50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE

50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India

NUMERICAL MODELING OF MULTI-TIERED REINFORCED SOIL RETAINING

WALLS
A. Bhattacharjee 1, Masud U.A. 2

ABSTRACT

Applications of geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) retaining walls in major infrastructure projects are
increasing tremendously due to rapid growth of urbanization and demand of effective land space. They
provide great freedom in constructing with complex geometry, in addition to, advantages in ease and less
construction cost compared to conventional retaining system. There are many situations where reinforced
soil walls are constructed in a tiered configuration for variety of reasons such as aesthetic, stability and
construction requirement. The researchers have conducted physical, analytical and numerical studies on
performance of single tiered and multi-tiered reinforced soil wall. FHWA (2010) also suggested design
methods of multi-tiered reinforced soil wall. The comparison of performance of multi-tiered with single
tiered reinforced soil walls are not evaluated by many researchers. This paper emphasizes on comparative
study of response of multi-tiered reinforced soil walls with single tiered reinforced soil wall. A finite
element model of modular block facing reinforced soil wall is developed using ANSYS. The backfill soil
is modeled using the Drucker-Prager plasticity model. In ANSYS the Drucker-Prager model is applicable
to granular material and uses the outer cone approximation to the Mohr-Coulomb law. The geosynthetic
reinforcements are simulated with nonlinear material properties. The geogrids are assumed to be fully
bonded to the soil. The concrete facing blocks are modeled as elastic material. The connections between
the concrete blocks are assumed to be bonded and the interface between soil and the concrete materials
are assumed to be bonded in initial contact. The results of finite element modeling is compared with
measured experimental results of a 6m high full-scale concrete-block facing geosynthetic-reinforced soil
wall constructed at the Public Works Research Institute (PWRI),Japan as stated by Ling et al (2000). The
displacements, lateral pressures and strain variations in reinforcements obtained from numerical models
are within reasonable accuracy with physical model test of PWRI wall (Ling et al. 2000). The validated
properties of numerical model are used to simulate 6.0 m high modular block facing reinforced soil wall.
This 6.0 m high wall is analyzed for both single tier and two-tiered construction. The lateral
displacements of the wall facing and lateral stress on wall facing are determined for both single tiered and
multi-tiered walls and compared. Current design of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls shows that
the tensile stresses in the reinforcement increases rapidly with height. It is found from the finite element

1
A. Bhattacharjee, Asstt. Prof. Dept. of Civil Engg., Jorhat Engg. College, Assam, bhatta_arup@yahoo.com
2
Masud U.A., PG student, Dept. Of Civil Engg., Jorhat Engg. College, Assam, masudulamin@hotmail.com
A. Bhattacharjee, Masud U.A.

analysis that the multi-tiered wall can considerably reduce the lateral facing displacement and the average
reinforcement load in compared to single tiered wall. With the same reinforcement length and spacing,
the multi-tiered walls show less lateral wall deformation and reinforcement connection load. The present
study shows behavior of multi-tiered wall, especially when it is necessary to construct the high
geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining wall with stable, economic and aesthetic consideration.

Keywords: Multi-tiered reinforced soil wall, modular block facing, finite element modeling.
 50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE
50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India

NUMERICAL MODELING OF MULTI-TIERED REINFORCED SOIL

RETAINING WALLS

A. Bhattacharjee, Asstt. Prof. Dept. of Civil Engg., Jorhat Engg. College, Assam; bhatta_arup@yahoo.com
Masud U.A., PG student, Dept. Of Civil Engg., Jorhat Engg. College, Assam; masudulamin@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT: This paper emphasizes on comparative study of behaviour of multi-tiered reinforced soil walls with
single tiered reinforced soil wall. A finite element model of modular block reinforced soil wall is developed using
ANSYS and the model is validated with the response of an identical physical model, reported in the literature. The
validated model parameters of model are used to simulate tiered reinforced soil walls. The 6 m high walls are
analysed for both single tier and two-tiered construction. It is found from the analysis that the multi-tiered wall can
considerably reduce the lateral facing displacement, lateral soil pressure at the face of the wall and vertical soil
pressure at the base of the backfill.

INTRODUCTION FULL SCALE MODEL TESTS OF

The use of geosynthetic reinforced segmental
retaining walls in both private and public sectors
are increasing worldwide because of their sound
performance, aesthetics, cost effectiveness,
expediency of construction and the ability to
tolerate large differential settlement without
distress. Current design of geosynthetic reinforced
soil (GRS) retaining walls shows that multi-tiered
wall shows better performance in compare to
single tiered walls, especially when it is necessary
to construct the high geosynthetic reinforced soil
retaining wall with stable, economic and aesthetic
consideration.
REINFORCED SOIL WALL
A 6 m high model of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
retaining wall constructed at the Public Works
Research Institute (PWRI), Ministry of
Construction, in Japan is studied to simulate in the
finite element program [9]. The wall is constructed
in a concrete test pit with a concrete floor consist
of different concrete facing blocks and discrete
panels as shown in the Fig. 1.

The studies of multi-tiered GRS wall have not

achieved the growth as the single-tiered GRS wall.
Few guidelines are available for the design of
multi-tiered walls [1-4]. Few researchers reported
numerical study on multi-tiered reinforced soil
walls [5-8]. But these studies are not sufficient for
the satisfactory design of multi-tiered walls in
different conditions. In this research paper the two-
tiered GRS walls with different offset lengths are
numerically simulated to study the different
response of tiered retaining walls. Fig. 1 Wall geometry, PWRI, Japan [9]
A. Bhattacharjee, Masud U.A.

The PWRI Wall consisted of six primary and five translations degrees of freedom at each node. The
secondary geogrid layers, 3.5 m and 1.0 m long, element has plasticity, creep, swelling, stress
respectively. The geogrid layers are bolted to the stiffening, large deflection, and large strain
concrete blocks with the bolt and metal frame capabilities. The two dimensional cable element
arrangement. A total of 12 concrete block rows are LINK1 is used to simulate the geogrid
used to construct the wall face. Each block are 500 reinforcement. The element has its two translation
mm high and 350 mm wide, except the top and degrees of freedom and no bending is considered.
bottom blocks, which are 450 and 550 mm high, The interfaces between soil-concrete and concrete-
respectively. concrete are simulated using target element
TARGE169 and contact element CONTA172. The
FINITE ELEMENT MODEL IN ANSYS solution is obtained in plane-strain condition. The
In finite element modelling of reinforced soil wall, finite element model obtained in ANSYS is shown
backfill soil is modelled using the Drucker-Prager in the Fig. 2.
plasticity model. In ANSYS the Drucker-Prager
model is applicable to granular material and uses
the outer cone approximation to the Mohr-
Coulomb law. The input consists of cohesion value
(100 Pa), angle of internal friction (450) and
dilatancy angle (50). Foundation and concrete
facing blocks are modelled as linear elastic
material. The geosynthetic reinforcements are
simulated with nonlinear material properties with
cross-sectional area of 0.001 m2. The geogrids are
assumed to be fully bonded to the soil. The
connections between the concrete blocks are
assumed to be bonded and the interface between
soil and the concrete materials are assumed to be
bonded in initial contact. The interface friction
angle between concrete-concrete and concrete-soil
are taken as 19.60 and 16.50 respectively. The
material properties are tabulated in the Table1.
Fig. 2 FE model of reinforced soil wall
Table 1 Material properties of the FE model
Materials Backfill Geogrid Concrete
model soil The results obtained from analysis in ANSYS are
1 x 107 8.264 x 10 8 2 x 10 9 compared with the measured results [9]. Figure 3
Elasticity
shows the comparison between the predicted and
(Pa)
measured results for the horizontal displacement of
Poisons 0.42 0.3 0.17
ratio the wall facing. The maximum horizontal
Density 1631 0.23 2400 displacement is found to be 28.15 mm at the mid-
(Kg/m3) height of the wall which is similar to the measured
Yield - 5.46 x 108 - value (approximately 30 mm) [9].The lateral stress
stress (Pa) acting at the wall face and the vertical stress
Tangent - 2 x 108 - distributions at the base of the backfill is shown in
modulus the Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b respectively. The lateral
(Pa)
pressure distribution shows a typical earth pressure
distribution on retaining walls. The strain
A quadrilateral element PLANE82 is used to
distributions in the six primary geogrid layers are
simulate both the soil and concrete material. The
shown in the Figs. 5a-f. Again the strain in the
element is defined by eight nodes having two
 50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE
50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India

primary geogrid layers decrease with the in-

creasing wall height. FE analysis shows that the
higher strain in average of 0.45% throughout the
length occurs on primary geogrid layer 3, which is
at the mid-height of the facing wall, though
maximum stress is predicted at reinforcement
layers near bottom of wall [3]. These show that a
greater preventive measure upto the mid-height of
the wall from bottom needs to be taken to avoid
excessive wall deformation. The reinforcement
layers with higher stiffness and lesser spacing of
layers upto the mid-height of the wall will serve
the purpose.

Figs 5a-f Predicted and measured strains in

primary geogrid layers

This comparative study of numerical and measured

experimental results indicated that the finite
element model is capable of simulating the
construction behaviour of concrete-block
geosynthetic reinforced soil structures.

DEVELOPMENT OF NUMERICAL MODEL

Fig. 3 Wall deformation from FE analysis
Fig. 4 (a) Predicted and measured lateral stresses
of backfill at wall face (b) Predicted and measured
vertical stresses at the wall base
OF TWO-TIERED REINFORCED SOIL
WALL
The validated 6.0 m high model is modified to two-
tiered wall to study the different response of the
tiered reinforced soil wall. In the development of
numerical models of tiered reinforced soil walls,
four different conditions are considered as shown
in Fig. 6. In first case a 6.0 m high wall without
any offset and reinforcement length of 0.7 times
height of wall [3] is considered and is termed as
wall with zero offset (Fig. 6a). Further, two-tiered
walls with each wall height of 3.0 m having
different offsets and reinforcement length of 0.7
times total height of wall are developed (Figs. 6b-
d). Three different offsets of 1.2 m, 2.0 m and 3.0
m are considered for the analysis and are shown in
A. Bhattacharjee, Masud U.A.

Fig. 6b, 6c and 6d. The size of the modular block
walls and thickness of foundation in each case are
considered as 0.35 m and 3.0 m respectively. A
total of 12 numbers of geogrid layers at a spacing
of 0.5 m are laid in all different models of tiered
reinforced soil walls. The backfill width of two
times total height of reinforced soil walls are
provided in different models of tiered reinforced
soil walls.
maximum displacements are found to be 33.99
mm, 30.32 mm, 26.77 mm and 22.57 mm at mid
height for wall with zero offset, 1.2 m offset, 2.0 m
offset and 3.0 m offset respectively. The maximum
deformation reduces with the increasing tier offset.
Thus by providing some offset to the wall the
deformation can be reduced. It is observed that at
the mid-height of the wall, near the junction of two
tiers the deformation suddenly increases
excessively .The upper wall act as a surcharge on
the lower tier, which increases the deformation
near the mid height of the wall. The displacement
at the mid height of the wall can be reduced by
decreasing the height of the wall in each tier.

Figs. 6 FE models of tiered GRS wall for (a) zero

offset (b) 1.2 m offset (c) 2.0 m offset and (d) 3.0
m offset

Horizontal Displacement of Facing

The tiered walls are studied for horizontal
displacement of facing and different responses are Figs. 7 Contour showing deformed shapes of GRS
observed from each of the wall model. Figure 7 wall for (a) zero offset (b) 1.2 m offset (c) 2 m
shows the contour of horizontal displacement of offset and (d) 3 m offset.
the wall for different tier offset. The contours show
that the backfill soil particle moves towards the
mid height of the walls and exerts high earth
pressure near the mid height of the wall. Also the
heavy weighted modular blocks in the upper tier
exert high intensity pressure on the underlying soil
near the junction of the two tiers, which is further
transmitted to the facing wall.

Figure 8 shows the comparison of horizontal

displacement of facing wall for different tier offset.
The displacement is very small at the bottom of the
wall and higher at the top of the wall for all four
types of wall. The wall displacement at the top is
found to be 15.53 mm, 19.79 mm, 18.66 mm and
17.75 mm for wall with zero offset, 1.2 m offset,
2.0 m offset and 3.0 m offset respectively. The Fig. 8 Wall deformation for different tier offset
 50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE
50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India
Lateral Soil Pressure at the Face of the Wall
The contours of lateral stresses exerted by the
backfill soil of GRS wall for different tiered offset
are shown in the Fig. 9. The contours show that the
maximum pressure is near the base of the wall and
reduces with the increasing height, become
minimum at the top of the wall. In tiered walls,
there is a sudden increase in the lateral pressure at
the junction of two tiers, which may occur due to
the heavy weighted modular block wall in the
upper tier.
Fig. 9 Contour showing lateral stresses of backfill
soil for wall with (a) zero offset (b) 1.2 m offset (c)
2 m offset and (d) 3 m offset
Figure 10 show the comparison of lateral soil
pressure distribution exerted by the soil at the face
of the wall for different tier offset. If a tier offset of
1.2 m is provided to the wall the lateral pressure
reasonably reduces, particularly towards the top of
the wall (Fig. 10a). The maximum lateral stress on
the facing wall is not found at the base level of the
backfill, but found at the height of 0.5 m above the
base of backfill where the first layer of geogrid
exists. This is may be due to the rigid bonding
between the lowermost modular block and the
foundation, as considered in the analysis. The
maximum lateral stresses are found to be 65.62
kPa, 54.39 kPa, 48.85 kPa and 41.63 kPa for zero
offset, 1.2 m offset, 2.0 m offset and 3.0 m offset
respectively near bottom of wall. After that in
tiered walls the stress decreases almost linearly
with the height except at the junction of two tier,
i.e. at the mid-height of the wall where the stresses
are little higher. The lateral stresses at the mid
height are found 9.29 kPa, 25.25 kPa, 27.69 kPa
and 28.56 kPa for zero offset, 1.2 m offset, 2.0 m
offset and 3.0 m offset of the wall respectively.
The higher stresses in the tiered wall at the mid
height are mainly due to the surcharge pressure
from the upper tier. Although the overall stresses
decrease with the increasing tier offset as shown in
the figs, but the stresses at mid height almost
remain same for wall with the increasing tier
offset.
Fig. 10 Comparison of lateral soil pressure on the
face of the wall for different tier offset.
Vertical Soil Pressure at the Base of the Backfill
The contours of vertical stresses exerted by the soil
at the base of backfill for different tier offset are
shown in the Fig.11. The contours show that the
vertical stress is higher at the base and less towards
the top of the backfill. The vertical stresses
decreases with increasing tier offset and stress
increment increases with increasing distance away
from facing wall.
Figure 12 shows the comparison of vertical soil
pressure distribution exerted by the soil at the base
of the backfill for different tier offset. The
minimum vertical stresses are found to be 38.15
kPa, 36.03 kPa, 33.59 kPa and 30.91 kPa for zero
offset, 1.2 m offset, 2.0 m offset and 3.0 m offset
respectively near the facing wall. The stresses
increase with the increasing distance away from
the backfill upto 4.2 m, then remains nearly
constant. The geogrids connected to the wall
A. Bhattacharjee, Masud U.A.
reduces the vertical soil pressure at the base of the
wall. The wall connected geogrids holds the
surrounding soil masses by its surface friction and
transfer the loads partially to the facing wall and
the reaming to the underlying layers. The average
vertical stress taken from different nodes along at
the base of backfills are found to be 90.62 kPa,
88.29 kPa,86.35 kPa and 83.01 kPa for zero offset,
1.2 m offset, 2.0 m offset and 3.0 m offset
respectively. As the tier offset increases the vertical
soil pressure at the base of backfill decreases,
particularly below the offset portion of the walls.
The vertical stresses on the soil at the point directly
below the walls in the upper tier are found to be
56.68 kPa, 56.49 kPa and 56.17 kPa for zero offset,
1.2 m offset, 2.0 m offset and 3.0 m offset
respectively. Increase in tier offset reduces the
amount of soil masses in the upper tier, which
greatly reduces the vertical stress to the underlying
soil mass and finally at the base.
Fig. 11 Contour showing vertical stresses of soil on
the base of backfill for wall with (a) zero offset (b)
1.2 m offset (c) 2 m offset and (d) 3 m offset.
Fig. 12 Comparison of vertical stresses of soil on
the base of backfill for different tier offset.
CONCLUSIONS
The single tiered wall were numerically developed
using the finite element program ANSYS and
validated with the identical physical model tests.
The model was sensitive to different material
properties like backfill friction, cohesion and
dilation angles, yield stress of reinforcement
material and soil-wall interface parameters. The
lateral displacement of facing wall is maximum
near the mid-height of the wall. The two-tiered
modular block geosynthetic reinforced soil walls
were numerically developed in the finite element
program ANSYS using the validated model
parameters of single tiered wall. The walls were
studied for different tier offset and the results are
compared with the single tiered wall. The lateral
wall displacement is maximum near the mid height
of the wall, at the junction of two tiers. The
displacement decreases with the increasing tier
offset. The upper walls act as a surcharge on the
lower tier, which increases the deformation near
the mid height of the wall. The maximum lateral
soil pressure on the facing wall is near the base of
the wall and decreases with the increasing height.
The lateral stress decreases almost linearly with the
height except at the junction of two tier, i.e. at the
mid-height of the wall where the stress is little
higher. The vertical stress of backfill soil is very
less at the top and much higher at the bottom. The
vertical stress at the reinforced soil is less than the
unreinforced soil. The wall connected geogrids
holds the surrounding soil masses and transfer the
loads partially to the facing wall and the reaming to
the underlying layers. As the tier offset increases
the vertical soil pressure decreases, particularly
near the facing wall where the tier offset exists.
REFERENCES
1. NCMA (1997), Design Manual for Segmental
Retaining Walls, National Concrete Masonry
Association, Collin, J., Editor, Second Edition,
Herndon, Virginia, USA.
2. AASHTO (1998), Standard specifications for
highway bridges, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC.
3. FHWA (2001), Mechanically stabilized earth
walls and reinforced soil slopes design and
construction guidelines, US Department of
 50th INDIAN GEOTECHNICAL CONFERENCE
50th
IGC
17th – 19th DECEMBER 2015, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Venue: College of Engineering (Estd. 1854), Pune, India

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),

Publication No. FHWA-NHI-00-043.
4. FHWA (2010), Mechanically stabilized earth
walls and reinforced soil slopes design and
construction guidelines, US Department of
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Vol. I & II. Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-
024.
5. Leshchinsky, D. and Han, J. (2004),
Geosynthetic Reinforced Multitiered Walls,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 12, 1225-1235
6. Yoo, C. and Kim, S. (2008), Performance of
two-tier geosynthetic reinforced segmental
retaining wall under a surcharge load: Full
scale load test and 3D finite element analysis,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 26, 460-472.
7. Liu, H., Yang, G. and Ling, H.I. (2014),
Seismic response of multi-tiered reinforced soil
retaining walls, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 61-62(2014)1–12, 1-12
8. Mohamed, S.B.A., Yang, K.-H. and Hung W.-
Y. (2014), Finite element analyses of two-tier
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls: Comparison
involving centrifuge tests and limit equilibrium
results. Computers and Geotechnics, 61 (2014)
67–84, 67–84.
9. Ling, H.I., and Leshchinsky, D. (2003), Finite
element parameter studies of the behaviour of
segmental block reinforced soil retaining walls,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 10, No. 3,
77–94.