Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference 2020

December 17-19, 2020, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam

Visakhapatnam Chapter

Comparative Analysis of Single and Two-tiered Geo-

Synthetic Reinforced Soil Walls subjected to Dynamic
Excitation

Anindita Gogoi1 and Arup Bhattacharjee2

1
P.G. Student, Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat 785007, India
2
Associate professor, Civil Engg., Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat 785007,India
[email protected]

Abstract. Geo-synthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls are the most common and
effective soil retaining structures. This technique has been chosen more and
more often due to its aesthetics, stability, cost-effectiveness and sound perfor-
mance during earthquakes. From literature and current design guidelines, it is
observed that tensile stresses in reinforcement increases with increase in height
of GRS walls. The tensile stresses in reinforcement can be reduced by con-
structing the GRS walls in tiered fashion with facing discontinuity by an offset
at facing. This paper presents a comparison of responses of single and two-
tiered GRS walls with different offset distance subjected to dynamic excitation.
The analysis is conducted by simulation of numerical models of 9 m height
walls using finite element software PLAXIS 2D. A validation analysis is con-
ducted and results are compared with experimental results reported by Ling et
al. (2005). Validated parameters are used to simulate single and two-tiered walls
where tiered offsets are considered as per FHWA (2010) guideline. The models
are subjected to seismic excitation of 0.25g Loma Prieta (1989) earthquake. The
dynamic behavior of walls in terms of lateral facing displacement, lateral earth
pressure, reinforcement load and acceleration amplification are investigated and
compared. The analysis shows that depending on offset distances multi-tiered
walls offer better seismic performance in comparison to the single-tiered walls.

Keywords: Geo-synthetic reinforced soil (GRS) wall, Multi-tiered reinforced

soil wall, Dynamic Excitation

1 Introduction

Geo-synthetic reinforced soil (GRS) retaining wall is one of the most common appli-
cations of reinforced soil where polymeric material geo-synthetic is used as rein-
forcement. It has gained wide spread acceptance in the engineering field as an eco-
nomic and innovative alternative of earth retaining wall. This technique has been
chosen more and more often due to its aesthetics, stability, cost-effectiveness and
sound performance during earthquakes. In seismically active areas, GRS walls are
constructed in the tiered configuration as it helps to reduce maximum lateral defor-

Theme 10 55
Anindita Gogoi and Arup Bhattacharjee

mation of the wall caused by earthquake loading. Researchers suggested that tiered
configuration in geo-synthetic reinforced soil (GRS) retaining wall is needed when
considering tall walls since both internal and external stability of the retaining wall is
affected by increasing wall height. The use of multi-tiered wall is applicable when the
height is greater than 6m (Liu et al. 2011).In FHWA 2010 guideline, the tiered wall is
termed as superimposed wall and suggests that GRS walls in tiered configuration with
smaller wall height reduces vertical stress on the facing element as well as the lateral
stress in the whole wall system. For multi-tiered walls, Liu et al. 2014 showed that
depending upon the offset distance, tiered configurations could considerably reduce
residual lateral facing displacement and average reinforcement load.

The objective of the present work is to study the dynamic behavior of single tiered
and two tiered Geo-synthetic Reinforced soil (GRS) retaining wall through numerical
simulation. The study is executed by comparing the dynamic behavior of the single-
tiered and two-tiered wall with different offset distances under dynamic loading con-
dition. In the present work, a set of numerical models has been developed using finite
element program PLAXIS 2D which can describe the seismic behavior of tiered GRS
retaining wall under dynamic condition. To assess the accuracy of the numerical pro-
cedure employed for this research work, a validation analysis is performed. After that,
numerical analyses of multi-tiered GRS retaining walls are performed for different
offset distances. Reinforcement and offset distance are considered as per FHWA
(2010) guideline.

2 Modeling of Geo-synthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Retaining

Wall

In this study, finite element software PLAXIS 2D is used for numerical modeling.
Plane strain model of 15 nodded triangular elements is used to discretize the soil
medium and other material clusters. The 15 nodded triangular elements are used as it
gives high quality stress results. The geo-synthetic reinforcements are simulated using
the 5 node geo-grid element and soil-structure interactions are simulated using the 5
node thin layer interface element. To simulate the effect of the real construction
process of GRS retaining wall, stage construction procedure is implemented. In
PLAXIS 2D, this procedure allows for a realistic determination of stresses and
displacements. An experimental modular block reinforced soil wall reported by Ling
et al. (2005) is selected for validation analysis. The experimental model is developed
using finite element program PLAXIS 2D and results are compared with experimental
results. The comparisons are carried out in terms of parameters such as horizontal
displacement, lateral earth pressure and acceleration amplification factor.

2.1 Validation

Ling et al. (2005) conducted an experimental study by using large scale shake table
test to observe the seismic performance of modular block reinforced soil retaining

Theme 10 56
 Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference 2020
December 17-19, 2020, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam

walls. The large-scale 2.8 m high modular-block geo synthetic-reinforced soil wall
was subjected to significant shaking using the 0.8g Kobe earthquake motions. The
wall was 2.8 m high, 5m long and 2m wide constructed on 20cm thick foundation.
The facing blocks were 24 cm high, 30 cm deep and 45 cm wide by creating an angle
78 degree with foundation. The wall was backfilled with fine Tokachi sand with rela-
tive density 55% and polyester geogrid (PET) of length 205 cm were placed at a ver-
tical distance of 60 cm. The foundation was constructed with the same type of sand as
backfilled soil. To prevent the waves reflecting from the steel walls during shaking,
10 cm thick expanded polystyrene (EPS) boards were placed at the front and back
ends of the steel container.

Fig.1. The geometry of the model used for validation (after Ling et al. 2005)

Backfill soil

The linear elastic perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb model is considered to represent

the sand used in foundation and backfill in the physical model. Basic input parameters
for Mohr-Coulomb models are elastic modulus (E), cohesion (c), frictional angle (ϕ),
Poisson’s ratio (ν), and dilatancy angle (ѱ).

Facing Block, Geo-grids and EPS board

The geo-grids are modeled using geo-grid element with modulus of axial stiffness
(EA). The facing blocks are modeled as linear elastic material using plate element
which consists of input parameters including elastic modulus (E), Poisson’s ratio (ν),
and unit weight (γ). The EPS boards are modeled as linear elastic and the input pa-
rameters are modulus of elasticity (E), Poisson’s ratio (ν) and density (γ).

Interface element

In order to properly simulate the soil structure interaction, interface elements are used
between two different materials. The interface elements are modeled as linear elastic
material using interface element. The roughness of the interaction is modeled by
choosing a suitable value for strength reduction factor R inter which is interlinked to
the strength properties of the soil layer. The R inter are chosen as 0.7, 0.65 and 0.5 for
interface between soil-geogrid, soil-concrete and concrete-geogrid.

Theme 10 57
Anindita Gogoi and Arup Bhattacharjee

Dynamic boundary condition

In the numerical model, the side boundary nodes are fixed in the horizontal direction
and bottom boundary nodes are fixed in both horizontal and vertical direction. In
dynamic analysis, to reduce reflections of seismic waves reaching the model bounda-
ries, special dynamic boundaries are provided. Earthquake load is defined by pre-
scribe displacement and applied at the bottom boundary with a maximum horizontal
acceleration of 0.8g Kobe Earthquake (1995). To simulate the damping of soil, damp-
ing ratio of 5% is taken for soil.

Table 1. Material properties of Finite element (FE) model

Backfill soil properties

Elastic Modulus(kN/m2) 159 x 103
Cohesion (kPa) 1
Mass density (kN/m3) 14.30
Poisson’s ratio 0.33
Angle of friction(o) 38
Dilatancy angle (o) 8
Facing wall
Elastic Modulus(kN/m2) 2 x 106
Mass density (kN/m3) 23
Poisson’s ratio 0.2
EPS Board
Elastic Modulus(kN/m2) 2 x 106
Mass density (kN/m3) 1
Poisson’s ratio 0.2
Geogrid
Axial stiffness (kN/m) 680

Fig. 2. Numerical mesh(FE model

Theme 10 58
 Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference 2020
December 17-19, 2020, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam

Horizontal Displacement of facing

Figure 3 shows the maximum displacements measured on the experimental wall and
the maximum displacements are calculated using the finite element (FE) Model. The
maximum displacement of the FE model is found to be 75 mm at the top which is
very close to the measured value 72 mm as discussed by Ling et al. (2005). Therefore,
good agreement is shown in between the FE model and the experimental model.

Fig. 3. Horizontal displacement measured by Ling et al. (2005) and FE Model

Lateral soil stress

Figure 4 illustrated the lateral stress obtained at facing during dynamic excitation
from the experimental model and FE analysis. Both the wall has maximum lateral
stress at the bottom and minimum at the top of the wall. The maximum lateral stresses
are found to be 31 kPa and 28 kPa for PLAXIS 2D model and experimental model
respectively

Fig. 4. Lateral stress measured by Ling et al. (2005) and FE model

Theme 10 59
Anindita Gogoi and Arup Bhattacharjee

Horizontal acceleration amplification

Horizontal acceleration amplification along the height of the wall obtained from nu-
merical analysis and experimental analysis at the end of dynamic excitation is pre-
sented in Figure 5.The amplification factor is given for the ratio of maximum acceler-
ation in the backfill, typically at the top of backfill, to the acceleration at the founda-
tion level (Ling et al, 2005). It is observed from the figure that the measured and pre-
dicted acceleration amplification is in reasonable agreement. The peak acceleration
computed by the FE model is 1.2 while the measured value suggested by Ling et al,
2005 is 1.1.

Fig. 5. Horizontal acceleration amplification factor measured by Ling et al. (2005) and FE
model

The validation procedure adopted for the present work shows that numerical results
are in good agreement with experimental results. Therefore it can be suggested that
that the finite element method is capable of simulating the construction behavior of
geo-synthetic reinforced soil retaining wall.

3 Numerical Modeling of Multi-Tiered GRS Wall with Offset

Distances

In the present work, with the aim of investigating the seismic behavior of tiered geo-
synthetic reinforced soil retaining wall under dynamic load, a 9 m height wall is se-
lected for numerical analysis. Using the same model parameters from validate model,
single-tiered and two-tiered walls are developed. Firstly, single-tiered wall with 12
geo-grid reinforcement of length 0.7 times of wall is considered for simulation. Fur-
ther, two-tiered wall of each 4.5 m tier height with different offset distances of 0.5 m,
1.5m, 2m, 2.5m and 3m are considered for numerical simulations. The offset length
and reinforcement length are calculated as per FHWA (2010). A record of the 1989
Loma Prieta with a peak acceleration of 0.25g is used as input and applied at the base
of the walls. The dynamic behavior of walls are studied in terms of parameters such
as horizontal displacement, lateral earth pressure, reinforcement load and acceleration
amplification factor.

Theme 10 60
 Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference 2020
December 17-19, 2020, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam

Fig. 6. FE model of Single-tiered GRS wall(Zero offset)

Fig. 7. FE model of Two-tiered GRS wall (0.5 m offset)

Fig. 8. Acceleration time-history for Loma Preita Earthqauke (1989)

3.1 Horizontal displacement of facing

Figure 9 shows the comparison of lateral displacement of the single-tiered wall and
two-tiered wall with different offset lengths. The maximum displacement at the top of
the walls are found to be 152 mm, 120 mm, 86 mm, 72mm, 66 mm and 52mm for
zero offset, 0.5 m offset, 1.5 m offset,2m offset, 2.5m offset, and 3 m offset respec-
tively. The results show that maximum displacement decreases with increase in tier
offset length. During an earthquake retaining wall experienced an additional thrust

Theme 10 61
Anindita Gogoi and Arup Bhattacharjee

behind it, which is known as dynamic earth pressure. Due to the effect of dynamic
earth pressure, wall exhibit excessive horizontal deformation. But in retaining wall
with tiered configuration shows smaller displacement, unlike vertical wall. The small-
er displacement is the result of the smaller inertial force comes from the smaller mass
in the upper tier. Hence it can be suggested that by providing adequate offset distanc-
es in vertical wall, notable displacement can be reduced.

Fig. 9. Wall deformation for single-tiered and two-tiered wall with different offset distances

3.2 Reinforcement Load

The variation of reinforcement load distribution along the height of the wall of all
cases is shown in Figure 10. As can be seen in figure, the occurrence of the maximum
reinforcement load decreases significantly with an increase in tier offset. The maxi-
mum reinforcement loads are found to be 14.3 kN/m,12.89kN/m,10.9 kN/m, 9.6
kN/m, 8.4kN/m and 7.2kN/m for offset distances of zero offset, 0.5m offset, 1.5m
offset, 2 m offset, 2.5 m offset and 3 m offset respectively. In reinforced soil retaining
wall, internal stability depends on the reinforcement layer which is basically known as
tension resisting component. The role of tensile reinforcement is to resist induced
shear deformation due to dynamic force. Therefore, from the results presented in Fig-
ure 10, it can be concluded that by providing offset distance in single-tiered wall,
reinforcement load can be significantly reduced.

Fig. 10. Reinforcemnt laod for single-tiered and two-tiered wall with different offset distances

Theme 10 62
 Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference 2020
December 17-19, 2020, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam

3.3 Lateral soil pressure at the face of the wall

Figure 11 compares the lateral soil pressure of single-tiered and two-tiered walls with
offset distances. As can be seen from the figure, the maximum soil pressure occurs at
near the base of the wall and decreases linearly towards the top, attained a very small
value at the top of the wall for all cases. The maximum lateral soil stresses are found
to be 189 kPa, 171 kPa, 160 kPa, 151 kPa, 148 kPa and 135 kPa for zero offset, 0.5 m
offset, 1.5 m offset, 2m offset, 2.5 m offset and 3m offset respectively near the bottom
of the walls. The lateral soil pressure at the mid height are found to be 30.3 kPa ,
28.12 kPa, 26 kPa , 24.7 kPa and 24 kPa for 0.5 m offset, 1.5 m , 2m ,2.5 m offset
and 3 m offset respectively. Thus, it can be observed that maximum lateral stress
decrease with an increase in tier offset distance.

Fig. 11. Lateral soil pressure on the face of the wall for single-tiered and two-tiered wall with
different offset distances.

3.4 Acceleration amplification factor

Figure 12 shows the horizontal acceleration amplification recorded at backfill soil for
different tier offset lengths. The acceleration amplification factor is defined as the
ratio of the maximum acceleration at that point to the acceleration applied at the
foundation. The measuring points are selected at a distance of 15 m away from the
toe. The acceleration amplification is minimum at the base of the wall and gradually
increases along the height of the wall. The peak acceleration amplifications are ob-
served at the top surface of the walls and are found to be 1.51, 1.49, 1.542, 1.56, 1.59
and 1.65 for offset lengths of 0 m, 0.5 m, 1.5m, 2m, 2.5m and 3m respectively. As can
be seen in the Figure 12, acceleration amplifications are slightly higher in the multi-
tiered walls due to the effect of wall facing.

Theme 10 63
Anindita Gogoi and Arup Bhattacharjee

Fig. 12. Horizontal Accleration amplification factor recorded at backfill soil for different tier
offest lengths.

4 Conclusions

In the present work, verified finite element models are used to conduct numerical
analysis on the seismic performance of tiered GRS retaining wall. Finite element pro-
gram PLAXIS2D is used to simulate the construction procedure of single tiered and
two tiered wall. A record of the 1989 Loma Prieta is used as input earthquake for
dynamic excitation. The seismic responses are studied in terms of horizontal dis-
placement of facing, maximum reinforcement load, lateral soil pressure and accelera-
tion amplification.

The following observations are made from the present study:

1. Two-tiered wall can significantly reduce the horizontal displacement and maxi-
mum reinforcement load in comparison to the wall with single-tiered configura-
tion. The magnitude of smaller displacement and smaller reinforcement load is
due to the effect of smaller soil mass in upper tiers.
2. Two-tiered wall also reduces the maximum lateral stress considerably compared
to the single-tiered wall.
3. The acceleration amplifications are high in multi-tiered wall due to the influence
of wall facing.
Therefore, it can be seen from the present study that multi-tiered configuration signif-
icantly improves the seismic performance of GRS wall.

Theme 10 64
 Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference 2020
December 17-19, 2020, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam

References

1. FHWA Publication: Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes De
sign and Construction Guidelines, Vol. I & II. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-024, US
Department of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), US (2010).
2. Ling, H. I., Mohri,Y., Leshchinsky, D., Burke, C., Matsushima, K. and Liu, H. : Large-
Scale Shaking Table Tests on Modular-Block Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 4©ASCE, ISSN 1090-
0241/2005/4 pp.465–476 (2005).
3. Ling, H.I., Yang, S., Leshchinsky, D., Liu, H. and Burke, C.: Finite-element simulations of
full scale modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls under earthquake loading. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol.135, No. 5, pp. 653-661 (2010).
4. Liu, H.: Comparing the seismic responses of Single and multi-tiered Geo-synthetic rein-
forced soil walls: Geo-Frontiers, ASCE (2011).
5. Liu, H., Yang, G. and Ling, H.I.: Seismic response of multi-tiered reinforced soil retaining
walls: Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 61-62(2014)1–12. pp. 1-12 (2014).
6. Reference Manual: PLAXIS 2D, Brinkgreve, R.B.J. (eds): Delft University of Technology
& PLAXIS, The Netherlands (2016).
7. Tutorial Manual: PLAXIS 2D, Brinkfreve, R.B.J. (eds), Deft University of Technology &
PLAXIS, Netherlands (2016).

Theme 10 65