“Finite Element Analysis of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Wall”

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

FOR REQUIREMENT OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OFTECHNOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
(Geotechnical Engineering)

Submitted by
AJAY KUMAR
(2K20/GTE/01)

Under the supervision of

Prof. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Bawana road, Delhi – 110042

May - 2022

i
 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I, Ajay Kumar, 2K20/GTE/01, student of M.Tech (Civil Engineering), hereby declare that

the project dissertation titled “Finite Element Analysis of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Wall”

is submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi,

by me in partial fulfillment of requirement for the award of degree of Master of

Technology (Geotechnical Engineering). This thesis is original work done by me and not

obtained from any source without proper citation. This project work has not previously

formed the basis for award of any degree, diploma, fellowship or other similar title or

recognition.

Place: Delhi AJAY KUMAR

Date: 30/05/2022 (2K20/GTE/01)

ii
 CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Bawana road, Delhi – 110042

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that project dissertation titled “Finite Element Analysis of Geogrid

Reinforced Soil Wall” submitted by Ajay Kumar, 2K20/GTE/01, Department of Civil

Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, in partial fulfillment for the award of

degree of Master of Technology, is a project work carried out by the student under my

supervision. To the best of my knowledge, this work has not been submitted in part or full

for any degree or diploma to this university or elsewhere.

Supervisor
Prof. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Delhi Technological University,
Delhi-110042

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I express my deep gratitude and indebtedness to Prof. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Department of Civil

Engineering, DTU, Delhi, for his guidance, and valuable feedback throughout this project work. His able

knowledge and supervision with unswerving patience fathered my project work at every stage, for

without his encouragement, the fulfilment of task would have been impossible and difficult.

I wish to express my gratitude towards our Head of Department, Prof. V. K. Minocha, Department of

Civil Engineering, DTU, Delhi, for showing interest and providing help throughout the period of my

project work.

I am genuinely appreciative to all my Friend for their support and suggestions during my work. Lastly, I

would like to thank the Almighty GOD and my parents, whose committed and untiring efforts towards

me have brought me at this stage of my life.

AJAY KUMAR
(2K20/GTE/01)
Date: 30/05/2022

iv
 ABSTRACT

Geogrid reinforced soil wall (GRSW) are the cost effective retaining wall which is mostly used now

days. GRS walls have become more popular because of their uses over the retaining walls such as

flexibility, ease in construction, lower cost than normal walls. This basically reduce the differential

settlement in foundation due to the variation of surcharge loading. This study is mainly based on

settlement and stability calculation on backfill soil. The behavior of lower GRS wall has seen below the

abutment in this study. Geogrids are used to safe the structure at various loading conditions to reduce

settlement and increase the stability of structure. Geogrids also used to mitigate the displacement in the

soil wall. Finite element analysis method has been used by commercially available software PLAXIS

2D. In which the plane strain model with 15 noded elements was defined to simulate the problem. By

use of this, effect of different surcharge loading and bridge load applied on the lower GRS wall to see

the behavior of soil structure.

Keywords: Surcharge loading, Lower GRS wall, Finite element method, bridge abutment,

settlement, safety analysis, PLAXIS 2D.

v
 CONTENTS
TOPIC PAGE NO.
Declaration by candidate ii
Certificate iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract v
Figures viii
Tables ix
Graphs x
Introduction 01-03
Origin of project

Objective of project
Review of Literature 04-10
Effects of backfill
Effects of geogrids in Lower GRS wall
Effects of abutment on Lower GRS wall
Effects of reinforced stiffness and compaction of
backfill
Theory 11-14
Finite element method (PLAXIS 2D)
Geogrids
Methodology 15-18
Concept model
Model for study in PLAXIS 2D
Phase construction in PLAXIS 2D
Results and Discussion 19-41
Deformation analysis in PLAXIS 2D
Safety analysis in PLAXIS 2D
Conclusion and scope of study 42-43
References 44-45

vi
 FIGURES

Figure Description Page No.

Figure 1.1 Lower GRS wall (Hejleh et al. ,2002) 2
Figure 1.2 Use of Lower GRS wall in Narayanpuram road 2
bridge
Figure 2.1 Differential settlement in backfill soil (Zheng et 4
al. ,2016)
Figure 2.2 Differential settlement in backfill soil (Zheng et al. 5
,2016)
Figure 2.3 The two-part wedge planer failure geometry 5

Figure 2.4 Free body diagram for wall facing 6

Figure 2.5 Variation of failure line in Mohr-Coulomb 7

Figure 2.6 Prototype model (Bathrust, 2009) 9

Figure 3.1 Iterative procedure for model load control (Guler 12

et al. ,2012)
Figure 3.2 Iterative procedure for arc load control 13

Figure 3.3 Photos of geogrids 13

Figure 3.4 Photos of GRS extensible reinforcement 14

Figure 3.5 Typical wrapped face structure of GRS 14

Figure 4.1 Model used for probabilistic analysis 15

Figure 4.2 Model used in PLAXIS 2D for analysis 16

Figure 5.1 Deformation without geogrids 19

Figure 5.2 Wall displacement without geogrids 19

Figure 5.3 Deformed mesh of model without geogrids 20

Figure 5.4 Stresses mesh without geogrids 20

Figure 5.5 Deformation with geogrids 21

Figure 5.6 Wall displacement with geogrids 21

Figure 5.7 Deformed mesh of model with geogrids 22

Figure 5.8 Stresses mesh with geogrids 22

vii
Figure 5.9 Deformation without geogrids 23

Figure 5.10 Wall displacement without geogrids 23

Figure 5.11 Deformation mesh of model without geogrids 24

Figure 5.12 Stresses mesh without geogrid 24

Figure 5.13 Deformation with geogrids 25

Figure 5.14 Wall displacement with geogrids 25

Figure 5.15 Deformation mesh with geogrids 26

Figure 5.16 Stresses mesh with geogrids 26

Figure 5.17 Deformation without geogrids 27

Figure 5.18 Wall displacement without geogrid 27

Figure 5.19 Deformed mesh of model without geogrid 28

Figure 5.20 Stresses mesh without geogrid 28

Figure 5.21 Deformation with geogrids 29

Figure 5.22 Wall displacement with geogrids 29

Figure 5.23 Deformed mesh with geogrids 30

Figure 5.24 Stresses mesh with geogrids 30

Figure 5.25 Deformation without geogrids 31

Figure 5.26 Displacement of wall without geogrids 31

Figure 5.27 Deformed mesh without geogrids 32

Figure 5.28 Stresses mesh without geogrids 32

Figure 5.29 Deformation with geogrids 33

Figure 5.30 Wall displacement with geogrids 33

Figure 5.31 Deformed mesh with geogrids 34

Figure 5.32 Stresses mesh with geogrids 34

viii
 TABLES

Table No. Description

Table 2.1 Parameters used by Xiao at el. (2020)

Table 4.1 Input parameters used in modeling

Table 4.2 Properties of reinforcement used in modeling

Table 4.3 Properties of concrete block in modeling

Table 5.1 Load variation with factor of safety without geogrids

Table 5.2 Load variation with factor of safety with and without geogrids

Table 5.3 Load variation with displacement without geogrids

Table 5.4 Load with displacement with geogrids

Table 5.5 Displacement variation with factor of safety with geogrids

ix
 GRAPHS
Graph Description

Graph 5.1 Surcharge load v/s FOS for without geogrids

Graph 5.2 Surcharge load v/s FOS for with and without geogrid

Graph 5.3 Load v/s displacement for without for without

Graph 5.4 Load v/s displacement with geogrid

Graph 5.5 Displacement v/s FOS with geogrids

Graph 5.6 Surcharge load v/s deflection

x
 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

ORIGIN OF PROJECT

Soil reinforcement are used geotextiles, geogrids, metallic strips, and other materials to support the soil.
Because the reinforcement is immersed in the ground, it produces almost no tension, allowing the wall to
be stable at higher heights. The shear resistance formed between both the soil and reinforcement
enhances the shear strength of the soil. Because pore water impacts the shear capacity of cohesive soils,
the major of today's construction is performed using free drainage granular soils. These walls are built to
provide both internal and external stability. Internal stability includes assessing tension and pullout
strength in reinforcing elements, while external stability includes overturning, sliding, and load carrying
failure. GRS walls are also used in transportation systems to sustain backfill dirt, roadway construction,
and traffic loads. The rising use of soil reinforcement is encouraged by factors such as cost, aesthetics,
convenience of construction, greater structural behaviour, and the ability to endure differential
settlement.

The following are some examples of real-time soil reinforcement applications:

 Retaining structures for soil

 Abutments and side walls of bridges

 Railway and road embankments

 Slope failure repair

 Slope cutting repairs

1
 Figure 1.1 Lower GRS Wall (Hejleh et al., 2002)

Figure 1.2 Use of Lower GRS Wall in Narayanapuram Road bridge, Chebrolu (Andhra Pradesh)

2
The stability and deformation analysis in this work was done utilising the finite element technique

(FEM). The behavior of the wall is investigated with a surcharge imposed to the footing laying on the

back of the wall facing a setback distance. The angle of frictional resistance of the backfill soil, the

length of reinforcement, the relative density of the backfill, the amount of reinforcement applied, and the

interaction coefficient with both reinforcement as well as the backfill were studied. The output of the

FEM analysed for the future scope of the study. Failure and deformation analyses were performed for a

variety of examples with varying setback distances and backfill soil conditions. Finite element analysis

must be undertaken to show that the observed and literature values are in good agreement. The friction

and strain interaction between both the fill material and soil reinforcement is what provides the wall

construction its strength. The main objective of the thin wall face is to prevent structural backfill erosion.

As a result, a versatile gravity structure capable of carrying a wide range of heavy weights has been

developed.

OBJECTIVE OF PROJECT

The objectives of current study are as follows:

I. Calculate the deformation analysis of Geogrid reinforced soil wall.

II. Calculate the safety analysis of Geogrid reinforced soil wall.

III. Study the load behavior on the lower GRS Wall by use of geogrids and the properties of backfill

soil.

3
 CHAPTER 2 – LITRATURE REVIEW

For this study, various literature reviews are described for deformation and safety factor. Other factors

influencing of a lower GRS walls include cohesiveness, angle of friction, and backfill soil unit weight,

and the impact of various aspects have been recorded in the literature. Performance of the lower GRS

wall as a bridge abutment is also covered in the current literature.

2.1 EFFECT OF BACKFILL

Zheng et al. (2016) has studied influence of backfill and cohesive on the reinforced soil wall. According
to the findings, horizontal wall deflections were decreased by up to 50% and stress pressures were
considerably reduced provided cohesive backfill was used. Because backfill soil variables re-present
conservative values for strength and stiffness, rather substantial soil compression occurs in the baseline
situation (Duncan et al. 1980). The settlement of the bridge footing as a result of additional construction
following footing placement is 67.3mm. After bridge footing laying, the equivalent foundation soil
settlement is 14.8 mm. As a result, the backfill soil for lower wall has a vertical compression of 53.6 mm.

Bridge footing
Foundation soil
Differential

Backfill compression

Figure 2.1 differential settlement in backfill soil (Zheng et al. 2016)

4
 Bridge footing
Foundation soil
Differential

Backfill compression

Figure 2.2 differential settlement in backfill soil (Zheng et al. 2016)

Peng et al. (2019) investigated the failure, parametric simulation and the finite element analysis were
used, reinforced soil walls using extensible reinforcing mechanisms. Many different models were
tested, each with different reinforcement spacing, backfill soil and length. When design loads are
exceeded, the direct sliding mode is the main failure mechanim for walls for both granular and
cohessive backfill soil. Tensile loads were lower in cohesive backfill than in granular backfill. While
granular fill material, cohesive backfill walls might have no shearing strain concentrating region at the
end of construction under working load conditions.

Figure 2.3 The two-part wedge planar failure geometry

Figure 2.4 Free body diagram for wall facing

5
Following equation used for this FBD analysis

RFB cos ϕ + TB − TFB − HB − RB sin(θ2 − ϕ) = 0

∑ Fy = 0 (Wedge B in vertical direction)

RFB sin ϕ + RB cos(θ2 − ϕ) − WB = 0

∑ Fx = 0 (Wedge F in horizontal direction)

RWF cos ϕ WF + RF sin(ϕ − θ1) + TF + TFB − TC − HF − RFB cos ϕ = 0

∑ Fy = 0 (Wedge F in vertical direction)

RWF sin ϕ WF + RF cos(ϕ − θ1) − WF − RFB sin ϕ = 0

Yu et al. (2015) investigated a Japanese LGRS wall strengthened with geogrids strips. The results reveal
that as the backfill soil stiffness rises, the tension loads in the wire strips, as well as the vertically face
load at the toe, decrease.

2.2 EFFECTS OF GEOGRIDS IN LOWER GRS WALL

Xiao et al. (2020) studied on the BR-101 roadway in Santa Catarina, Brazil, the behavior of reinforced
bridge structure near an existing road embankment and the grid. The bridge's foundation is built of
organic soft clay, and backfill soil is supported by unidirectional geogrid layers. The faster speed of
embankment construction and the positioning of stiffer reinforcing levels all along embankment axis
caused the side slopes from one of the retaining walls to collapse. By building a berm along the side
slope, this failure can be prevented. The use of reinforcement layers reduced lateral foundation soil
displacement and minimised damage to existing structures.

6
Table: 2.1 Parameters used by Xiao at el. (2020)
Backfill properties Friction angle, ϕ (degree) 40, 45, 46, 47
Spacing of reinforcement, Sv (m) 0.25, 0.45, 0.65, 0.85
Length of reinforcement 0.3H, 0.4H, 0.7H, H
(H is height of abutment)
Reinforcement stiffness,
J (kN/m) 400, 800, 1200, 2400
Abutment height, H (m) 3, 4, 5, 6, 9
Facing batter, β (degree) 0, 2, 4, 8
Concrete footing width, B (m) 0.5, 0.7, 1, 1.5, 2, 3
Surcharge load (kPa) 50, 100, 200, 400

The elastic deformation and settling are moderate and do not fully describe geo-mechanical principles.
The equations' coefficients are based on a lot of simulations with input variables that vary within the
specified range. Infill friction direction of 40° to 47°, reinforcement distance of 0.25–0.85 m, prestressing
length of 0.4H to H, reinforcement initial stiffness of 400–2400 kN/m, abutment height of 3–9 m, facing
batter of 0–8°, concrete footing width of 0.5–3 m, and surcharge loading of 50–400 kPa When variables
in between these range are used, the correctness of the equation is not evaluated.

Hyperbolic Asymptotic Line Hyperbolic Line

Mohr-Coulomb Failure Line

0
Shear strain

Figure 2.5 Variation of failure line in Mohr-Coulomb model (Xiao et al. ,2020)

7
Alam et al. (2019) Studied the efficiency of GRS bridge abutments was numerically studied under static
footing loading. Bridge contact friction factor, backfill soil cohesiveness, backfill soil relative
compacted, reinforcement distance, length, and rigidity, and bridge load were all evaluated. Backfill soil
comparable compacted, reinforcing gap, and bridge loads have a greater impact on laterally side
displacements and foundation footing settlements.

Grien et al. (2010) analysed in PLAC2D the effect of thermal stress of an integrated bridge deck on the a
retaining structures earth (MSE) wall, with an emphasis on generated tension in reinforcement and
displacement of the face wall due to bridge movement. The horizontal movement of the bridge affects
the vertically tension beneath the footing. When opposed to integral bridge abutments, that have a lateral
restraint provided by the bridge deck, typical bridge abutments migrate inward. This unforeseen
deflection is one of the reasons for the greater shear strain and lateral movement.

Hejleh et al. (2002) studied Near Denver, Colorado, USA, GRS wall monitor a two-span bridge and
approaching traffic. They studied the assessment of the effect of the Founders/Meadows bridges under
service loads using displacement data obtained through surveying, gauges, and a road profiler. The
observed displacements are smaller than expected, according to the data. There is not any indications of
differential deformations or the bridge bump. Outward displacements after construction have been
minimal throughout time and are diminishing.

2.3 EFFECTS OF ABUTMENT ON LOWER GRS WALL

Hatami and Doger (2020) studied large solid concrete blocks for the facing of GRS abutments could
improve their load-bearing capability greatly when compared to abutments made of wood. They also
signify the use of geogrids with wood is not so much effective than geogrids with the concrete. Which
develops the best utilization of geogrids as retaining wall in concrete bridge structure.

Mirmoradi (2021) studied mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls provide various advantages over
other traditional retaining structures, including lower costs, greater flexibility, improved aesthetics, as
well as the possibility of reducing "bridge bumps" caused by foundation settlement in pile-supported
abutments.

8
Mirmoradi et al. (2014) analysed numerical analysis on GRS walls with segmented block facing and base
restraint. They discovered that under free defined with constant reinforcing stiffness, reinforcement
tension was affected by facing rigidity and remained constant. The lateral toe stress for the fixed support
and the tension generated in reinforcement are both a product of facing stiffness.

Bathrust at el.(2009) studied that compaction has a significant effect on the relative of building
components outwards wall deformation and horizontally earth load at the toe at the end of construction in
GRS walls. The impact of compact was mitigated by using an external surcharge. After pre-loading, the
instantaneous and long-term residual deflections in the wall were reported to be relatively modest
changes in the structure.

Figure 2.6 Prototype model (Bathrust, 2009)

9
2.1.4 EFFECTS OF REINFORCED STIFFNESS AND COMPACTION OF BACKFILL

Adams and nicks (2018) studied total of 21 wall models with various reinforcing stiffness levels. The
findings suggested that using less stiff reinforcement layers at smaller spacings is preferable than using
stiffer reinforcement layers at larger spacings for minimising facing distortion.

Shangchuan yang (2016) studied the reinforcement in the strongly compacted wall has higher mobilised
tension in soil structure than the reinforcement in the light compacted wall. The connection load was
lower in the severely compacted wall than it was in the light-compacted wall.

Biabani et al. (2016) studied by using finite element software, researchers evaluated the Under cyclic
stress conditions, the displacement performance of a railway slipper on a geosynthetic reinforced
granular materials. A nonlinear elastic material model was utilised for the geocell element, with elastic
properties obtained from laboratory investigations.

10
 CHAPTER-3 THEORY

3.1 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD (PLAXIS 2D)

PLAXIS 2D is a commercial finite element tool for 2-D study of deformation and stability problems in
geotechnical engineering. It has a variety of capabilities to cope with complex geotechnical
constructions. The modelling in this study was done with a 2-D planar strain condition and a 15-noded
triangular element for the materials under consideration.

For soil modelling, the Mohr-Coulomb model is used. This model requires five input parameters:
Young's modulus (E in kN/m2), Poisson's ratio, cohesion (c in kN/m2), angle of internal friction (in
degrees), and dilatancy angle (in degrees). The mesh has been constructed, which divides the entire
model into a number of discrete triangular parts, once the geometry has been fully described and the
material characteristics have been assigned to all clusters and structural items. The displacements (ux and
uy) are determined at the nodes throughout the computation process, and these nodes can be pre-selected
for the creation of load-displacement curves. Rather than nodes, the stresses and strains are calculated at
Gaussian integration points or stress points (Guler et. al 2012).

The φ-c reduction approach is used to calculate the factor of safety (FOS) from PLAXIS 2D. The
strength parameters φ and c of the soil are gradually lowered in this method until failure occur. The
strength parameters are automatically reduced throughout calculation until the final calculation step,
resulting in a fully established failure mechanism. When interfaces are employed, this strength is
likewise diminished. In PLAXIS the total multiplier Σ 𝑴𝒔𝒇 is used to define the soil strength parameters at a
given stage and is define as follows

tan 𝜙𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡

Σ 𝑴𝒔𝒇 = =
tan 𝜙𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡

The attributes specified in the material sets are denoted by the subscript 'input,' and the reduced values
used in the analysis are denoted by the subscript reduced. The technique load advancement number of

11
steps defined in PLAXIS 2D is used to calculate the phi-c reduction. Numerical limit analysis finds for
the solution directly by mixing optimization techniques and rigorous plasticity theory, whereas elasto-
plastic FE analysis requires many iterations to arrive at a ULS solution.

It must be checked always whether the final step has resulted in a fully developed failure mechanism, in this
case the FOS is given by:
𝑆𝐹 = 𝑎𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ / 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒
= 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 Σ𝑀𝑠𝑓 𝑎𝑡 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑢𝑟𝑒

The calculation should be performed with a higher number of steps if the failure mechanism is not fully
developed. The arc-length control approach, which is by default selected for plastic calculation or phi-c
reduction calculation to acquire the collapse loads, is available in PLAXIS for load-controlled
calculations. Figure (a) shows the iteration technique when arc-length control is not employed and the
collapse load is approaching. The algorithm will not converge to a solution in this scenario; hence the
calculation will continue to iterate. The PLAXIS will automatically measure the fraction of external
stress that must be applied for the structure to collapse if the arc-length control is selected (Figure (b)).

Figure 3.1 Iterative procedure for normal load control (Guler et al. ,2012)

12
 Figure 3.2 Iterative procedure for arc load control (Guler et al. ,2012)

3.2 GEOGRIDS
Geogrids are geosynthetic materials that are used to reinforce soils as well as other materials. Soils
split under stress. In comparison to soil, geocell have a high tension. This allows them to spread
pressures over a larger area of soil than is possible. Popular thermoplastics used in geogrids include
polyester, polyvinyl alcohol, polythene, and polypropylene. They're manufactured by weaving or
weaving yarns, heat connecting strips of fabric, or drilling a grid of holes in iron sheet and extending
them into the a grid.

Figure 3.3 Photo of geogrids

13
 Figure 3.4 Photo of GRS extensible reinforcement (geogrids)

Figure 3.5 Typical wrapped face structure of GRS

Geogrids are utilised in the construction of retaining walls in soil backfills. The building of a solid
retaining wall will be aided by holding the soil together. Geocells can be used to improve the structural
stability of the soil. This facilitates in the distribution of loads as well as the confinement of backfill.
Geogrids are utilised to solve problems like sloping ground and soft backfill.

14
 CHAPTER – 4 METHODOLOGY

Philippe et al. (2016) performed the probabilistic analysis of the Reinforced Soil Wall to check the

deformation and safety. Structural stability is modeled as a series of configuration and as r-out-of-m

configuration. Redundancy of structure is formulated based on transitional probabilities. Failure

propagates the different layer of reinforcement in the soil structure.

CONCEPT MODEL

Figure 4.1 Model used for probabilistic analysis (Philippe et al. ,2016)

In this study, Concept model is analysed by commercially available software PLAXIS 2D. Same

properties of backfill soil and geogrids are used to perform the simulation. Various load is applied,

different curves are obtained from the simulation. Load transfer mechanism is shown by the Finite

Element Analysis. This study mainly based on the behavior of backfill soil after applying various load,

15
and to the change of the soil structure.

In probabilistic analysis, 6-meter height of lower wall, 2.3 meter and 2-meter width of abutment has

constructed over it. A surcharge of load 10kpa and point load (bridge load) 265kpa is applied over it.

In present study same parameters are used in PLAXIS 2D for the analysis, a series of surcharge load

5kpa, 10kpa, 15kpa, 20kpa and same point load 265kpa is applied. Deformation and safety analysis has

performed.

MODEL FOR STUDY IN PLAXIS 2D

Figure 4.2 Model used in PLAXIS 2D for analysis

16
Table 4.1: Input parameters used in modeling, (Philippe et al, 2016)

Parameters Backfill soil

Model Mohr-Coulomb

Soil unit weight, ϒ (kN/m3) 20

Modulus of elasticity E, (kN/m2) 30,000

Poisson ratio (μ) 0.3

Cohesion (c) 0

Angle of internal friction φ, (degree) 34

Table 4.2: Properties of reinforcement used in modeling, (Philippe et al, 2016)

Length of reinforcement (m) 7

Spacing between reinforcement (m) 0.6

Axial stiffness (kN/m) 700

Table 4.3: Properties of concrete block in modelling, (mirmoradi et al. 2021)

Model Linear elastic

Unit weight (kN/m3) 22

Poission ratio 0.15

Cohesion C, (kpa) 46

Angle of internal friction (degree) 57

Modulus of elasticity (E), (kN/m2) 65,000

17
4.1 PHASE CONSTRUCTION IN PLAXIS 2D

The procedure of Lower GRS wall in PLAXIS 2D is defined in various phase. The data of wall has been
collected in different phase,

Phase 1: Lower GRS wall of height 6m is constructed.

Phase 2: A 2.3m height abutment is constructed over the Lower GRS wall.

Phase 3: Geogrids and backfill soil placed in the Lower GRS wall.

Phase 4: Various Surcharge loading is applied over it.

Phase 5: A fix point load is applied on the abutment.

Phase 6: Calculate the deformation and factor of safety for soil structure

18
 CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 DEFORMATION ANALYSIS IN PLAXIS 2D

5.1.1 Surcharge load = 5kpa, Bridge load (point load) = 265kpa

Figure 5.1: Deformation without geogrids

Figure 5.2: Wall displacement without geogrids

19
Figure 5.3: Deformed mesh of model without geogrids

Figure 5.4: stresses mesh without geogrid

20
Figure 5.5: Deformation with geogrids

Figure 5.6: Wall displacements with geogrids

21
Figure 5.7: Deformed mesh of model with geogrids

Figure 5.8: Stresses mesh with geogrids

22
5.1.2 Surcharge load = 10kpa, point load = 265kpa

Figure 5.9: Deformation without geogrids

Figure 5.10: Wall displacement without geogrids

23
Figure 5.11: Deformation mesh of model without geogrids

Figure 5.12: Stresses mesh without geogrid

24
Figure 5.13: Deformation with geogrids

Figure 5.14: Wall displacement with geogrids

25
Figure 5.15: Deformation mesh of model with geogrids

Figure 5.16: Stresses mesh with geogrids

26
5.1.3 Surcharge load = 15kpa, point load = 265kpa

Figure 5.17: Deformation without geogrids

Figure 5.18: Wall displacement without geogrids

27
Figure 5.19: deformed mesh of model without geogrids

Figure 5.20: stresses mesh without geogrid

28
Figure 5.21: Deformation with geogrids

Figure 5.22: Wall displacement with geogrids

29
Figure 5.23: Deformed mesh of model with geogrids

Figure 5.24: Stresses mesh with geogrid

30
5.1.4 Surcharge load = 20kpa, point load = 265kpa

Figure 5.25: Deformation without geogrids

Figure 5.26: Displacement of wall without geogrids

31
Figure 5.27: Deformed mesh of model without geogrids

Figure 5.28: Stresses mesh without geogrids

32
Figure 5.29: Deformation with geogrids

Figure 5.30: Wall displacements with geogrids

33
Figure 5.31: Deformed mesh of model with geogrids

Figure 5.32: Stresses mesh with geogrids

34
5.2 SAFETY ANALYSIS IN PLAXIS 2D

5.2.1 Surcharge load variation with factor of safety (FOS) without geogrids in PLAXIS 2D

Table 5.1: Load variation with factor of safety without geogrids

Surcharge load (kPa) FOS

5 1.427

10 1.212

15 1.188

20 1.101

Surcharge Vs FOS
1.6

1.4

1.2

1
FOS

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
5 10 15 20
Surcharge Load (kPa)

Graph 5.1: Surcharge load v/s FOS for without geogrids

35
5.2.2 Surcharge load variation with factor of safety (FOS) with geogrids in PLAXIS 2D

Table 5.2: Surcharge load variation with factor of safety with and without geogrid

Surcharge Load (kPa) FOS (without Geogrid) FOS (with geogrid)

5 1.427 1.944

10 1.212 1.762

15 1.188 1.69

20 1.101 1.55

2.5

1.5
FOS

Without geogrid
0.5 With geogrid

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Surcharge Load (kPa)

Graph 5.2: Surcharge load v/s FOS for with and without geogrid

36
5.2.3 Surcharge load variation with deformation without geogrids in PLAXIS 2D

Table 5.3: Surcharge load variation with displacement without geogrid

Surcharge load (kPa) Displacement (mm)

5 24.85

10 31.74

15 39.47

20 47.64

Displacement Vs Surcharge Load

60

50
Displacement (mm)

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Surcharge Load (kPa)

Graph 5.3: Load v/s displacement for without geogrid

37
5.2.3 Surcharge load variation with deformation with geogrids in PLAXIS 2D

Table 5.4 Surcharge load with displacement with geogrids

Surcharge load Displacement without geogrid (mm) Displacement with geogrid (mm)

(kPa)

5 24.85 17.3

10 31.74 19.37

15 39.47 24.02

20 47.64 31.54

60

50

40
Displacement (mm)

30

20

Without geogrid

10 With geogrid

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Surcharge Load (kPa)

Graph 5.4: Load v/s displacement with geogrid

38
5.2.4 Displacement variation with factor of safety (FOS) in PLAXIS 2D

Table 5.5: Displacement variation with factor of safety with geogrid

FOS Displacement with geogrid (mm)

1.944 17.3

1.762 19.37

1.69 24.02

1.55 31.54

60

50

40
Diaplacement (mm)

30

20

10 Without
geogrid

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
FOS

Graph 5.5: displacement v/s FOS with geogrid

39
5.2.5 Variation of displacement wall with load without and with geogrid

Surcharge Load (kPa) Displacement in wall (without Displacement in wall (with

geogrid) (mm) geogrid) (mm)
5 6.124 4.413
10 7.273 4.717
15 8.513 5.1
20 9.759 5.468

12

10

8
Deflection (mm)

Without Geogrid
2
With Geogrid

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Surcharge Load (kPa)

Graph 5.6: Surcharge load v/s Deflection

40
DISCUSSION

From this study various conclusions are found out in PLAXIS 2D

1. From parametric study, it is found out that when load is applied on Lower GRS wall without
geogrids, the value of deformation increased at higher rate and the value of factor of safety
decreased at higher rate and vice versa.
When surcharge load is increased as 5kpa, 10kpa, 15kpa, 20kpa
i. Deformation is 24.85mm, 31.74mm, 39.47mm, 47.64mm.
ii. Factor of safety is 1.427, 1.212, 1.188, 1.01.
iii. Lateral displacement is 6.124mm, 7.273mm, 8.513mm, 9.759mm.
2. When load is applied on Lower GRS wall with geogrids, the deformation is decreased and
factor of safety increased.
Surcharge load is increased as 5kpa, 10kpa, 15kpa, 20kpa
i. Deformation is decreased as 17.30mm, 19.37mm, 24.02mm, 31.54mm.
ii. Factor of safety increased as 1.944, 1.762, 1.69, 1.55.
iii. Lateral displacement is decreased as 4.413mm, 4.717mm, 5.10mm, 5.468mm.
Similar results have been obtained in Linhares et al. (2021), Nicks et al. (2020). The calculated
results of present study are in the range of above research work.

41
 CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION AND STUDY SCOPE

CONCLUSION

In this study, a series of loads is consequently applied on the wall. The resulting deformation, factor of

safety and displacement for each loading case have been analysed.

After carrying out the study in plaxis 2d software, following conclusions can be drawn

1) The obtained value of deformation from Finite Element Analysis with Geogrids has decreased

30.38%, 43.64%, 63.85% and 64.89% respectively for the loading 5kpa, 10kpa, 15kpa and

20kpa. Results show that as the surcharge load is increased, the effectiveness of geogrids also

increased. So that by providing geogrids we can reduce the deformation in backfill and can

ensure safety of structure.

2) The obtained value of factor of safety from Finite Element Analysis with Geogrids has increased

36.22%, 45.37%, 51.81% and 57.08% respectively for the loading 5kpa, 10kpa, 15kpa and

20kpa. Factor of safety increased with use of geogrids and more effective when we increased

with load, can ensure the safety of structure.

3) The obtained value of lateral displacement of wall from Finite Element Analysis with Geogrids

has decreased 38.77%, 54.18%, 66.92% and 67.31% respectively for loading 5kpa, 10kpa,

15kpa, and 20kpa. The lateral displacement has also decreased with use Geogrids, can ensure the

safety of structure.

4) The results of the FEM analysis correspond with the measured from case studies, the wall

deformation and loads are nearly identical to the measured values. This indicates that numerical

study can be employed effectively in these types of investigations.

42
FURTHER SCOPE OF STUDY

In the current situation, the application of the Lower GRS wall is very diverse now days. The current

research focuses on the impact of various parameters on the fill material of Geogrid reinforced wall. The

various situations can be considered to further study;

 We can study by taking the cohesive soil in backfill.

 By considering the settlement between the abutment and bridge.

 In this study, water table effect is not considered. Further we can consider water table in GRS

wall.

43
REFERENCES

1 Mirmoradi, S. H., M. Ehrlich, and L. F. O. Magalhães. (2021). "Numerical evaluation of

the effect of foundation on the behaviour of reinforced soil walls." Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 49.3, 619-628.
2 Ramalakshmi, M. (2021) "Force-displacement response of bridge abutments under passive
push." Materials Today: Proceedings 43, 883-887.
3 Linhares, Raquel Mariano, Seyed Hamed Mirmoradi, and Mauricio Ehrlich. (2021).
"Evaluation of the effect of surcharge on the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
walls." Transportation Geotechnics 31, 100634.
4 Khosrojerdi, and Mahsa. (2020). "Prediction equations for estimating maximum lateral
displacement and settlement of geosynthetic reinforced soil abutments." Computers and
Geotechnics 125, 103622.
5 Hatami, Kianoosh, and Ridvan Doger. (2020) "Load-bearing performance of model GRS
bridge abutments with different facing and reinforcement spacing
configurations." Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49.5, 1139-1148.
6 Xu, Peng, and Kianoosh Hatami. (2019). "Sliding stability and lateral displacement analysis
of reinforced soil retaining walls." Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47.4, 483-492.
7 Mirmoradi, S. H., (2019). "Evaluation of the combined effect of facing inclination and
uniform surcharge on GRS walls." Geotextiles and Geomembranes 47.5, 685-691.

8 Alam, Md Jahid Iftekhar, C. T. Gnanendran, and S. R. Lo. (2018) "Experimental and

numerical investigations of the behaviour of footing on geosynthetic reinforced fill slope
under cyclic loading." Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46.6, 848-859.

9 Zevgolis, Ioannis E., and Philippe L. Bourdeau. (2016). "Reliability and redundancy of the
internal stability of reinforced soil walls." Computers and Geotechnics 84, 152-163.
10 Zheng, Yewei, and Patrick J. Fox. (2016). "Numerical investigation of geosynthetic-
reinforced soil bridge abutments under static loading." Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 142.5, 04016004.
11 Xie, Yonggui, Ben Leshchinsky, and Shangchuan Yang. (2016). "Evaluating reinforcement
loading within surcharged segmental block reinforced soil walls using a limit state

44
 framework." Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44.6 (2016): 832-844.
12 Mirmoradi, S. H., & Ehrlich, M. (2014). Numerical evaluation of the behavior of GRS
walls with segmental block facing under working stress conditions. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 141(3), 04014109.
13 Lackner, C., Bergado, D. T., & Semprich, S. (2013). Prestressed reinforced soil by
geosynthetics–Concept and experimental investigations. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
37, 109-123.
14 Guler, E., Cicek, E., Demirkan, M. M., & Hamderi, M. (2012). Numerical analysis of
reinforced soil walls with granular and cohesive backfills under cyclic loads. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 10(3), 793-811.
15 Lovisa, J., Shukla, S. K., & Sivakugan, N. (2010). Behaviour of prestressed geotextile-
reinforced sand bed supporting a loaded circular footing. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
28(1), 23-32.
16 PLAXIS 2D–version 9.02 (2008). Reference Manual, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, Netherlands.
17 Guler, E., Hamderi, M., & Demirkan, M. M. (2007). Numerical analysis of reinforced soil-
retaining wall structures with cohesive and granular backfills. Geosynthetics International,
14(6), 330-345.
18 Wu, J. T., Lee, K. Z., & Pham, T. (2006). Allowable bearing pressures of bridge sills on
GRS abutments with flexible facing. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132(7), 830-841.
19 Skinner, G. D., & Rowe, R. K. (2005). Design and behaviour of a geosynthetic reinforced
retaining wall and bridge abutment on a yielding foundation. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 23(3), 234-260.
20 Abu-Hejleh, N., Zornberg, J.G., Wang, T. and Watcharamonthein, J. (2002), “Monitored
Displacements of Unique Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutments”, Geosynthetics
International, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 71-95.

45