Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 362

Effect of Hybrid Geosynthetic Layers on Soil Walls with Marginal Backfill

Subjected to Rainfall
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Dipankana Bhattacherjee1 and B. V. S. Viswanadham2

1
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai,
Mumbai 400 076, India. E-mail: dipankanabhattacherjee@gmail.com
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400
076, India (corresponding author). E-mail: viswam@civil.iitb.ac.in

Abstract: The objective of this paper is to examine the influence of hybrid

geosynthetic layers in dissipating pore water pressures in geogrid reinforced soil walls
with marginal backfill subjected to rainfall. In this regard, numerical modelling was
carried-out using a finite-element based software SEEP/W by subjecting the soil wall
to different rainfall intensities, ranging from 10 mm/hr to 80 mm/hr. For selected
sections, static global stability of the soil wall with and without hybrid geosynthetic
layers was carried-out using SLOPE/W. The number of hybrid geosynthetic layers
was varied to arrive at the optimum number of layers needed to maintain stability
against different intensities of rainfall simulated, and the results were compared with
equivalent number of conventional sand drainage layers. The results indicated that,
the hybrid geosynthetic layers placed at bottom half were more effective in reducing
the pore water pressures developed during rainfall, and in improving the stability of
the reinforced wall section than identical number of sand layers.

INTRODUCTION

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls reinforced with geogrids have seen a
tremendous growth over the past thirty years. However, along with this growth,
numerous failures of reinforced soil walls and slopes were reported simply due to
infiltration of rainwater into an otherwise stable structure. Koerner and Koerner
(2011) reported that, of the 82 cases of wall failure in their database, improper
drainage control during rainfall was the cause of failure in 68% of them, due to
presence of marginal fills in reinforced soil zones. This may be attributed to the
primary assumption made while designing MSE walls, which states that, hydrostatic
pressures are non-existent. This assumption is valid only if well graded, freely
draining soil is used in the reinforced zone. The Federal Highway Administration
allows up to 35% of fines in the reinforced zone, provided proper measures are
adopted to address various design issues related to drainage and deformation (FHWA,
2009). However, the unavailability of good quality granular material has recently led
to the use of low permeability backfill soils, leading to development of excess
positive pore water pressures during rainfall, reduction in shear strength at the

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 363

interface of soil-reinforcement and excessive deformations. The use of low permeable

backfill was reported as the cause of major serviceability problems by Mitchell and
Zornberg (1995), Koerner and Soong (2001, 2005) and Yoo and Jung (2006). Yoo
and Jung (2006) carried out seepage studies numerically on a segmental retaining wall
of height 7.4 m with low permeable backfill using SEEP/W. It was reported that, the
factor of safety reduced drastically due to seepage, and investigations revealed that
relatively high percentage fines coupled with insufficient drainage measures were the
prominent reasons. The instability arises due to the inefficiency of the marginal
backfill soil to dissipate the excess pore water pressure generated within soil walls
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

during the rainfall event, resulting in development of destabilizing seepage forces

behind the reinforced zone. However, marginal backfills comprising of silts and/or
clays can be used in the reinforced soil zone, provided proper drainage components
are incorporated in the design, and potential savings could be in the range of 20-30%
of current reinforced soil wall costs. The use of permeable inclusions as an effective
alternative to relieve the pore pressure buildup was discussed by Mitchell and
Zornberg (1995) and Raisinghani and Viswanadham (2011). Geocomposites that
combine drainage and reinforcement properties were recommended as a remedial
measure by Chen et al. (2007) for improving the stability of a vertical geosynthetic
reinforced earth wall with clayey backfill. Koerner and Soong (2005) reported that,
the seepage forces behind the reinforced zone was reduced to half on provision of
geocomposite layers. Based on the above literature review, it can be inferred that, the
ideal technique required for maintaining stability of the soil wall against rainfall
infiltration requires both reinforcement and drainage criteria to be satisfied
simultaneously. Such a dual-function geosynthetic material, possessing good in-plane
drainage capabilities of a non-woven geotextile, coupled with the reinforcement
strength of a woven geogrid is herein referred to as a hybrid geosynthetic. Till date,
studies on the potential use of hybrid geosynthetics in reducing pore water pressures
in a low permeable backfill soil wall subjected to rainfall is limited.
In the present paper, an attempt has been made to evaluate the effect of inclusion of
hybrid geosynthetic layers and sand drainage layers separately on the drainage
capability of reinforced earth (RE) walls constructed with low-permeability backfill
soil subjected to rainfall. For this purpose, numerical modelling was carried out on a 6
m high reinforced soil wall subjected to five different rainfall intensities, ranging
from 10 mm/hr to 80 mm/hr, using a finite element based software SEEP/W
(Geostudio, 2012). For selected sections, static global stability analysis with and
without hybrid geosynthetics was carried out using the limit equilibrium based
software SLOPE/W. The number of hybrid geosynthetic layers was varied to optimize
the height up to which provision of these layers proved effective under various
intensities of rainfall simulated. The analyses was repeated with identical number of
sand drainage layers, and the pore water pressures and factor of safety values obtained
with identical number of hybrid geosynthetic layers and sand layers were compared.

DETAILS OF THE REINFORCED SOIL WALL SECTION

The polymeric strip reinforced soil wall section having 6 m height used in the
present study is shown in Fig. 1, which is an existing structure along NH-17 in the

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 364

state of Karnataka, India. The properties of marginal soil within the reinforced zone
and backfill zone were maintained as identical. The wall was designed with nine
layers of polymeric strip reinforcements of length 5.1 m, connected with precast
reinforced concrete panels. The tensile load values of the reinforcement layers are
summarized in Table 1, obtained after deducting for relevant factors related to creep,
installation damages, etc. The fill material used during construction (Table 2) was
prepared by blending river sand and locally available soil in equal proportions, and
was reported to have a permeability of 1.64 x 10-7 m/s with fines ≥ 30%.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of RE wall section adopted in the analysis.

The hybrid geosynthetic layers (or sand layers) were placed from the bottom of the
wall, midway between the existing polymeric strip layers, and were considered to be
2 m longer than the length of the polymer strip reinforcement layers (i.e. 7.1 m). The
hybrid geosynthetic selected in the study was a combination of woven geogrid and
nonwoven geotextile, having properties as summarized in Table 3, adopted on the
basis of published data compiled by Iryo and Rowe (2005). The unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity functions and volumetric water content functions for the marginal fill
material and non-woven geotextile component of hybrid geosynthetic were
approximated using the van Genuchten (1980) equation as follows:

θs −θr
θw =θr + (1)
ψ
[1 + ( ) n ]m
a

where, θw is the volumetric water content, θs is the saturated volumetric water content,
θr is the residual water content, Ψ is the negative pore-water pressure, and a, n, m are
curve-fitting parameters. The soil-water characteristic curves and hydraulic
conductivity functions thus developed for the soils and nonwoven geotextile are

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 365

presented in Figs. 2a-2b. For the marginal fill, the van Genuchten parameter α' (kPa-1)
was calculated as 0.22 for wetting cycle, and 0.11 for drying cycle, while n parameter
was approximated as 1.47 for backfill soil and 3.16 for sand.

Table 1. Tensile load values of polymeric strips used in the RE wall

Layer No. Tensile load Layer No. Tensile load

(from top) (kN/m) (from top) (kN/m)
Layer 1 25.2 Layer 5 50.39
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Layer 2 30.23 Layers 6,7 62.99

Layer 3 37.79 Layer 8 75.59
Layer 4 47.24 Layer 9 88.18

Table 2. Properties of backfill soil and sand used in construction of the RE wall

Soil Type γ (kN/m3) k (m/sec) c (kPa) ϕ (◦)

Marginal fill 22.17 1.64 x 10-7 0 32
-5
Sand 20.00 1.2 x 10 0 34
γ = Unit weight; Coefficient of permeability = k; Cohesion = c; Angle of internal friction = φ

NUMERICAL MODELLING OF THE REINFORCED SOIL WALL

SUBJECTED TO RAINFALL

For the RE wall section with marginal backfill subjected to rainfall, seepage
analysis was carried out using the finite element program SEEP/W and stability
analysis was performed using SLOPE/W (Geostudio, 2012). To analyze the unsteady
transient flow through the unsaturated soil mass taking place during rainfall, the
theory suggested by Tsaparas et al. (2002) was incorporated in SEEP/Win the form of
Equation (2):

∂  ∂h  ∂  ∂h  ∂  ∂h  ∂h
 k x  +  k y  +  k z  + q = mw ρ w g
2
(2)
∂x  ∂x  ∂y  ∂y  ∂z  ∂z  ∂t
where h is the hydraulic head, kx and ky are the coefficients of permeability of the soil
with respect to water along x and y axes, q is the applied flux in the domain, mw is the
coefficient of volumetric water change with respect to a change in suction (and is
equal to the slope of the soil water characteristic curve), ρw is the density of water and
g is gravitational acceleration. The soil wall with marginal fill was initially subjected
to different rainfall intensities varying from 10 mm/hr to 80 mm/hr for a duration of
24 hours, and the development of pore pressures and changes in suction of the
unsaturated soil during this period, and upto 24 hr after completion of duration of
rainfall were monitored numerically. Afterwards, the effect of inclusion of hybrid
geosynthetic layers and sand drainage layers of 0.2m thickness within the soil wall
subjected to rainfall were analyzed and compared. The number of sand and hybrid
geosynthetic layers (n) was varied from 1 to 6, and the corresponding sections were
analyzed to obtain pore pressures and safety factors with the progress of rainfall.

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 366

During seepage analysis, the flux boundary q equal to the desired rainfall intensity
was applied at the surface of the soil wall to create rainfall numerically. In addition,
non-ponding boundary condition was adopted in order to prevent excessive
accumulation of rainfall on the slope surface. In the present analysis, five typical
rainfall intensities were selected, viz, 10 mm/hr (moderate rainfall), 22 mm/hr (heavy
rainfall), 36 mm/hr (very heavy rainfall), 50 mm/hr and 80 mm/hr (torrential rainfall),
as per the classification of rainfall event on the basis of average hourly intensity
suggested by Llasat (2001). As the present paper is intended to evaluate the effect of
rainfall of medium to high intensity with short duration on the performance of soil
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

wall with marginal fill with and without hybrid geosynthetics, a rainfall of 24 hours
duration was considered for each intensity of rainfall simulated. An initial ground
water table was assumed to be located near the base of the wall at the onset of rainfall.

Table 3. Properties of hybrid geosynthetic material adopted

kng (m/sec) ktg (m/sec) Thickness (mm) Tug(kN/m)a fb (kPa)b

-2 -3
2.3 x 10 3.5 x 10 3.7 55.35 12.49
kng = Saturated normal coefficient of permeability; ktg = Saturated tangential coefficient of
permeability; Tug = Ultimate tensile load of geogrid reinforcement layer (non-woven
geotextile tensile load component is not considered); For non-woven geotextile, the van
Genuchten parameter, α' (kPa-1) was adopted as 3.00 for wetting cycle, and 1.50 for drying
cycle; n was taken as 3.00; aWide-width tensile test; b Bond skin friction value obtained from
modified direct shear test.

A series of numerical trials was conducted with different mesh configurations and
time steps to establish a suitable numerical scheme. Based on this study, the analysis
was carried out with an approximate global element size of 0.25 m, with 3597 nodes,
and 3582 elements. The marginal fill and foundation soil layers were modelled
considering triangular and quadrilateral elements, while the hybrid geosynthetics were
modelled as interface material model in conjunction with interface elements added to
the mesh to represent the thickness of the geosynthetics. The ‘Saturated/Unsaturated
model’ was used as the constitutive material model for predicting the response of the
soil during rainfall infiltration, without considering capillary barrier effects created by
non-woven geotextiles in unsaturated soil-geotextile system. However, this is not a
major limitation to the present study, because as pointed out by Iryo and Rowe
(2004), as in the case considered in the present analysis, where ksat-geotextile > ksat-soil,
and the rainfall flux (q) is greater than the saturated soil permeability (ksat-soil),
capillary barrier effects do not pose as a significant threat.
Figs. 3a-3c illustrate the typical results of seepage analysis for the RE wall section
subjected to 22 mm/hr rainfall with marginal fill alone, and after the inclusion of three
number of hybrid geosynthetic layers and sand drainage layers respectively, in terms
of development of phreatic surfaces at the end of 24 hrs (when rainfall stopped). As
can be noted from Figs. 3a-3c, the phreatic surface had risen to a considerable height
within the reinforced zone in presence of the marginal fill alone, which is detrimental
for the stability of the wall section. However, the phreatic surface lowered with the
provision of drainage layers, and the reduction was more pronounced with the

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 367

provision of hybrid geosynthetic layers, as compared to identical number of sand

drainage layers. The variation of pore water pressure (u) in kPa along the base of the
RE wall for the above three cases are shown in Fig 4, monitored at the end of 24 hrs
of rainfall. As evident from Fig 4, the marginal fill alone depicted high values of pore
water pressure at the end of rainfall, thereby indicating inefficiency of the fill material
to dissipate the generated pore pressures during rainfall. On the other hand, the pore
pressure values in the reinforced zone reduced by almost 40% and 72% with the
inclusion of three layers of sand and hybrid geosynthetic respectively, ensuring
enhanced stability of the RE wall section against rainwater infiltration.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Soil-water characteristic curves

(b) Hydraulic conductivity functions

FIG. 2. Hydraulic properties for soils and nonwoven geotextile developed on the
basis of van Genuchten (1980) equation and database of Iryo and Rowe (2005).

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 368

The normalized pore water pressures u/γh (defined as a ratio of pore water pressure
at half reinforcement length from toe of the wall to the product of unit weight of the
soil and height of the wall) was calculated at the wall base, mid-way of the reinforced
zone to assess the reduction in pore water pressure with increase in number of sand
and hybrid geosynthetic layers. Figure 5 gives the variation of u/γh obtained for
various rainfall intensities at the end of rainfall. The value of u/γh was found to reduce
significantly with the inclusion of hybrid geosynthetic layers as compared to identical
number of sand layers for all intensities of rainfall ranging from 10 mm/hr to 80
mm/hr. Moreover, increase in number of sand or geocomposite layers beyond four (n
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

= 4 in Fig 5) was found to have marginal influence on u/γh, thereby implying that the
provision of such layers, introduced from the bottom of the wall, midway between the
existing polymeric strip layers, proved to be effective upto about mid-height of the
RE wall. Hence, the drainage layers provided in the lower half of the wall section
played a significant role in lowering pore water pressures and maintaining stability of
the RE wall subjected to rainfall.

(a) With marginal fill alone (b) With 3 layers of sand

(c) With 3 layers of hybrid geosynthetic

FIG. 3. Seepage analysis results of RE wall for 22 mm/hr rainfall at the end of 24 hrs
[Numericals along the contours represent pore water pressure values in kPa].

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 369

STABILITY ANALYSIS USING SLOPE/W

The phreatic surfaces obtained from SEEP/W analyses during various stages of
rainfall were incorporated into the limit equilibrium based software SLOPE/W for
performing the stability analysis of the soil wall under rainfall condition, using
modified Bishop’s method of slices. The variation of negative pore pressures in the
unsaturated zone above the water table was incorporated in the slope stability
analysis, by utilizing the modified Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. While performing
the stability analysis, the reinforcement functions of hybrid geosynthetic layers were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

considered together with their in-plane drainage capability. The tensile load (kN/m)
and bond skin friction values of the hybrid geosynthetic layers as presented in Table 3
were considered as input values in the analyses, along with the values of unit weight,
cohesion and internal friction of the marginal fill, as presented in Table 2.

FIG. 4. Pore water pressure developed at the end of 24 hrs of 22 mm/hr rainfall.

Figure 6 presents the values of factor of safeties obtained by incorporating four

layers of hybrid geosynthetic and sand within the RE wall subjected to five different
rainfall intensities. In general, the factor of safety reduced with the progress of
rainfall, but started improving once the rainfall stopped with the inclusion of drainage
layers. The hybrid geosynthetic reinforced section exhibited higher factor of safety
values compared to identical number of sand drainage layers for all intensities of
rainfall, and was observed to be stable even under a torrential rainfall intensity of 80
mm/hr. Figure 6 reveals that, beyond a rainfall intensity of 22 mm/hr, the rainfall
intensity did not affect factor of safety values significantly, implying that, the
reinforced soil wall section has already reached its capacity to receive rainwater.

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 370
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 5. Variation of u/γh with number of sand and hybrid geosynthetic layers
for different rainfall intensities at the end of 24 hrs.

FIG. 6. Variation of factor of safety with hybrid geosynthetic and sand layers (n=4).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the interpretation of seepage and stability analyses results of wall section
with marginal fill subjected to rainfall, it can be concluded that the pore water
pressure generated within the reinforced zone due to rainfall reduced by 40% and

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 269 371

72% respectively with the inclusion of sand and hybrid geosynthetic layers. In
general, the hybrid geosynthetic layers were found to be more effective as a better
drainage measure and reinforcing element than identical number of sand layers for
different intensities of rainfall simulated. The drainage layers provided in the upper
half of the wall section were observed to be less significant in lowering pore water
pressures as well as in improving the global stability. Hence, the provision of hybrid
geosynthetic layers is a viable option to alleviate the problems posed by low
permeability backfill in reinforced soil wall construction.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/15/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

REFERENCES

Chen, H-T., Hung, W-Y., Chang, C-C., Chen, Y-J., and Lee, C-J. (2007). "Centrifuge
modeling test of a geotextile-reinforced wall with a very wet clayey backfill".
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25(6): 346–359.
FHWA-NHI-10-024. (2009). "Design and construction of mechanically stabilized
earth walls and reinforced soil slopes", Vol 1: 94-101.
Geostudio 2012: SLOPE/W, SIGMA/W and SEEP/W, Ver. 7.15, User’s Guide, Geo-
Slope International Ltd, Calgary, Canada.
Iryo, T. and Rowe, R.K. (2004). "Numerical study of infiltration into a soil-geotextile
column". Geosynthetics International, 11(5): 377 – 389.
Iryo, T. and Rowe, R.K. (2005). "Hydraulic behaviour of soil-geocomposite layers in
slopes". Geosynthetics International, 12(3): 145 – 155.
Koerner, R.M. and Soong, T-Y. (2001). "Geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining
walls". Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19(6): 359–386.
Koerner, R. M., Soong, T.-Y., and Koerner, G. R. (2005). "Back drainage design and
geocomposite drainage materials". Proc. of NAGS Conference, GRI-19, Las Vegas,
Nevada, USA, GII Publication, Folsom, PA: 51-86.
Koerner, R. M. and Koerner, G. R. (2011). "The importance of drainage control for
Geosynthetic reinforced mechanically Stabilized earth walls". Journal of
Geoengineering, 6(1): 3-13.
Llasat, M.C. (2001). "An objective classification of rainfall events on the basis of
their convective features". International J. of Climatology, 21(1): 1385-1400.
Mitchell, J.K. and Zornberg, J.G. (1995). "Reinforced soil structures with poorly
draining backfills. Part II: Case Histories and Applications". Geosynthetics
International, 2(1): 265-307.
Raisinghani, D.V. and Viswanadham, B.V.S. (2011). "Centrifuge model study on low
permeable slope reinforced by hybrid geosynthetics". Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 29(6): 567-580.
Tsaparas, I., Rahardjo, H., Toll, D.G. and Leong, E.C. (2002). "Controlling
parameters for rainfall-induced landslides". Computers and Geotechnics, 29(1): 1-
27.
Van Genuchten, M. Th. (1980). "A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic
conductivity of unsaturated soils". Soil Science Society of America J., 44 (5):892-
898.
Yoo, C.A, Jung, and H.Y. (2006). "Case History of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Segmental Retaining Wall Failure". J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engrg., 132(12): 1538-1550.

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016