrid and
wall facing effectively provides a restraining effect
against deformation of the foundation ground that
continues after construction so that it follows this ground
deformation maintaining its functions as a sound soil
structure.
·The partial excavation and survey of the reinforced
soil walls found no evidence of any damage to the
geogrids or the wall facings that were used, confirming
that they were in sound condition.
References
[1]. Koerner, R.M., and Ko, F.K., (1982). Laboratory Studies
of Long Term Drainage Capability ofGeotextiles,
Proceedings, Part I. Second International Congress on
Geotextiles, LasVegas, August.
32 i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 1 l
[2]. Koerner, R.M. and Welsh, J.P., (1980b). Construction
and Geotechnical Engineering Using. synthetic Fabrics.
[3]. Mr. P.T. Raju, construction of tiered reinforced soil
retaining walls for widening of ghat road to sri durga
malleswara swami varla devastanam, Vijayawada.
[4]. Yoo c., design of a geosynthetic reinforced
segmental retaining wall in a tiered arrangement-use of
numerical modelling as a design aid.
[5]. thurst, R. J., Karpurapu, R. G. & Jarrett, P. M. (1992).
Finite elementanalysis of a geogrid reinforced soil wall. In
Grouting, Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics (eds
Borden, R. H., Holtz, R. O.and Juran, I.), Vol. 2, pp. 1213–1224.
ASCE Geotechnical Special publication No. 30.
[6]. Rowe, R. K., MacLean, M. D. and Soderman, K. L.,
Analysis of a geotextile reinforced embankment
constructed on peat. Canadian Geotech.J. 21 (3) (1984)
563-76
[7]. Rowe, R. K., MacLean, M. D. and Barsvary, A. K., The
obser ved behavior of a geotextile reinforced
embankment constructed on peat. Canadian
Geotechnical J., 21 (2) (1984) 289-304.Rowe, R. K., The
analysis of an embankment constructed on a
geotextile.Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Las
Vegas, 2 (1982) 677--82
[8]. Rmaine, J. T. & Ladd, C. C. (1988). Triaxial testing of
saturated cohesive soils. In Advanced Triaxial Testing of
Soil and Rock, ASTM Special Technical Publication No.
977, pp. 421–459.Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
[9]. ALIBURTOTN., A. (1981). Use of engineering fabric in
roadand embankment construction. Seminar on the Use of
synthetic Fabrics in Civil Engineering, Toronto, pp. 66-94.
[10]. Public Works Research Institute, (1992). Design and
Construction Manual for Reinforced Earth with Geotextile
(in Japanese), 404p
[11]. Tsukada, Y., Ochiai, Y. Miyatake, H. and Tajiri, N.
(1998). Field Performance Test of a Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Soil Wall with Rigid Facing, 6th International
Conference on Geosynthetics, pp.577-580
No. 1 l
March - May 2012
RESEARCH PAPERS

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

* Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Sati Vidisha.

** Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Manit Bhopal.

i-manager’s Journal on Structural Engineering, Vol. 1 l

No. 1 l
March - May 2012 33