ELSEVIER

Computers md Geotechnics 17 (1995) 219-299

0 1995 Elsevier Science Limited
Printed in Great Britain. A11 rights reserved
0266-352X/95/39.50
BEHAVIOUR OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED SOIL RETAINING WALLS
USING THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
Rajagopal KARPURAPU
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India 600036
Richard J. BATHURST
Department of Civil Engineering, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario,
Canada K7K 5LO
ABSTRACT
The Paper describes finite element models that are used to simulate the behaviour of two
carefully constructed and monitored large-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls.
The walls were constructed using a dense sand fill and layers of extensible polymeric (geosyn-
thetic) reinforcement attached to two very different facing treatments. The model walls were
taken to collapse using a series of uniform surcharge loads applied at the sand fill surface. The
Paper demonstrates that correct modelling of the dilatant behaviour of the sand soil is required
to give accurate predictions of wall performance. A modified form of hyperbolic constitutive
model that includes a dilation parameter is adopted to model the behaviour of the granular
soil. Mechanical properties of the constituent components of the large-scale physical models
are established using standard laboratory tests including constant load tests on the polymeric
reinforcement from which isochronous load-strain-time data is developed. The results of anal-
yses show that the finite element model, constitutive models and implementation reported in
this study can accurately predict all important features of wall performance.
INTRODUCTION
The challenge in numerical simulation of geosynthetic reinforced soil wall performance is
to quantitatively predict all features of these composite structures using only the results of stan-
dard laboratory testing carried out on component materials. The challenge is compounded by
the problem of verification due to a general lack of high quality physical data that allows the
accuracy of finite element models to be tested against a wide range of measured response. This
Paper provides details of the finite element techniques and constitutive models used to simu-
late the measured response of two carefully constructed and monitored full-scale geosynthetic
reinforced soil walls constructed at the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC). The com-
pleted physical models were nominally identical in final appearance and function but differed
significantly in facing treatment and construction sequence. Hence, results of these physical
models provide a useful database against which to test the accuracy of numerical simulation
techniques for candidate wall structures that may be built using a variety of construction tech-
niques.
279
280
The most common methods of analysis for geosynthetic reinforced soil wall structures are
based on limit-equilibrium methods (e.g. [l-3]). While these methods offer simplicity they are
limited in their ability to predict stresses, forces and boundary reactions at working load levels
and offer no information on deformations and strains in the structure components. Further-
more, current methods of design and analysis for the types of wails described in this Paper can-
not distinguish between walls built with different facing treatments and have been proven to
be conservative (i.e. excessively safe) [3-41.
Composite finite element methods (e.g. [S-S]) h ave the advantage of computational econo-
my but cannot provide the detail that is required to isolate mechanisms acting between and
within component materials. To date, most finite element analyses of reinforced soil structures
have been based on discrete finite element methods (e.g. [9-U]). In the current investigation,
a discrete finite element approach is adopted in order to explore mechanisms such as load
transfer between reinforcement layers and soil fill.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Two reinforced soil retaining walls were constructed within a test facility 2.4m wide x 6m
long x 4m high. The completed structures were 3m high and were constructed with three col-
umns of panels composed of two outer sections 0.7m wide and one central instrumented sec-
tion 1 m wide. A dense granular sand was used as the backfill. Friction between the contained
soil and the vertical sidewalls of the test facility were minimized by using a composite plywood/
Plexiglass/polyethylene sheeting arrangement. The combination of reduced frictional shear-
ing resistance at the test facility boundaries and a decoupled central instrumented wall section
resulted in a physical model that was close to the idealized plane strain condition assumed in
numerical simulations, A complete discussion of edge effects in the RMC retaining wall test
facility can be found in the Papers by Bathurst and Benjamin [16] and Bathurst [4] .
One physical test was an incremental panel wall structure comprising four rows of panels
each 0.75m high that were individually supported during placement and compaction of soil
located directly behind the panel [4, 211. Once backfill operations were completed behind a
row of panels the external supports were removed and moved to the next row of panels. Layers
of soft foam rubber were placed between the stacked panels to providevertical compressibility
to the facing system. In the second physical test the panel units were bolted together to create
three columns simulating a full-height panel construction [22]. These panels units were sup-
ported externally for the duration of fill placement. The supports were removed once fill place-
ment was complete. Both walls were reinforced with four layers of a biaxial geogrid oriented
in the weak direction and extending 3m into the backfill.
The different construction techniques and wall facing type can be anticipated to result in
qualitatively and quantitatively different wall response. The use of incremental panel wall
construction means that outward wall deformations are developed as construction proceeds
281
from base to wall crest. Hence, tensile loads in the reinforcement are generated during the
construction phase. In addition, vertical deformation of the facing column is permissible due
to the compressibility of the joint material between panel rows. In contrast, the full-height pan-
el structure that is braced externally for the duration of construction prevents mobilization of
the reinforcement tensile capacity until the full height of fill is placed and the props removed.
In addition, the monolithic panel construction and pinned toe connection results in
constrained wall deformations. Despite obvious differences in wall construction it is interest-
ing to note that current limit equilibrium-based analysis methods cannot distinguish between
the generic forms of construction just described.
Following construction, the walls were subjected to a series of surcharge pressure incre-
ments by inflating air bags which were confined between the backfill soil and top of the test
facility. Each pressure increment was maintained at a constant magnitude for at least 100 hours
to measure time-dependent deformations in the wall structures.
A schematic of the wall and the instrumentation that was used as part of the monitoring pro-
gram are shown in Figure 1. Approximately 300 electronic instruments were installed in each
wall [23].
CONSTITUTIVE MODELS FOR COMPONENT MATERIAU
A number of different constitutive models are required to represent the mechanical beha-
viour of the backfill soil, polymeric reinforcement, wall facing units, and the interfaces be-
tween components [9-111.
displacement
Dotentiometer
surcharae
T
load
3m
0.5m
T
E
ring -
D
load
cell
f-i
*-_$(- -
reinfircement Layer 2
1
,,_,___.~p
I Din
FIGURE 1 Cross-section view of incremental panel wall test
282
The properties of sheet polymeric reinforcement under tensile load are strongly dependent
on the rate of loading, duration of load application and temperature [24,25]. Matsui and San
[13] have explicitly included time as a parameter in a model that can simulate the reinforce-
ment stiffness as a function of both strain and time. If the creep effects of soil are not significant
(e.g. dense well-graded granular soils), then isochronous stiffness data can be used directly to
model the time dependency of geosynthetic reinforcement in soil retaining wall structures
[9-111.
The strength and stiffness properties of granular soils have been modelled using simple lin-
ear elastic models, no-tension models, and more rigorous elastic-plastic models [5-15,26,27J.
The major disadvantagewith advanced constitutive models for soils is that the models are for-
mulated in terms of functions containing parameters whose numerical values cannot be easily
determined using routine laboratory tests. In the current investigation a modified form of hy-
perbolic constitutive model was developed and was shown to capture stiffness, strength, and
plasticity features of granular soil behaviour with a minimum number of parameters. Further-
more, these parameters can be estimated from routine laboratory testing. The modification
to hyperbolic models of the type originally proposed by Duncan et al. [28] is a dilatancy param-
eter that is required to accurately simulate laboratory shear test data and the behaviour of
large-scale retaining walls constructed with the same granular soil. Pullout tests performed on
geogrid reinforcement and soil materials similar to those used in the current study clearly dem-
onstrate that dilatancy of soil in contact with the reinforcement occurs during shear transfer.
This soil dilatancy is responsible in part for the bond capacity that can develop in the anchorage
zone [29].
The interfaces between various components in reinforced soil structures have been simu-
lated using stick-slip type models and hyperbolic models where independent parameters in-
clude normal pressure acting at the interface [9-151. The interface strength properties in these
earlier investigations have been obtained from direct shear and pullout tests performed with
candidate reinforcement and backfill soils tested over the same range of normal pressures and
at the same soil densities as in the reinforced structures.
FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATION
The numerical simulation work reported in this Paper was performed using a finite element
program and ancillary utilities (GEOFEM) developed by the authors at the Royal Military
College of Canada [30]. The package contains a general purpose program that includes some
special nonlinear constitutive models developed for analysis of soil-polymeric reinforcement
interaction.
The finite element mesh used for the numerical simulations is shown in Figure 2. The mesh
is made up of quadrilateral and triangular continuum elements, interface elements, uniaxial
elements, and nodal link elements to represent components of the reinforced soil wall. Figure
283
temporary external props
during construction
anel-soil interface
I
3m
1
OSm
T
FIGURE 2 Finite element mesh for full-height panel wall test
3 shows mesh details at the reinforcement-panel connections and the nodes associated with
each element at these junctions. This arrangement of elements was adopted after testing sev-
eral trial meshes for numerical accuracy and was also found to be efficient for use with an auto-
matic mesh generation utility that is part of the GEOPEM suite of programs. The finite ele-
ment mesh for each wall consists of approximately 1700 nodal points, 650 elements, and 3300
degrees of freedom.
The solution scheme employed in the computer code updates the stiffness matrix at every
iteration. Large deformation effects are accounted for in numerical simulations by using the
linearised updated Lagrangian method. In this method, the coordinates of nodes are updated
by adding the corresponding displacements of nodes at every load step. Without this scheme
it is not possible to model important effects such as the additional tensile resistance due to the
membrane action of the reinforcement as it deforms to a concave shape immediately behind
the full-height panel wall columns. This effect in physical models is the result of relative down-
ward movement of the soil immediately behind full-height retaining wall facing units.
The stiffness matrix is modified by the nonlinear stress correction terms as shown in Equa-
tion 1:
r 1
BE D B, dv +
I
BE oj B, dV
I
{du)i = { P, ] i - [BIT {U } j
(1)
V V
284
L zero thickness
Element
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
Type
Nodes
quadrilateral 9-l -3-l l-6-2-7-10
quadrilateral 11-3-5-13-7-4-8-12
interface 16-14-9-11-15-10
interface 20-18-11-13-19-12
quadrilateral 26-14-16-28-21-15-22-27
interface 17-29-28- 16-23-22
uniaxial bar 17-29-23
interface 18-30-29-17-24-23
quadrilateral 30-18-20-32-24-19-25-31
nodal link 11-17
FIGURE 3 Details of finite element mesh at panel-geosynthetic connections
Here, BL and BN are linear and non-linear strain-displacement relations as discussed by Bathe
et al. [31], D is the constitutive matrix, and i is the current load step number. oj corresponds
to the stresses at the previous load step (i-l) for the first iteration at a load step. For subsequent
iterations within a load step, oj corresponds to the stresses at the previous iteration.
The load vector in GEOFEM is formulated as the difference between the external loads
and the internal forces computed from the element stresses in the previous iteration as shown
on the right hand side of Equation 1. This formulation ensures that any out-of-balance force
is carried forward during the analysis thus satisfying the equilibrium of the total system at all
stages of analysis.
The pin connection at the base of the panels was modelled using a six-noded inverted trian-
gular element as shown in Figure 4. The stiff foam layers separating the individual facing panel
units in the incremental wall were modelled using solid elements with a bulk modulus deter-
mined from physical tests. This arrangement allowed for independent movement of panel
units in the numerical simulation. The stiffness of the facing panel in bending and compression
was determined from physical testing prior to construction.
285
pin +-- stiffneSSpin +f--
a) full-height panel wall b) incremental panel wall
FIGURE 4 Finite element models for wall facing panels
The incremental construction technique was simulated by placing rows of elements in se-
quence and gradually turning on gravity-induced body forces over several load steps (typically
ten for each layer and K, = 0.5). The external props used during wall construction were simu-
lated using springs with a linear axial stiffness value determined from measured prop forces
and wall displacements recorded during construction. The surcharge pressure on the wall was
applied in increments of 0.25 kPa per load step. The solution was iterated until the out-of-bal-
ance force norm Nf, defined in terms of out-of-balance forces Sfi and the applied forces fi
(Equation 2) was less than 0.5%.
J
1 Sfi 6f,
N, =
5 fi fi
N
(2)
Eight-noded quadrilateral elements were used to model the backfill soil in the wall. The
stiffness matrix and other element matrices corresponding to the soil were computed using
nine-point numerical integration rule. This numerical analysis satisfies the kinematic
constraints required to accurately model the plastic flow as described by Nagtegaal et al. [32].
A modified form of hyperbolic stress-strain model was employed in the current investigation
to model the stiffness behaviour of the backfill soil. The constitutive matrix D is formulated
in terms of tangent Youngs modulus Et and tangent bulk modulus Kt. Modulus values are re-
lated to the confining pressure as in the hyperbolic model originally proposed by Duncan et
al. [28]. These values are applicable only under monotonically increasing load conditions. In
the current study the friction angle of the soil was assumed to be constant. Poissons ratio v at
any stage of analysis was computed using the tangent Et and Kr values and was allowed to vary
286
between 0 and 0.495. When the magnitude of Poissons ratio exceeds these limits, the magni-
tude of Kr is adjusted according to the value of I$ and the limiting value of v.
The hyperbolic model is simple to use and has the advantage that model parameters can
be easily determined fromstandard laboratory test data. This model has been used extensively
for the analysis of many soil structures as reported by Duncan et al. [28]. However, this model
can only be used for monotonically increasing load conditions as it is not applicable for simula-
tions involving unload-reload conditions.
Soil dilation is an important mechanism that controls the strength of soil and the efficiency
of load transfer from the reinforcement to the soil during shear deformations in reinforced soil
structures [29]. Conventional hyperbolic models lack the ability to simulate the dilation beha-
viour of granular soils. This deficiency in the original model can be overcome by using it in
conjunction with classical plasticity models.
Elastic-perfectly plastic models which are based on associated flow rules predict excessive
dilation of soil and hence it is common to employ a plastic potential function defined in terms
of a dilation angle II, and use a non-associated flow rule to compute the plastic strains of soils.
Zienkiewicz et al. [36] have suggested a suitable form for the plastic potential function by using
dilation angle I# in place of the friction angle I$ in the Mohr-Coulomb yield function. The same
yield and potential functions have been employed in the current investigation. The stress state
at any stage is computed by correcting the stresses along the flow direction defined by the dila-
tion angle in the potential function.
The constitutive matrix D which relates the incremental stresses and strains is formulated
using the current values of Et and Kr. The incremental stresses are added to the total stresses
from the previous step to update the current stress state. If the updated stress state does not
satisfy the yield criterion, the excess stresses are released along the flow direction using the
dilation angle W_ This technique is similar to the initial stress methods. However, in our
method, the stiffness matrix is continually updated as the stress state changes during the analy-
sis rather than remaining constant as in initial stress methods. The advantage with this ap-
proach is that the stiffness matrix remains symmetric leading to significant savings in storage
space and computational effort.
The results from this model compare well with similar results reported by Byrne and El-
dridge [33] which were obtained using another form of dilatant hyperbolic model. The current
hyperbolic model has been observed to give accurate predictions of many classical elastic-plas-
tic problems in geomechanics such as simple shear, direct shear and bearing capacity of foot-
ings. Figure 5 shows some typical results from the simulation of a simple shear test using prop-
erties for the sand used in the RMC walls that has a peak friction angle $ of 53 and a dilation
angle II, of 1_5[17]. The ultimate ratio of shear stress t to normal stress u, in simple shear can
can be expressed using the well-known relationship given in Equation 3 [ 181:
287
v 25
shear strain (%,)
a) normalized stress-strain behaviour
p -M 25
shear strain (%)
b) volumetric behaviour
modified model
original model
FIGURE 5 Simple shear behaviour using modified hyperbolic model
wh), =
sin Cp cos$
1 - sin+ sinr$
The modified hyperbolic model gives failure stress ratios of 0.972 for 9 = 15 and 0.798
for q = O, which are in agreement with Equation 3. With zero dilation, peak strengths are
18% lower than those predicted by the hyperbolic model with $I = 15. The slope of the volu-
metric strain curve dsY/dy predicted by the current model is very close to tan+ In contrast,
the conventional hyperbolic model predictsvolumetric compression before yield and zerovol-
ume change during plastic deformation. If the dilation angle I) is set to zero in the current hy-
perbolic model it degenerates to the original non-dilatant hyperbolic model.
The results of standard triaxial compression tests [19] carried out at densities lower than
those achieved in the as-built structures were used as a starting point for the estimation of hy-
perbolic soil parameters in the current FEM simulations of RMC walls. These parameters
were adjusted based on the results of direct shear tests from two different laboratories carried
out on sand specimens prepared at representative densities [17,34]. Plate bearing tests were
carried out at the surface of the sand backfill after the full-height propped panel wall test was
completed and these results were used as a further independent check on the accuracy of the
estimated parameters. Comparisons between experimental and FEM-predicted behaviour
288
TABLE 1
Hyperbolic parameters for RMC Soil
Parameter Value
Parameter Value Parameter Value
K,
950 n 0.5 C 0
m 0.65
Rf
0.75
A+
O0
%
250
@0
53O
21
W
from direct shear tests and a conventional plate bearing test are shown in Figures 6 and 7. Val-
ues of hyperbolic parameters used in the simulations are summarized in Table 1.
Reinforcement
The reinforcement layers were modelled using three-noded uniaxial elements. These ele-
ments represent a linear strain variation along their length. This order of strain variation is
compatible with that in the surrounding interface and soil elements.
The constitutive behaviour of reinforcement layers is modelled using a nonlinear equation
developed from isochronous load-strain-time test data. The isochronous load-strain data is in-
terpreted from constant load creep test results according to the method reported by McGown
et al. [24]. The creep load tests were performed by subjecting virgin reinforcement samples
to a constant tensile load for an extended period of time. The results of constant load (creep)
tests are shown in Figure 8a. The isochronous curve in Figure 8b for any elapsed time is
constructed from corresponding load and strain values as illustrated in the figures.
In this investigation, the lOOhour isochronous curve was used in the simulations since the
surcharge pressure increments were applied in roughly 100 hour time steps in the physical ex-
periments. The results of in-isolation tests [24,25] have shown that under staged loading the
polymeric materials exhibit a cumulative load-deformation response at the end of any incre-
ment of load that is equivalent to the deformation recorded as if the final load had been applied
in a single step.
In the numerical model, the load P in the reinforcement layer and the tangent stiffness Jr
are related to the strain E in the geosynthetic as shown in Equations 4 and 5.
P = As + BE=
(4)
J
t
= a = A + ABE
de
An excellent curve-fitwas obtained by usingvalues of 60 and -126 for constants A and B respec-
tively as shown in Figure 8b. Compressive forces are not allowed to develop within the rein-
forcement elements as the geosynthetic reinforcement layers behave as fabric sheets.
289
0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
horizontal displacement (mm)
a) normalized stress versus displacement response
2.6
E
g 1.5
E
g
S
1.0
S
Ef- 0.5. - test data
e
--- 3 FEM
.g 0.6
2
-0.5
0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0
horizontal displacement (mm)
b) vertical displacement versus horizontal displacement
FIGURE 6 FEM simulation of direct shear test data
0
- test data
--- FEM
15 4
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
plate pressure (kPa)
FIGURE 7 Comparison of experimental and predicted
pressure-settlement behaviour in plate bearing test
290
Interface models
The interfaces between the reinforcement layers and soil and those between wall panels
and soil were modelled using six-noded joint elements of zero thickness. These elements have
linear shear strain variation along their length. The six noded joint elements were developed
by extending the four node joint element formulation reported by Ghaboussi et al. [35].
The global stiffness matrix of these elements is formulated in terms of two independent stif-
fness values, one in the tangential (shear) direction and the other in the normal direction.
When the normal stress on the interface is compressive, perfect bond is assumed in the normal
direction and when the normal stress becomes tensile, the normal stiffness is assigned a small
value to allow debonding at the interface.
The shear strength and stiffness behaviour of interfaces between the wall panels and back-
fill soil were determined using data from direct shear tests carried out on physical models of
the sand/wall panel interface [ 161. The shear stiffness of interfaces between the soil and rein-
forcement was modelled using stick-slip type formulation in which perfect bond was assumed
when the shear stress is less than the shear strength defined by the Mohr-Coulomb model.
When the shear stress exceeds the shear strength, the shear stiffness was reduced to a small
residual value to allow for relative movement between the reinforcement and soil. Based on
the experimental observation that the interface friction angle between well-compacted granu-
lar soil and most types of geogrids is higher than that of the soil alone and that failure occurs
within the soil [29], it was decided to use greater shear strength values for the interface than
those for the soil alone. The properties used for all interface elements are reported in Table
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Selected experimental results
The physical models were monitored until collapse due to surcharging or until incipient
collapse was suspected [4,17,20-221. Both structures revealed a well-developed internal fail-
ure plane through the reinforced soil zone at the end of each test. The collapse surcharge pres-
sures for the full-height and incremental wall tests were 80kPa and 70kPa respectively. Incipi-
ent collapse was manifest as accelerated lateral panel displacements (e.g. Figure 9) and
elevated reinforcement strains indicating load transfer from soil to reinforcement. In the full-
height panel wall test the uppermost reinforcement layer ruptured at the panel connection.
The strains within the reinforcement layers revealed a saddle-shaped distribution with a peak
at the panel connections and another peak at about the location of the internal soil failure
plane.
The incremental panel wall failed in two distinct steps identified as initial shear failure of
the soil in the reinforced soil zone followed by load transfer to the reinforcement. The period
between initial soil failure and reinforcement rupture was about 250 hours during which large
291
30
20
Q
e
.L
t
v)
IO
0
/
6.25 kN/m
0 200 400 600 600 l(
100 time ( hrs )
a) constant load (creep) test data
6
r
2i /
- test data
or -y- ~~~+Ztion
IO 0 0.05 0.10 0
strain E (mm/mm)
b) curve-fit for 100 hour
isochronous test data
FIGURE 8 100 hour isochronous load-strain behaviour of geosynthetic
reinforcement
TABLE 2
Properties of interface elements
panel/soil interface soillgeosynthetic interface
initial shear stiffness 1000 kN/m3 lo6 kN/m3
initial normal stiffness lo6 kN/m3 lo6 kN/m3
residual shear stiffness 10 kN/m3 10 kN/m3
residual normal stiffness 100 kN/m3 100 kN/m3
friction angle 2o 5.9
creep deformations were measured. The peak strains were observed to occur within the rein-
forced soil mass rather than at the connections as recorded in the full-height panel wall. The
distribution of reinforcement strains at incipient collapse in both tests are compared with pre-
dicted values later in the Paper (see Figure 12).
Numerics
One set of numerical analyses was performed with a soil dilation angle v=O and the other
using a value of v,= 15 based on laboratory direct shear test results described earlier. The nu-
merical analyses with q=O predicted much greater panel displacements and larger reinforce-
ment strains. In some cases the over-prediction was a factor of two greater than measured val-
ues as demonstrated in Figures 10 and 11.
100
end of
construction
F 80
L
E
geosynthetic rupture ~4
0 400 800 1200 1600
elapsed time (hours)
FIGURE 9 Panel displacements during RMC full-height panel wall test
Figure 10 shows measured and predicted lateral displacements at the mid-height of each
wall during surcharge steps. The measured displacements in the figure correspond to the val-
ues at the end of each lOOhour increment of surcharge. The finite element results show that
the incremental wall failed between 60kPa and 75 kPa pressure and the full-height panel wall
failed at slightly greater than 80kPa pressure. The predicted collapse pressures are very close
to those observed in the physical experiments using*= 15. In addition, it is important to note
that the finite element approach adopted in this study resulted in accurate predictions of dis-
placements at working load levels (e.g. at 20-40 kPa surcharge pressure).
Measured and predicted lateral displacement facing profiles are shown in Figure 11. The
measured panel displacements are reported at two stages during the final (maximum) sur-
charge load increment corresponding to conditions at soil failure and incipient rupture of geo-
synthetic reinforcement. Displacements corresponding to soil failure are accurately predicted
by the numerical simulations using W= 15 .
Measured and predicted reinforcement tensile strains are illustrated in Figure 12. The peak
strain magnitude and trend in strain distribution profiles along the length of the reinforcement
layers in the rigid and flexible facing systems are captured by the numerical results. For exam-
ple, the elevated strain levels recorded at the connections for the relatively rigid facing test are
evident in the numerical results. Similarly, the peak strain levels occurring within the rein-
forced soil zone are close to the observed internal failure zone. The predicted reinforcement
strains at the panel connections agreed within f 1% strain of the measured values in excess of
200
- measured
) --- FEM
I
0 20 40 60 80 100
surcharge (kPa)
a) incremental panel wall
7
0 20 40 60 80 100
surcharge (kPa)
b) full-height panel wall
FIGURE 10 Lateral panel displacements at the end of surcharge increments
1% strain at all surcharge levels. The 1% strain threshold is considered by the authors to be
the minimum value for which significant strains in the reinforcement can be identified.
Experimentally observed and numerically predicted failure surfaces (planes) in both walls
were found to closely match the failure surfaces given by Rankine theory using the peak friction
angle of the backfill soil (Figure 13). The failure surfaces in the numerical models are inferred
from either the location of peak reinforcement strains or from the shear strain contours as
shown in Figures 13a and 13b. This finding gives confidence to the widely used design assump-
tion that the reinforced soil zone can be divided into active and resistant zone based on classi-
cal earth pressure theory [l-2].
Figure 14 shows measured and predicted forces developed at the base of the wall facing
units. The comparison is reasonably good indicating that the interface elements in the vicinity
294
soil failure
3.0
2.5
r
prior to
geosynthetic
rupture
70 kPa surcharge
--- FEM
- measured
0, I I I I 1 I I I ,
0 50 100 150 200 2
panel displacement (mm)
a) incremental panel wall
I
soil failure
3.0-
I, ,L ~=15
/
--- FEM
- measured
0 50 100 150 200 2
panel displacement (mm)
b) full-height panel wall
io
FIGURE 11 Measured and predicted panel displacements
of the wall facing performed satisfactorily through the entire loading range. The data illus-
trates that significant load shedding is developed at the base of the wall and hence the facing
elements in combination with a rigid footing are responsible for a significant portion of the
surcharge capacity of the trial walls. The magnitude and distribution of vertical pressures act-
ing at the base of the reinforced soil zone can be expected to be influenced by load shedding
to the wall facing. Figure 15 shows that this effect is pronounced at large surcharge pressures.
The trend observed in physical experiments is captured in the numerical simulations.
CONCLUSIONS
This Paper presents details of discrete type finite element modelling for geosynthetic rein-
forced soil walls together with the material models employed to simulate the behaviour of vari-
ous components in these structures. The modified form of hyperbolic model used by the au-
thors is shown to account for soil shear strength increase due to dilation. The results presented
in the Paper show that it is possible to accurately simulate all significant performance features
of geosynthetic reinforced soil walls at both working load and collapse conditions. The Paper
295
Layer 4
incremental wall
Layer 3
- full-height panel wall
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
8-
full-height panel wall
Layer 2
;i
5
.5
s
UY
01 1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
3-
T
2.J
full-height panel wall
5
Layer 1
.E
\
S
- \
incremental wall
* I-
cfull-height panel wall
I. I
- measured
\ \
~_---\--,___ __
--- FEM
0, 1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
FIGURE 12 Strain in geosynthetic reinforcement layers at incipient collapse
296
observed failure
surface in test
distance from toe (m)
a) incremental panel wall
v
layer 1
------------
OV
0 0.5 1 .o 1.5 2.0
distance from toe (m)
---- FEM
M observed failure
surface in test
b) full-height panel wall
FIGURE 13 Predicted and measured Internal failure surfaces
further demonstrates that construction-induced differences in behaviour can be simulated us-
ing the approach adopted in this investigation. An important conclusion of the work described
here is that the strength and stiffness properties of component materials can be determined
from the results of independent routine laboratory tests and then successfully implemented in
finite element modelling of the composite structure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for the work reported here was provided through the Academic Research
Program (ARP) program and by the Chief of Construction and Properties, Department of Na-
tional Defence, Canada.
1.
2.
REFERENCES
Bathurst, R.J., Geosynthetics for Reinforcement Applications in Retaining Walls, &&r
Canadian Geotechnicul Conference, Calgary (1991) Vol. 2, p. 74.1-74.10.
Christopher, B.R., Gill, S.A., Giroud, J-P, Juran, I., Schlosser, F., Mitchell, J.K., and
Dunnicliff, J., Reinforced Soil Structures, Volume I. Design and Construction Guidelines,
Federal Hiphwqvs Administration, Washington USA, Report No. FHWA-RD-89-043
(1989) pp. 287.
297
OS_ I b 1 I I i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Rh-cm
surcharge (kPa)
I
a) incremental panel wall
f%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
surcharge (kPa)
I
R
b) propped panel wall
FIGURE 14 Predicted and measured reactions at pinned toe restraint
75-
-------------
50-
end of construction - measured
-- 25- FEM
0
I I I I
0 1 2 3 4
distance from toe (m)
i
FIGURE 15 Distribution of earth pressures at base of backfill
(incremental panel wall)
298
3. Bathurst, R.J., Simac, M.R., and Berg, R.R., Review of the NCMA Segmental Retaining
Wall Design Manual for Geosynthetic Reinforced Structures, Transoortation Research Re-
d, (1993) (in press).
4. Bathurst, R.J., Investigation of Footing Restraint on Stability of Large-scale Reinforced
Soil Wall Tests, 46th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Regina, September (1993) 10 p.
5. Romstad, K.M., Herrmann, L.R., and Shen, C-K., Integrated Study of Reinforced
Earth-I: Theoretical Formulation, J. Geotech. Erw. Div. ASCE, (1976) Vol. 102, No. 5,
457-471.
6. Romstad, K.M., Herrmann, L.R., and Shen, C.K., Integrated Study of Reinforced Earth-
II: Behavior and Design, J. Geotech. Erg. Div. ASCE, (1976) Vol. 102, No. 6,577-590.
7. Herrmann, L.R., and Al-Yassin, Z., Numerical Analysis of Reinforced Soil Systems, Proc.
ofASCE Svmp. ofEarth Reinforcement, Pittsburgh, (1978) 428-457.
8. Herrmann, L.R., Welch, K.R., and Lim, C.K., Composite FEM Analysis for Layered Sys-
tems, J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE, (1984) Vol. 110, No. 9, 1284-1302.
9. Karpurapu, R.G., and Bathurst, R.J., Analysis of geosynthetic reinforced soil wall by the
finite element method, Proc. of fourth Znt. Svmp Num. Models in Geomech., Swansea, Ed.
by G.N. Pande and S. Pietruszczak, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, (1992) 861-870.
10. Bathurst, R.J., Karpurapu, R., and Jarrett, PM., Finite Element Analysis of a Geogrid
Reinforced Soil Wall, Groutinp. Soil I mprovement and Geosythetics, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 30, (1992) Vol. 2, 1213-1224.
11. Karpurapu, R.G., Bathurst, R.J. and Jarrett, PM., Finite Element Analysis of an Incre-
mentally Constructed Geogrid Reinforced Soil Wall, Proc. of44th Canadian Geotechnical
Conference, Calgary, (1991) Vol. 2, 82.1-82.8.
12. Kutara, K., Gomadou, M. A., and Takeuchi, T., Deformation Analysis of Geotextiles in
Soils using the Finite Element Method, Geotextiles and Geo membranes, (1986) Vol. 4,
191-205.
13. Matsui, T., and San, KC., Prediction of Two Test Walls by Elastoplastic Finite Element
Analysis, Znt. Svmu. on Geosyrthetic-Reinforced SoilRetaining Walls, Denver, Ed. by J.T.H.
wu (1991) 143-151.
14. Karpurapu, R.G., and Bathurst, R.J., Numerical Investigation of Controlled Yielding of
Soil Retaining Wall Structures, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, (1992) Vol. 11, 115-131.
15. Rowe, R.K., and Soderman, K.L., Stabilization of Very Soft Soils Using High Strength
Geosynthetics: the Role of Finite Element Analyses, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
(1987) Vol. 6,53-80.
16. Bathurst, R.J., and Benjamin, D.J.R.S., Preliminary Assessment of Sidewall Friction on
Large-Scale Wall Models in the RMC Test Facility,A_oplication o_fPolvmeric Reinforcement
m Soil Retaining Structures, Ed. by PM. Jarrett and A. McGown, Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, Dordrecht, (1987) 181-191.
17. Bathurst, R.J., Jarrett, PM., and Benjamin, D.J.R.S., A Database of Results from an In-
crementally Constructed Geogrid-reinforced Soil Wall Test, Proceedinas ofSoil Reinforce-
ment: Full Scale Exueriments of the 80s, ISSMFEENPC, Paris, France, November (1993)
401-430.
18. Davis, E.H., Theories of Plasticity and the Failure of Soil Masses. In: Soil Mechanics: Se-
lected Tonics, Ed. by I.K. Lee, Butterworths, London (1968) 341-380.
19. Bathurst, R.J., Wawrychuk, W.F. and Jarrett, PM., Laboratory Investigation of Two
Large- Scale Geogrid Reinforced Soils Walls, TheAvulication o_fPolvmetic Reinforcement
in Soil Retaining Structures, Ed by PM. Jarrett and A. McGown, NATO Advanced Study
Institutes Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, (1987) 75 - 125.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
299
Bathurst, R.J., Benjamin, D.J., and Jarrett, PM., Laboratory Study of Geogrid Rein-
forced Soil Walls, Geosythetics for Soil I mprovement Ed. by R. Holtz, ASCE Special
Publication 18, (1988) 178-192.
Bathurst, R.J., Benjamin, D.J., and Jarrett, PM., An Instrumented Geogrid Reinforced
Soil Wall, Froc XI I nt Conf on Soil Mech. and Found. Engg., Rio de Janerio, Brazil,
(1989) 1223-1226. .
Bathurst, R.J., and Benjamin, D.J., Failure of a Geogrid Reinforced Soil Wall,mnotia-
tion Research Record 1288, Washington, D.C., (1990) 109-116.
Bathurst, R.J., Instrumentation of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Walls, J Yransnortation Re-
search Record 1277, Washington, DC, (1990) 102-111.
McGown, A., Andrawes, K.Z., Yeo, K.C., and Dubois, D.D., The Load-Strain-Time Be-
haviour of Tensar Geogrids, Proc. Svmn. Po&mer Grid Reinforcement in Civil Entineeting,
London, Paper No. 1.2 (1984) 11-17.
Yeo, K.C., J heBeh vio ro_fPolvmenc G ds forSoilReinforcement, Ph.D. Thesis, Univer-
sity of Strathclyde, &asiow, Scotland (lG85) 185 p.
Pastor, M., Zienkiewicz, O.C., and Chan, A.H.C., Generalized Plasticity and the Model-
ling of Soil Behaviour, Znt. J . Num. Anal. Meth. in Geomechanics, (1990) Vol. 14, 151-190.
Lade, PV, Elasto-Plastic Stress-Strain Theory for Cohesionless Soil with Curved Yield
Surfaces, I nt. J . Solids and Structures, (1977) Vol. 13, 1019-1035.
Duncan, J.M., Byrne, P, Wong, K.S., and Mabry, I?, Strength, stress-strain and bulk modu-
lus parameters for finite element analysis of stresses and movements in soil masses, Beport
No. UCBI GTl80-01, University of California, Berkely, (1980) 70 p.
Johnston, R.S., and Romstad, K.M., Dilation and boundary effects in large scale pull-out
tests, Proc. XI I 1 I nt. Conf Soil Mech. and Found. En_% Rio de Janeiro, (1989) 1263-1266.
Bathurst, R.J., and Karpurapu, R.G., Large-Scale Reinforced-Soil Wall Tests and Nu-
merical Modelling of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Structures, report submitted to the
Chief of Construction and Projects, Department of National Defence, Military Enaineeting
Research Group, Royal Military College of Canada, 1990 & 1991.
Bathe, K.J., Ramm, E., and Wilson, E.L., Finite element formulation for large deforma-
tion dynamic analysis, J nt. .I . Num. Meth. in Erg., (1975) 9, 353-386.
Nagtegaal, J.C., Parks, D.M., and Rice, J.R., On Numerically Accurate Finite Element
Solutions in the Fully Plastic Range, .I. Camp. Meth. App. Mech. and Enp, (1984) Vol. 4,
153-177.
Byrne, PM., and Eldridge, T.L., A three parameter dilatant elastic stress-strain model for
sand, Proc. Znt. Svmp. Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Zurich, (1982) 73-80.
Jewell, R.A., Analysis and Predicted Behaviour for the Royal Military College Trial Walls,
. . .
Apniication of he PO ym nc Rernforcement in Sot Re mung Stru es, Ed. by PM. Jarrett
and A. McGo&, Kl\wEr Academic PublishersjbdPdrecht, (1%; 193-235.
Ghaboussi, J., Wilson, E.L., and Isenberg, J., Finite Element for Rock Joints and Inter-
faces. J. of Soil Mech. and Found. Division, ASCE, (1973) Vol. 99 No. 10, 833-848.
Zienkiewicz, O.C., Humpheson, C., and Lewis, R.W., Associated and nonassociated
visco-plasticity and plasticity in soil mechanics, GeotechniQye, (1975) Vol. 25, No. 4,
671-689.
Received 22 June 1993; revised version received 3 March 1994; accepted
30 March 1994