See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332344762

Soil spatial variability impact on the behavior of a reinforced earth wall

Article  in  Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering · June 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s11709-020-0611-x

CITATIONS READS

3 474

3 authors:

Adam Hamrouni Daniel Dias

12 PUBLICATIONS   85 CITATIONS   
Antea Group
347 PUBLICATIONS   5,142 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Badreddine Sbartai
Badji Mokhtar - Annaba University
76 PUBLICATIONS   236 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Soil improvement View project

Assessment of the seismic risk of the urban areas in Algeria View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adam Hamrouni on 07 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-020-0611-x

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Soil spatial variability impact on the behavior of a

reinforced earth wall
Adam HAMROUNIa* , Daniel DIASb,c, Badreddine SBARTAId
a
Laboratory InfraRES, Mohammed Cherif Messaadia University, SoukAhras 41000, Algeria
b
School of Automotive and Transportation Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China
c
Antea Group, Antony 92160, France
d
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Annaba, Annaba 23000 & LMGHU Laboratory, University of Skikda, Skikda 21000,
Algeria
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: hamrouni.adam@yahoo.fr

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
ABSTRACT This article presents the soil spatial variability effect on the performance of a reinforced earth wall. The
serviceability limit state is considered in the analysis. Both cases of isotropic and anisotropic non-normal random fields
are implemented for the soil properties. The Karhunen-Loève expansion method is used for the discretization of the
random field. Numerical finite difference models are considered as deterministic models. The Monte Carlo simulation
technique is used to obtain the deformation response variability of the reinforced soil retaining wall. The influences of the
spatial variability response of the geotechnical system in terms of horizontal facing displacement is presented and
discussed. The results obtained show that the spatial variability has an important influence on the facing horizontal
displacement as well as on the failure probability.

KEYWORDS reinforced earth wall, geosynthetic, random field, spatial variability, Monte Carlo simulation

1 Introduction convert the random field discretization into a finite number

In recent years, the probabilistic analysis of geotechnical
structures has devoted a great deal of effort. Various
uncertain parameters were modeled using random vari-
ables based on some simplified methods in which the soil
is considered as a uniform material. However, in nature, as
a result of deposition and post-deposition processes, soil
parameters (elastic properties, shear strength parameters,
etc.) vary spatially (horizontal and vertical direction). The
spatial variability of the soil properties will then affect the
behavior of geotechnical structures (bearing capacity,
foundation settlement, slope stability, etc.). Therefore, the
need to represent the soil parameters considering random
fields is essential. Advanced probabilistic approaches were
proposed in the literature. The deterministic models used to
represent geotechnical structures are frequently based on
the finite difference method (FDM) or the finite element
method (FEM). In these approaches, it is necessary to
Article history: Received Feb 6, 2019; Accepted Aug 11, 2019
of random variables so that the probability of failure can be
determined. Several methods to generate random fields are
already available in literature like: Expansion Optimal
Linear Estimation (EOLE), Stochastic Spectral (SS),
Karhunen-Loève (K-L)), Random Finite Element Method
(RFEM), stochastic response surface method (SRSM),
polynomial chaos expansion (PCE). The use of these
methods has allowed several authors to study the effect of
soil spatial variability on the behavior of geotechnical
structures [1–18].
A mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall is a
composite material formed by the combination of soil
and metallic or synthetic strips able to sustain significant
tensile loads. The reinforcing strips give to the soil mass
anisotropic properties in the direction perpendicular to the
reinforcement Schlosser and Elias [19]. To improve the
optimization of the design method, it is essential to
understand the behavior of such structures. Several studies,
experimental, theoretical or numerical, were carried out
with this objective. Using numerical studies, two and
2 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
three-dimensional models based on finite elements or finite
differences (Abdelouhab et al. [20,21], Riccio et al. [22])
allowed to analyze the deformation and the influence of
soil parameters of reinforced soil walls.
The reliability analysis of reinforced retaining walls
permits to consider the uncertainties due to the soil
properties variability [23–28]. These authors have included
in their studies the uncertainties related to the reinforce-
ment properties. Chalermyanont and Benson [29] evalu-
ated the Hasofer-Lind reliability index through the
application of Monte Carlo simulations (MCSs). Relia-
bility diagrams were also developed to select the
geosynthetic material which is able to meet the safety
requirements [30]. However, the representation of such a
realistic structure for reliability analysis by analytical
mechanisms is not satisfactory. So the use of the
continuum mechanics (FEM or FDM) is essential. Thurner
and Schweiger [31] found some difficulties to apply
reliability calculation methods such as the first order
reliability method (FORM) or the second order reliability
method (SORM) when the performance is not explicitly
available in an analytical form (such as the displacements
of the reinforced retaining wall). Sayed et al. [25] assessed
the maximum failure probability of MSE using the RSM;
this model is based on numerical simulations using FEM
model. Lin et al. [32] analyzed the probabilistic maximum
deformations of three reinforced soil walls using a
combination of a FDM and the RSM technique. This
work was extended by Yu and Bathurst [33] using different
geosynthetic reinforcement configurations. The response
surface methodology optimized by genetic algorithm was
used by Hamrouni et al. [34] to study the reliability of
reinforced earth walls.
In the literature, very few studies have been done to
investigate the effect of spatial variability on the response
of a reinforced earth wall. Previous studies only considered
random variables. However, Dodagoudar et al. [35]
attempted to consider the influence of soil spatial
variability on reinforced earth walls. A linear elastic
behavior was assumed for the soil and the soil Young
modulus was considered as a 2D isotropic random field
and supposed to follow a normal distribution. Ning and
Bathurst [36] investigated random fields of soil properties
on reinforced soil slopes. The RFEM developed by
Griffiths and Fenton [37] was used. Their work was only
focused on the reinforced slopes stability at the ultimate
limit state.
This article presents a probabilistic analysis at the
serviceability limit state (SLS) of a reinforced earth wall.
The spatial variability of the soil is modeled using non-
Gaussian anisotropic random fields. Random fields are
discretized into a finite number of random variables using
the K-L expansion. The facing maximum horizontal
displacement is used to represent the system response.
The deterministic model considered is based on a finite
difference numerical approach (FLAC2D [20,21]). The
MCS methodology is used to determine the probability
density function (PDF) of the system response variability
of the reinforced soil retaining wall. The aim of this study
is to determine the effect of the different governing
statistical characteristics (autocorrelation distances and
coefficient of variation) on the facing maximum horizontal
wall displacement.
2 Presentation of the numerical model
Abdelouhab et al. [20,21] used the Lagrangian explicit
finite-difference code FLAC2D to study the behavior of a
mechanically reinforced earth wall reinforced by geosyn-
thetic strips. The wall of reference is 6 m high and is made
of 4 superimposed panels (beam elements). This wall is
reinforced by 8 levels of 4 m long reinforcement layers
(strip elements) (Fig. 1(a)). The real cruciform geometry of
the panels (Fig. 1(b)), leads to a complex geometry of the
wall facing. A real panel have 4 points of connection for
the strips. This three-dimensional geometry and the
staggered layout are simplified into a two-dimensional
model using some simplifications. The panels are modeled
as rectangular plates of 1.5 m by 1.5 m. The simplification
of the geometry permits to use a two-dimensional model
with continuous reinforcements (plane strain configura-
tion). The parameters of these reinforcements are calcu-
lated by homogenizing their geometrical characteristics
(Fig. 1(c)). The reinforcement surface is the ratio between
the individual reinforcement area multiplied by the number
of reinforcement and the model width.
For the boundary conditions, the horizontal displace-
ments are blocked at the vertical limits of the model.
Vertical and horizontal displacements are blocked at the
model bottom.
Concerning the interface friction at the soil/reinforce-
ment, the apparent coefficient of friction is used in order to
take into account the effect of the dilatancy and the
reinforcements shape.
The model consists of two soils (Fig. 1(a)). The
embankment soil is made of a uniform fine sand, known
as Hostun RF sand [38,39]. The constitutive model used
for this sand is linear elasticity with perfectly plasticity
(shear failure criterion of Mohr-Coulomb type). This
constitutive model is characterized by five parameters: 2
elastic parameters (E: Young’s modulus, υ: Poisson’s ratio)
and 3 plastic parameters (φ: friction angle, C: cohesion, ψ:
dilatancy angle). The parameters of this constitutive model
were defined for the embankment soil by calibration on
triaxial tests carried out under confinement of 30, 60, and
90 kPa [20,21]. For the soil foundation, a linear elastic
model is used. This model is characterized by two elastic
parameters (E: Young’s modulus and υ: Poisson’s ratio)
(Table 1).
Beam elements are used to model the concrete panels.
These structural elements are isotropic and linear elastic.
 Adam HAMROUNI et al. Soil spatial variability impact on the behavior of a reinforced earth wall 3

Fig. 1 Presentation of the studied numerical model. (a) Geometry of the earth reinforced wall; (b) cruciform panel; (c) two-dimensional
model; (d) numerical model adopted.

Table 1 Mechanical and geometrical properties of the model

properties (unity) fill soil foundation concrete panels reinforcement GS 50 Abdelouhab et al. [41]
E (Young’s modulus) (MPa) 50 50 15000 2500
υ (Poisson’s ratio) 0.3 0.3 0.2 –
φ (friction angle) (°) 36 – – –
Ψ (dilation angle) (°) 6 – – –
C (cohesion) (kPa) 0 – – –
3
density (t/m ) 1.56 2 2.5 –
width (m) – – – 0.1
thickness (mm) – – – 3
strip tensile yield-force limit (kN) – – – 100
maximum compressive strength (kPa) – – – 0
tensile failure strain limit of strip (%) – – – 12

They can resist to bending moments, compressive, and
tensile efforts (Table 1).
The beams were represented by pins to reproduce the
flexibility of the real wall facing. Wall panel spacers made
of ribbed elastomeric pads are inserted to prevent the
panels from having contact points and peeling of the
concrete. In numerical modeling, the elastomeric pads are
considered by reducing artificially the beam section
keeping the real inertia moment.
Geosynthetic strip type of reinforcement containing
high-tenacity polyester yarns protected by polyethylene
sheath are studied and modeled by the use of structural
elements of “Strip” type [40]. Its properties are presented
in Table 1. These elements are specially designed to
4 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
simulate the behavior of reinforcing strips used in
reinforced earth embankments. Strip elements consider
tensile strength and compression but cannot withstand
bending moments [41].
The soil and the beam elements are linked using
interface elements in order to simulate the frictional
interaction between the backfilling soil and the concrete
facing panels (Table 2). The FLAC recommendations are
used to calculate the normal and the shear stiffness. The
value of the friction angle is estimated to be equal to 2/3 of
the soil friction angle [40].
A nonlinear shear failure envelope that varies as a
function of the confining pressure defines the shear
behavior of the strip/soil interface. The interface para-
meters are the shear stiffness kb at the soil/strip interface
and the apparent friction coefficient f*. The values of the
shear stiffness (kb) and parameter the friction coefficient
(f*) used were defined by calibration on laboratory pullout
tests (Abdelouhab et al. [41]). According to this calibra-
tion, the parameters used in the numerical modeling are
presented in Table 2.
A non-uniform mesh composed of around 2500 zones is
used (Fig. 1(d)). These zones increase gradually away from
the ends of the reinforced area until they become equal to
0.80 m in areas far from the retaining wall but below the
maximum limit (1 m) proposed by Der Kiureghian and Ke
[42]. In the vertical direction, the backfill is divided into 24
areas refined uniformly. This mesh have a constant vertical
width equal to 0.25 m and does not exceed a maximum of
0.50 m vertically (recommendation proposed by Der
Kiureghian and Ke [42]). These values are used in
accordance with the projection condition of a random
field on the finite difference mesh.
The compaction of the soil layers is not considered in the
reference study. A calculation considering compaction by
an equivalent loading pressure is performed in the
parametric study.
Calculations were made under drained conditions as
there is no water presence.
To reproduce the real building steps, the setting up of the
embankment is modeled by layers of 0.375 m thickness in
3 stages:
Stage 1. Set up of the first concrete panel of the first and
Table 2 Concrete panel/soil interface and Soil/reinforcements interface characteristics
parameter
constitutive model
normal stiffness (MPa)
shear stiffness (MPa)
friction angle at panel/soil interface (°)
initial apparent friction coefficient at the soil/strip interface “f 0*”
minimum apparent friction coefficient at the soil/strip interface “f 1*”
shear stiffness at the soil strip interface kb (MN/m /m)2
of the second soil layer and installation of the first strip
between the two layers of the reinforced backfill
(equilibrium under self weight).
Stage 2. Placement of the third and the fourth layer and
installation of the second strip between the two layers of
the reinforced backfill (equilibrium under self-weight).
Stage 3. Set up of the second beam, of the fifth and sixth
layer and installation of the third strip between the two
layers of the reinforced backfill.
These phases are repeated up till 6 m high.
2.1 Results (displacements)
Using the reinforcement reference parameters, the max-
imum displacement calculated on the MSE wall is equal to
7.29 cm. This value is located just behind the concrete
facing, at the level of the 3rd reinforcing bed (Fig. 2). The
extensibility of the synthetic strips (low elastic modulus)
leads to this high wall deformation.
Fig. 2 Horizontal facing displacement of the MSE Wall (6 m
height).
2.2 Determination of the significant soil parameters on the
wall behavior
To reduce the number of variables to be considered in the
reliability approach, a parametric study was used to define
the input parameters influence on the wall behavior. The
output parameter considered in this study is the facing
maximum horizontal displacement noted as Uhmax =
7.29 cm which is calculated with the reference values. A
parametric study is performed here to check the sensitivity
concrete panel/soil interface soil/reinforcements interface
Coulomb sliding Coulomb sliding
1000 –
1000 –
24 –
– 1.2
– 0.6
– 0.22
 Adam HAMROUNI et al. Soil spatial variability impact on the behavior of a reinforced earth wall 5

of the facing maximum horizontal displacement to the five
parameters of the linear elastic perfectly plastic constitutive
model (E, υ, c, φ, and ψ) and of the panel/soil interface
friction angle (°). When studying the influence of one
parameter, the other parameters are kept at their reference
value. A total of 18 simulations corresponding to three
different values of each parameter see Table 3 are studied,
as shown in Fig. 3. The Young’s modulus, the Poisson’s
ratio, the dilation angle and the friction angle at the panel/
soil interface have a negligible influence on the Uhmax
value (difference versus the reference case inferior to 2%).
However, two parameters have an influence on the output
parameters: the friction angle φ and the soil unit weight γ.
The soil friction angle influence is higher than the one of
the soil unit weight respectively of 123% and 20%. In the
following study, only the friction angle φ will be
considered as a random variable.
The soil Young’s modulus has a negligible effect on the
horizontal displacement Uhmax. This is due to the rigidity
of the reinforcements which is stiffer than the soil one.
3 Random field method used for
discretization
As already mentioned, random fields are defined by a
distribution law and an autocorrelation function. Random
fields generated in this study are two-dimensional and
follow a lognormal distribution law. The mean and
standard deviation of the field in (Z) normally distributed
are named μZ, σZ, respectively, while the average (μln) and
standard deviation (σln) of the lognormal Z field are given
by
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

ln ¼ lnð1 þ COV 2Z Þ, (1)
ln ¼ lnðZ Þ – 0:5
ln : (2)
Among the available methods used to generate corre-
lated parameters randomly, the Cholesky decomposition
[43,44] and K-L expansion [45,46] are often used. Since
the considered problem deals with spatially correlated
fields, the K-L decomposition is recommended and was
employed in this study.
The random field defined by the method of expansion in
series of K-L presented by Spanos and Ghanem [45] is
used to express it through a truncated series using M
number of terms [47,48]. The field is then divided into a
determined portion represented by the average, and a
random element depending of fi eigenvalues and of li
functions of the corresponding covariance function:
 XM pffiffiffiffi 
ZðX ,Þ  exp ln þ i¼1
l i fi ðX Þ i ðÞ , (3)

Table 3 Influence of soil parameters on the wall behavior

parameters value reference variation DU/Uref (%)
min max
Young’s modulus (MPa) 50 37.5 62.5 0.49 – 0.23
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.225 0.375 0.329 – 1.83
friction angle (°) 36 27 45 122.9 – 40.38
dilation angle (°) 6 4.5 7.5 0.57 – 1.17
unit weight (kN/m3) 15.6 11.7 19.5 – 18.97 20.05
friction angle at panel/soil interface (°) 24 18 30 1.64 – 0.82

Fig. 3 Influence of the input parameters on the maximum displacement of the wall face.
6 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

with X the vector of coordinates of the field points where and autocorrelation function. However, the accuracy of the
the values of the Z property are to be generated; θ is the random fields generated depends on the number of terms M
variable of the random draw and i(θ) is a normal random of the K-L series. To select the number of terms M to be
variable centered and reduced. used in the random field discretization of the friction angle,
The main advantage of this method lies in the the average distribution functions and autocorrelation are
decoupling of spatial and stochastic variables (x and θ, drawn for many realizations of this random field as a
respectively). The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions (fi and function of the number of terms M, and compared to the
li, respectively) of the covariance function C (X1, X2) are target functions.
solutions of the following equation: A random field generation of the friction angle is
proposed using a lognormal distribution with a mean value
!DCðX 1,X 2ÞfiðX 1ÞdX 1 ¼ lifiðX 2Þ: (4) μj = 36° and a covariance COVj = 15%. An exponential
autocorrelation function with autocorrelation distances
This integral can be analytically solved for some types of equal to 1 m in both directions is chosen to illustrate the
autocorrelation function. The analytical solution for the influence of the number of terms M. A large number of
exponential autocorrelation function here adopted is given outputs (350) are generated for each variation of the
by Ghanem and Spanos [49]. The stochastic dependency number of terms M. For each case, the cumulative
appears only through the random variables i. The spatial probability function and the autocorrelation function of
correlation is defined by the eigen modes (fi and li) of the the generated values are plotted. The average of these
covariance kernel (Eq. (4)). functions is then compared to the target theoretical
The expression of the covariance function appears in functions.
Eq. (5b) and introduces both the variance
2 of the Figure 4 shows a comparison between the average
Gaussian random field and the correlation length L. Each cumulative probability functions (CDF) using 350 random
term C12 of the covariance matrix C is the value of the field realizations for different numbers of terms M and the
covariance function computed between the two nodes 1 target cumulative probability function. Figure 5 shows a
and 2 of the spatial mesh, whose position is given by X1 comparison between the autocorrelation function of the
and X2. target (Eq. (7)) and of the average autocorrelation functions
  generated in the horizontal direction after 350 random field
kX 1 – X 2 k realizations (Eq. (8), considering different numbers of
C 12 ¼ CðX 1 ,X 2 Þ ¼ V exp – : (5a)
L terms M). The good concordance between these two curves
has permitted to validate the generated stochastic field.
In our problem, two spatial directions (horizontal and
vertical) are distinguished. Therefore, two correlation
lengths are also introduced. When a 2D field is considered,
the covariance function is given as:
 
jx1 – x2 j jy1 – y2 j
C 12 ¼
ln exp –
2
– : (5b)
Llnx Llny
Equation (5b) is the covariance between nodes 1 and 2,
for which (x1, y1) are the coordinates of node 1 (id. for node
2). Llnx and Llny are the autocorrelation distances in the
horizontal direction and in the vertical one, respectively.
Note that the number of terms M is selected depending
on the targeted accuracy. The estimated error εrr(X) values
generated by the K-L expansion series for a number of
terms is given by M [50].
 X
1
εrr ðX Þ ¼ 1 –
M
l f2 ðX Þ:
i¼1 i i
(6)

ln
Fig. 4 Comparison between the distribution function and the
average functions generated using 350 realizations of the friction
angle random field, for several numbers of terms M.
4 Choice of the number of terms of the K-L
series
Figures 4 and 5 show that more the number of K-L terms
When a random field is generated, the values of this field increases, more the functions generated get closer to the
should reflect the initial theoretical statistical distribution target theoretical functions, especially for 200 and 250
 Adam HAMROUNI et al. Soil spatial variability impact on the behavior of a reinforced earth wall
Fig. 5 Comparison between the theoretical autocorrelation
function and the average autocorrelation functions generated
using 350 realizations of the friction angle random field, for several
numbers of terms M.
terms M. A number of terms M equal to 250 is adopted in
the following calculations.
The domain and the model mesh must be selected to
meet certain conditions (fine mesh in areas near the facing).
A transfer of the stochastic data to the mesh is necessary.
For this purpose, two transfer methods exist:
1) The middle method used by Refs. [42,51,52]: in this
method, the random field is represented by its value at the
centroid of the finite element. One seeks the position of the
centroid in the stochastic mesh and assigned to the finite
element mesh the value of the field corresponding to the
position of its centroid in the stochastic mesh.
2) The local averaging method (or spatial averaging)
proposed by Vanmarcke [53,54]: it consists in allocating to
each cell of the domain a value determined by averaging
the stochastic mesh field values that fall within the finite
element mesh.
Der Kiureghian and Ke [42] noted that the method of the
middle over-represents the variability of the field while the
local averaging method tends to under-represent the true
variability of the field. They also demonstrated that the
spatial averaging method is more suitable for Gaussian
fields. Popescu [55] conducted a comparative study
between these two methods and concluded that the middle
method is best suited for non-Gaussian random fields since
it keeps the probability distribution of the initial field. In
this study, the middle method was used since the random
field representative soil properties are considered as non-
Gaussian fields.
5 Random field of soil properties
The numerical model proposed in this study focuses on the
spatial variability of the soil friction angle. The corre-
sponding field is expected to follow a lognormal distribu-
tion, the soil friction angle being a strictly positive
quantity. The mean and standard deviation are denoted
7
by μln and σln, respectively. The dependency of the friction
angle values for two distinct points of the soil mass is
represented by an exponential autocorrelation function.
To model a realization of the friction angle random field
and pass it to the proposed numerical model, a 2D field
representing the soil mass is discretized into Nx  Ny
surface elements, where Nx and Ny are the number of
elements in the x and y directions. With the implementation
of a function using MATLAB, a friction angle value is
given to each soil element. In fact, each element is assumed
to be homogeneous and is affected by a single friction
angle value at its center using the K-L method of expansion
in series, developed by Ghanem and Spanos [49]. In other
words, for each realization of the random field, a given
configuration of the soil is generated: a friction angle value
is assigned to the center of each of its elements depending
of its position in space, following the distribution law and
the selected autocorrelation function. It should be noted
that for each realization, the values of the random field (φ)
were determined at the centroid of each element of the
deterministic mesh (FLAC2D) using the middle method
[55].
Finally, it should be mentioned that a link between
FLAC2D and MATLAB was performed to automatically
exchange the data in both directions and thus to decrease
the computation time.
The spatial variability of the soil friction angle can be
defined by a lognormal distribution with μj = 36 °, COVφ =
15% and a second-order exponential function with an
autocorrelation distance equal to 1.0 m in both directions.
The embankment is represented by a random field (Fig. 6).
The field is generated in two dimensions using the
following dimensions: 20 m in the longitudinal direction X
and 6 m in the vertical direction Y.
This domain is discretized into elements of 0.25 m 
0.25 m.
6 Probabilistic analysis with Monte Carlo
6.1 Selection of the optimal number of MCS
The effect of the soil spatial variability on the wall facing
horizontal displacement is done using the Monte Carlo
(MC) method for several combinations of autocorrelation
distances in the two directions. This probabilistic analysis
requires, for each combination studied, the generation of a
large number of samples, each represented by a random
field realization. The maximum facing horizontal displace-
ment (Umax ) is then calculated for each of these
achievements and the average (μU) and standard deviation
(σU) of all values of the maximum facing horizontal
displacement are then compared. The number Ns of
simulations required is the one for which the values of
the two statistical moments converge.
Table 4 shows the values of the first critical pressure
8 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 6 Transformation of the random field data to the numerical model.

Table 4 Mean μ(u) and coefficient of variation COV (U) of the maximum facing horizontal displacement for different numbers of MC simulations
and number of terms M of the K-L series.
Ns M
50 100 150 200 250
μ (U) (cm) COV (U) (%) μ (U) (cm) COV (U) (%) μ (U) (cm) COV (U) (%) μ (U) (cm) COV (U) (%) μ (U) (cm) COV (U) (%)
50 7.4572 12.29 6.9660 15.47 7.7780 12.84 8.7580 14.44 9.6880 16.15
100 7.5887 12.56 6.2480 13.65 8.5020 13.10 7.1200 14.84 8.4020 14.20
200 7.6827 12.30 8.5770 14.71 6.8680 14.21 7.2020 14.27 8.7300 14.18
300 7.7630 12.68 8.7410 15.18 5.9760 14.68 8.2630 14.48 10.7700 14.22
400 7.7478 12.88 8.7480 14.92 8.5550 14.96 10.8400 14.80 8.4070 13.88
500 7.7528 13.03 9.4610 14.84 7.2360 14.98 8.7240 14.59 6.6880 14.04

statistical moments obtained for different simulation
numbers Ns, while varying the number of terms of K-L,
M. The corresponding curves are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
The optimal number of MCSs is equal to 300. This
number will be used for the following calculations.
6.2 Effect of the soil spatial variability on the facing
horizontal displacement
To study the soil spatial variability effect on the facing
horizontal displacement, several combinations of the
autocorrelation distances (L) in the two directions were
used. In fact, when a small distance autocorrelation is
considered in a given direction, the soil friction angle
values are highly correlated and quickly change from one
point to another. However, when the distance is large, the
values change slowly with the distance and can become
homogeneous.
Figure 9 illustrates a realization of an isotropic random
field of the soil friction angle according to a lognormal
distribution law with an autocorrelation distance of 1 m.
The mean and coefficient of variation of the soil internal
friction angle φ adopted are equal to 36 degrees and 15%,
respectively. Dark regions correspond to small values of φ
and the lighter ones to larger values where the values vary
between 28° and 44°. Figure 10 shows a realization of a
random field of the anisotropic soil internal friction angle
(i.e., Lx = 10 m; Ly = 1 m).
The considered combinations are as follows:
1) Case 1D: Lx ≠ Ly
These cases represent stratified soils knowing for each
layer its friction angle value. The layers are parallel to the
plane formed by the directions for which a large
autocorrelation distance is adopted.
2) Case 2D: Lx = Ly
These cases represent heterogeneous soils with friction
angle varying from one point to another.
Several cases of autocorrelation distances (L) are
considered using L = 1, 2, 5, and 10 m.
The two first statistical moments of the maximum facing
 Adam HAMROUNI et al. Soil spatial variability impact on the behavior of a reinforced earth wall 9

Fig. 7 Mean maximum horizontal displacement of the facing as a function of the simulation number MC, for several numbers of terms
M of the series K-L.

Fig. 8 Coefficients of variation of the facing maximum horizontal displacement in terms of the simulation number MC, for several
numbers of terms M of the series K-L.

Fig. 9 Sample of internal friction angle random field (degrees).

10 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

Fig. 10 Sample of isotropic internal friction angle random field (degrees) (Lx = 10 m, Ly = 1 m).

displacement are calculated for 300 realizations of the
random field for each of the 3 considered cases. The results
are then compared and evaluated.
6.3 Effect of the soil spatial variability on the average
maximum facing displacement
Figure 11 shows the variation of the average on the
maximum facing displacement as a function of the distance
autocorrelation for different random fields types (1D and
2D).
All curves have the same shape. With the increase of the
autocorrelation distance, the average of the maximum
displacement increases to reach a maximum at a facing
height of L ≈ H/2, and then decreases. This maximum
indicates that the soil behind the facing is at least stable for
this autocorrelation distance. Similar results are observed
by Ref. [6] for shallow foundations. This can be explained
as follows:
1) For small autocorrelation distances, the soil varia-
bility is very high and it results in a mix of small and large
friction angle values. This gives a displacement close to the
deterministic value.
2) The movement of the ground is greater in areas where
there is a low value of friction angle and especially in the
reinforced area. For intermediate autocorrelation distances
(L ≈ length of strips), agglomerates of weak and strong
areas are created. Their distribution within the reinforced
zone varies from one realization to another.
3) For larger autocorrelation distances: for the 1D case,
the layers and soil columns form alternating small and
large values of the friction angle. The soil zones with a
high friction angle value will constitute a stabilizing barrier
for the soil movements. It induces a small value of the
maximum displacement mean of the facing and a more
stable structure. As for the 2D case, the soil becomes more
homogeneous especially for the case where Lx = Ly =
1000 m. In this case, the mean of the maximum facing
displacement has a difference of 5.7% compared to the
deterministic displacement.
4) The cases considering a spatial variability in a single
direction (vertical one), lead to values very close to the
deterministic displacement of the facing but lower than
those obtained for the case 1D according to the horizontal
direction. This is due to the fact that the variation of the
friction angle along the vertical axis leads to “layered”

Fig. 11 Variation of the average facing maximum displacement in terms of autocorrelation distance for 1D and 2D random fields.
 Adam HAMROUNI et al. Soil spatial variability impact on the behavior of a reinforced earth wall
vertical soil, perpendicular to the reinforcement plane of
symmetry, which facilitates their collapse and makes this
case as safe as the case according to the horizontal
direction.
5) Finally, for the case 2D (Lx = Ly), the mean maximum
displacement of the facing is greater than the one of the 1D
case according to the horizontal and vertical direction. This
is due to the introduction of the vertical variability which
reduces the deformations of the facing, as explained above.
In contrast, the 2D case reveals lower movements of the
facing compared to the 1D case.
6) Observing the effect of the spatial variability
direction on the mean maximum displacement of the
facing reveals that taking into account the same variation in
the angle of friction in the two directions leads to a less
stable facing. However, considering spatial variability in
the longitudinal and/or vertical directions improves the
deformations of the facing and therefore a smaller value of
the displacement is required to avoid the failure of the
structure.
6.4 Effect of the soil spatial variability on the standard
deviation of the maximum facing displacement
Figure 12 shows that the variation of the standard deviation
of the facing maximum displacement depends of the
distance autocorrelation. All curves have the same
tendency regardless the considered variability. The stan-
dard deviation increases with the autocorrelation distance
increase.
Fig. 12 Variation of the standard deviation facing maximum
displacement versus the autocorrelation distance (1D and 2D
random fields).
Indeed, for small autocorrelation distances, the gener-
ated friction angle values are very heterogeneous, i.e., a
mixture of large and small values, which leads to an
“averaging” of the backfill properties values. The resulting
facing maximum displacements are more homogeneous.
For larger autocorrelation distances, the friction angle
values, although more homogeneous within the same mass
11
of soil, vary considerably from one realization to other,
leading to more scattered values of the maximum facing
displacements.
Figure 12 shows that the greatest variation of the
maximum facing displacement is obtained for the case 2D
and is followed by the 1D cases according to the Y axis.
The smaller variation is observed for the case 1D
according to the X axis. This can be explained in the
following way:
For very large autocorrelation distances (Lx = Ly =
1000 m), the standard deviation of the maximum facing
displacement tends to a maximum constant value which
corresponds to the case of a random variable. In fact, the
friction angle values for one realization case are highly or
even perfectly correlated, thus generating a homogeneous
ground mass and affected everywhere by the same friction
angle value. However, the friction angle values depend on
the theoretical statistical distribution adopted. The soil
mass thus has a wide variation of the friction angle values
which has a direct effect on the system response. (i.e.,
maximum facing displacement).
The cases considering a spatial variability in one
direction (case 1D), exhibit a smaller variability of the
maximum facing displacement than the case of “random
variables” discussed above, i.e., Lx = Ly = 1000 m. In fact,
by introducing a variation of the friction angle in a given
direction, all the maximum facing displacement values will
tend to increase, thus excluding the small displacement
values. Consequently, the maximum facing displacement
variability will decrease compared to the case of homo-
geneous soil mass.
6.5 Influence of the random field coefficient of variation
Figure 13 presents the PDF of the maximum facing
displacement for three different configurations of the
Fig. 13 Effect of the random field’s coefficient of variation
(friction angle) on the PDF of the maximum facing displacement
(Lx = Ly = 1 m).
12 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.
random field’s coefficients of variation. Table 5 presents
the statistical moments of the maximum facing displace-
ments. Figure 13 and Table 5 show that the variability of
the maximum facing displacements increases with the
random field coefficient of variation.
Table 5 Effect of the random fields coefficients of variation “φ” on the
statistical moments of the maximum facing displacement.
item Uh  max ðcmÞ
Uh  max ðcmÞ COV (%)
COVφ = 10% 7.5022 0.7784 10.3756
COVj = 15% 7.6901 1.1297 14.6903
COVj = 20% 7.9875 1.4617 18.2998
7 Conclusions
The influence of the soil spatial variability on the behavior
of a reinforced earth wall at the SLS is considered in this
work. Both cases of isotropic and anisotropic non-normal
random fields are considered for the soil properties. The
K-L method is used for the discretization of the random
field. A deterministic model based on numerical simula-
tions using the explicit code Lagrangian finite-difference
code FLAC2D is used to calculate the maximum
horizontal facing displacement. The MCS technique was
used to determine the deformation response variability of
the reinforced soil retaining wall. The main results of this
study are the following ones:
1) The main input parameter which influence the
movement of the wall is the internal friction angle for the
studied case.
2) The numerical results have shown that the variability
of the maximum facing displacement increases when the
random fields coefficient of variation increase.
3) A maximum probabilistic mean is reached for an
intermediate value of the autocorrelation distance (roughly
equal to the reinforcement length), whatever the studied
scenario. This maximum indicates that the reinforced area
is the least stable for this autocorrelation distance.
4) Considering a friction angle spatial variability along
the transverse direction, it induces a decrease of the
horizontal facing displacement. As a result, it leads to
higher displacement values than those obtained in cases of
spatial variability in the longitudinal and/or 2D directions.
The last two scenarios would lead to a minimum facing
displacement.
5) The standard deviation of the maximum facing
displacement increases with the autocorrelation distance
increase for all the considered scenarios,
Finally, the obtained results show the importance of
considering the spatial variability of soil properties due to
the fact that some observed phenomena (such as the non-
symmetric soil failure) cannot be seen when homogenous
soils are considered.
References
1. Griffiths D V, Fenton G A. Bearing capacity of spatially random
soil: The undrained clay Prandtl problem revisited. Geotechnique,
2001, 51(4): 351–359
2. Griffiths D V, Fenton G A, Manoharan N. Bearing capacity of rough
rigid strip footing on cohesive soil: Probabilistic study. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2002, 128(9):
743–755
3. Fenton G A, Griffiths D V. Bearing capacity prediction of spatially
random c-φ soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2003, 40(1): 54–
65
4. Popescu R, Deodatis G, Nobahar A. Effect of random heterogeneity
of soil properties on bearing capacity. Probabilistic Engineering
Mechanics, 2005, 20(4): 324–341
5. Ahmed A, Soubra A H. Extension of subset simulation approach for
uncertainty propagation and global sensitivity analysis. Georisk:
Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and
Geohazards, 2012, 6(3): 162–176
6. Al-Bittar T, Soubra A H. Bearing capacity of strip footing on
spatially random soils using sparse polynomial chaos expansion.
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 2013, 37(13): 2039–2060
7. Gheris A, Hamrouni A. Treatment of an expansive soil using
vegetable (DISS) fibre. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2020, 5:
34
8. Luo N, Bathurst R J, Javankhoshdel S. Probabilistic stability
analysis of simple reinforced slopes by finite element method.
Computers and Geotechnics, 2016, 77: 45–55
9. Pan Q, Dias D. An efficient reliability method combining adaptive
Support Vector Machine and Monte Carlo Simulation. Structural
Safety, 2017, 67: 85–95
10. Pan Q, Dias D. Sliced inverse regression-based sparse polynomial
chaos expansion for reliability analysis in high dimensions.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2017, 167: 484–493
11. Hamrouni A, Dias D, Sbartai B. Probabilistic analysis of a piled
earth platform under a concrete floor slab. Soils Found, 2017, 57(5):
828–839
12. Hamrouni A, Dias D, Sbartai B. Reliability analysis of shallow
tunnels using the response surface methodology. Underground
Space, 2017, 2(4): 246–258
13. Pan Q, Dias D. Probabilistic analysis of a rock tunnel face using
polynomial chaos expansion method. International Journal of
Geomechanics, 2018, 18(4): 04018013
14. Kroetz H, Do N A, Dias D, Beck A T. Reliability of tunnel lining
design using the hyperstatic reaction method. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 2018, 77: 59–67
15. Guo X, Dias D, Carvajal C, Peyras L, Breul P. Reliability analysis of
embankment dam sliding stability using the sparse polynomial
chaos expansion. Engineering Structures, 2018, 174: 295–307
16. Hamrouni A, Sbartai B, Dias D. Probabilistic analysis of
ultimate seismic bearing capacity of strip foundations. Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2018, 10(4): 717–
724
17. Guo X, Dias D, Carvajal C, Peyras L, Breul P. A comparative study
 Adam HAMROUNI et al. Soil spatial variability impact on the behavior of a reinforced earth wall
of different reliability methods for high dimensional stochastic
problems related to earth dam stability analyses. Engineering
Structures, 2019, 188: 591–602
18. Hamrouni A, Dias D, Sbartai B. Probability analysis of shallow
circular tunnels in homogeneous soil using the surface response
methodology optimized by a genetic algorithm. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 2019, 86: 22–33
19. Schlosser F, Elias V. Friction in Reinforced Earth. Pittsburgh: A.S.
C.E. Convention, 1978, 24–28
20. Abdelouhab A, Dias D, Freitag N. Numerical analysis of the
behavior of mechanically stabilized earth walls reinforced with
different types of strips. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2011,
29(2): 116–129
21. Abdelouhab A, Dias D, Freitag N. Two-dimensional numerical
modeling of Reinforced Earth walls. European Journal of Environ-
mental and Civil Engineering, 2012, 16(10): 1143–1167
22. Riccio M, Ehrlich M, Dias D. Field monitoring and analyses of the
response of a block-faced geogrid wall using fine-grained tropical
soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2014, 42(2): 127–138
23. Chun B S, Kim K M, Min D K. A study on reliability analysis for
reinforced earth retaining walls. In: The Third Asian Geotechnical
Conference on Geosynthetics. Seoul: Millpress Science Publishers,
2004, 248–254
24. Sayed S, Dodagoudar G R, Rajagopal K. Reliability analysis of
reinforced soil walls under static and seismic forces. Geosynthetics
International, 2008, 15(4): 246–257
25. Sayed S, Dodagoudar G R, Rajagopal K. Finite element reliability
analysis of reinforced retaining walls. Geomechanics and Geoengi-
neering, 2010, 5(3): 187–197
26. Miyata Y, Bathurst R J. Reliability analysis of soil-geogrid pullout
models in Japan. Soil and Foundation, 2012, 52(4): 620–633
27. Miyata Y, Bathurst R J, Allen T M. Reliability analysis of geogrid
creep data in Japan. Soil and Foundation, 2014, 54(4): 608–620
28. Miyata Y, Bathurst R J. Reliability-based analysis of combined
installation damage and creep for the tensile rupture limit state of
geogrid reinforcement in Japan. Soils and Foundations, 2015, 55(2):
437–446
29. Chalermyanont T, Benson C H. Reliability-based design for internal
stability of mechanically stabilized earth walls. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2004, 130(2):
163–173
30. Sia A H I, Dixon N. Deterministic and reliability-based design:
Veneer cover soil stability. Geosynthetics International, 2008, 15(1):
1–13
31. Thurner R, Schweiger H F. Reliability analysis for geotechnical
problems via finite elements—A practical application. In: ISRM
International Symposium. Melbourne: International Society for
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 2000, 19–24
32. Lin B H, Yu Y, Bathurst R J, Liu C N. Deterministic and
probabilistic prediction of facing deformations of geosynthetic-
reinforced MSE walls using a response surface approach. Geotex-
tiles and Geomembranes, 2016, 44(6): 813–823
33. Yu Y, Bathurst R J. Probabilistic assessment of reinforced soil wall
performance using response surface method. Geosynthetics Inter-
national, 2017, 24(5): 524–542
13
34. Hamrouni A, Dias D, Sbartai B. Reliability analysis of a
mechanically stabilized earth wall using the surface response
methodology optimized by a genetic algorithm. Geomechanics and
Engineering, 2018, 15(4): 937–945
35. Dodagoudar G, Sayed S, Rajagopal K. Random field modeling of
reinforced retaining walls. International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2015, 9(3): 229–238
36. Ning L, Bathurst R J. Probabilistic analysis of reinforced slopes
using RFEM and considering spatial variability of frictional soil
properties due to compaction. Georisk: Assessment and Manage-
ment of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards 2017, 12(2):
87–108
37. Griffiths D V, Fenton G A. Probabilistic slope stability analysis by
finite elements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 2004, 130(5): 507–518
38. Gay O. Physical and numerical modeling of the effect of a slow slide
on foundations of structures. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree.
Grenoble: Joseph Fourier University, 2000
39. Flavigny E, Desrues J, Palayer B. Technical note: Hostun RF sand.
Revue Française de Géotechnique, 1990, 53: 67–70
40. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. FLAC2D–Fast Lagrangian Analysis
of Continua in 2 Dimensions. Ver. 7, User’s Manual. Minneapolis:
Itasca, 2011
41. Abdelouhab A, Dias D, Freitag N. Physical and analytical modelling
of geosynthetic strip pull-out behaviour. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 2010, 28(1): 44–53
42. Der Kiureghian A, Ke J B. The stochastic finite element method in
structural reliability. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 1988,
3(2): 83–91
43. Vu-Bac N, Rafiee R, Zhuang X, Lahmer T, Rabczuk T. Uncertainty
quantification for multiscale modeling of polymer nanocomposites
with correlated parameters. Composites. Part B, Engineering, 2015,
68: 446–464
44. Vu-Bac N, Lahmer T, Zhuang X, Nguyen-Thoi T, Rabczuk T. A
software framework for probabilistic sensitivity analysis for
computationally expensive models. Advances in Engineering Soft-
ware, 2016, 100: 19–31
45. Spanos P D, Ghanem R. Stochastic finite element expansion for
random media. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1989, 115(5):
1035–1053
46. Sahraoui Y, Chateauneuf A. the effects of spatial variability of the
aggressiveness of soil on system reliability of corroding under-
ground pipelines. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and
Piping, 2016, 146: 188–197
47. Cho S E. Effect of spatial variability of soil properties on slope
stability. Engineering Geology, 2007, 92(3–4): 97–109
48. Cho S E, Park H C. Effect of spatial variability of cross-correlated
soil properties on bearing capacity of strip footing. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,
2010, 34: 1–26
49. Ghanem R G, Spanos P D. Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral
Approach. New York: Springer, 1991
50. Sudret B, Berveiller M. Stochastic finite element methods in
geotechnical engineering. In: Reliability-based Design in Geotech-
nical Engineering: Computations and Applications. Oxford: Taylor
14 Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

& Francis, 2008
51. Shinozuka M, Dasgupta G. Stochastic fields and their digital
simulation. In: Stochastic Methods in Structural Dynamics. Boston:
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987, 93–133
52. Deodatis G. Stochastic FEM sensitivity analysis of nonlinear
dynamic problems. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 1989,
4(3): 135–141
53. Vanmarcke E. Probabilistic modeling of soil profiles. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 1977, 103: 1227–1246
54. Vanmarcke E. Random Fields: Analysis and Synthesis. Cambridge:
MIT press, 1983
55. Popescu R. Stochastic variability of soil properties: Data analysis,
digital simulation, effects on system behaviour. Dissertation for the
Doctoral Degree. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1995

View publication stats