See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272781434

Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Walls:

Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of the
Combined Effects of Facing Stiffness and Toe...

Conference Paper · September 2014

CITATIONS READS

4 150

2 authors:

S. H. Mirmoradi Mauricio Ehrlich

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
23 PUBLICATIONS 263 CITATIONS 51 PUBLICATIONS 275 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

INCT-REAGEO View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S. H. Mirmoradi on 28 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Walls: Experimental and Numerical
Evaluation of the Combined Effects of Facing Stiffness and Toe
Resistance on Performance
S.H. Mirmoradi & M. Ehrlich
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, UFRJ, RJ 21945-970, Brazil

ABSTRACT: The behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS) retaining walls was evaluated by
numerical and laboratory physical modeling. Experimental tests were performed at a facility at the
Geotechnical Laboratory of COPPE/UFRJ, using block and wrapped-face walls. The numerical analysis
of GRS walls for this study was carried out using the computer program PLAXIS. In this finite-element
program, a two-dimensional plane-strain model was used. Parametric studies were carried out with
different combinations of facing type, facing stiffness, toe fixity, and wall height. Experimental and
numerical results showed that for no toe fixity, the value of the summation of mobilized tension along
reinforcements are similar, regardless of the facing stiffness. In addition, results of the numerical
modeling for the free base conditions showed good agreement with those predicted using the Ehrlich and
Mitchell (1994) and the AASHTO (2002) simplified methods. Moreover, the results indicated that
although the summation of Tmax for wrapped-face walls and block-face walls with free base conditions are
similar, the distribution of the maximum reinforcement tension for those conditions are different and this
discrepancy would be more pronounced at larger depths. On the other hand, for the fixed base conditions,
the determined values indicated, in general, a good agreement with those predicted using the modified
version of the K-stiffness design method. These findings draw attention to the significant effect of toe
fixity on the distribution of the mobilized tension in reinforcements, especially at the bottom of walls.

Keywords: Geosynthetic; GRS walls; Physical modeling; Numerical modeling; Facing stiffness; Toe
resistance

1 INTRODUCTION

Geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) walls are widely used throughout the world. In recent decades,
several experimental and numerical studies have been carried out to examine the factors controlling the
behavior of GRS walls; the facing of a reinforced soil structure is one factor (e.g., Tatsuoka, 1993;
Bathurst et al., 2006). Tatsuoka (1993) evaluated the effect of facing stiffness on the behavior of GRS
walls with five different facing types. The author concluded that for a stiffer facing, the earth pressure
acting on the back of the face increases. Tatsuoka (1993) also stated that the large earth pressure confines
the soil immediately behind the face. Therefore, lateral displacement of the wall decreases as the facing
stiffness increases. Bathurst et al. (2006) considered the influence of facing stiffness on the performance
of GRS walls. This research reported the results of two instrumented full-scale walls constructed in a
large test facility at the Royal Military College of Canada. The walls were constructed with a relatively
stiff modular block or a very flexible wrapped face. Higher wall deformation and tension mobilization in
the reinforcements were reported for the flexible wrapped-face wall than the modular block-face wall.
Toe resistance is another important factor controlling the behavior of GRS walls that has recently been
evaluated. Huang et al. (2010) presented results of a numerical, two-dimensional (2D), finite-difference
fast Lagrangian analysis of continua (FLAC) codes (Itasca 2005) to investigate the influence of horizontal
toe restraint on the performance of reinforced soil segmental retaining walls under working stress
conditions.
These authors found that toe resistance could absorb a significant fraction of horizontal earth loads under
working stress conditions. Leshchinsky and Vahedifard (2012) demonstrated the impact of toe restraints
in reinforced masonry block walls using an analytical model. They showed the sensitivity of the
summation of Tmax to the toe resistance. These authors indicated that if toe resistance vanishes, the
reinforcement tension increases significantly, particularly for tall walls.
The objective of the current paper is an experimental and numerical evaluation of the behavior of GRS
walls. The experimental part includes a review of the results presented by Ehrlich and Mirmoradi (2013)
about the combined effects of toe resistance and facing stiffness. The results are supported by numerical
modeling using PLAXIS, considering different controlling factors such as facing type, facing stiffness,
toe fixity, and wall height. The determined results were also compared with the Ehrlich and Mitchell
(1994) method, the AASHTO (2002) simplified method, and the modified K-stiffness method.

2 PHYSICAL MODELING

Two geosynthetic reinforced soil walls with wrapped and block faces are described. The walls were
constructed at COPPE/UFRJ laboratory. The model box is a U-shaped concrete wall 1.5 m in height, 3.0
m in length, and 2.0 m in width. These models simulate the behavior of a wall 6.8 m high (surcharge load
up to 100 kPa) representing a portion of the prototype (Fig. 1). The vertical spacing of reinforcements and
the facing inclination were 0.4 m and 84° from the horizontal, respectively. Four layers of polyester
geogrid were installed along the height of the wall, placed at 0, 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 m above the wall bottom.
The reinforcements had a length of 2.12 m measured from the front of the wall face. The backfill soil for
both walls was compacted using a light vibrating plate and also a vibratory tamper. The equivalent static
loads of the compactors were determined through Kyowa accelerometers installed in the compactor’s
body and values of 8 and 63 kPa for light and heavy compactors were considered, respectively. For both
walls at the end of construction, a vertical surcharge loading of up to 100 kPa was applied to the top of
the wall. Both walls were similar except for the face of the walls. For the first and second walls, precast
concrete blocks and wrapped face were used, respectively. It should be noted that in both walls, a 1 m
wide zone at the bottom of the walls was lubricated (a sandwich of rubber sheets and silicon grease) in
order to allow for movement of the potential failure surface, keeping it away from the wall face. This
lubrication increased the fraction of the reinforcement length in the active zone. Therefore, it was possible
to install the load cells along this zone to measure the mobilized tension in the reinforcements. This
lubricated zone included the base of the facing. Details about the material properties, instrumentations,
and construction process can be found in Ehrlich et al. (2012) and Ehrlich and Mirmoradi (2013).

0.4m
Drainage q up to 100 kPa

4th R. layer
Potential failure
1 surface
3rd R. layer
Block
10

2nd R. layer
6.80 m

1st R. layer
Lubricated zone

Model Backfill
Block
0.4m

Concrete Reinforcement
0.7m

0.6m
Prototype

Figure 1. Schematic view of the prototype and model.

2.1 Results of the physical modeling
Fig. 2 shows the summation of the measured maximum tension mobilized in the 2 nd, 3rd, and 4th
reinforcement layers (ΣTmax) and the equivalent depth (Zeq) for both walls. The equivalent depth of the
soil layer (Zeq) is defined by
q
Z eq = Z + (1)
γ
where Z and q are the real depth of a specific layer and the surcharge load value, respectively.
The results show that although the facing stiffness in wrapped and block-face walls is quite different, the
ΣTmax values are similar. This result can be explained by the toe resistance condition. It is important to
note that in the case of the present study, toe resistance may be ignored due to the lubrication at the base
of the walls (a 1 m wide zone at the bottom of the walls). The results demonstrate that if there were no toe
resistance, regardless of the magnitude of the facing stiffness, the values of ΣTmax would remain the same.

16
Summation of T max, kN/m

14 Block face
Wrapped face
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6
Equivalent depth, m

Figure 2. Summation of maximum tensions along the reinforcement layers based on equivalent depths for the block and
wrapped-face walls.

Fig. 3 shows the horizontal displacement of the walls at the end of construction and under a surcharge
value of 100 kPa. Similar patterns were observed under other surcharge load values. The figure shows
that, for the block-face wall, the maximum horizontal displacement occurred at the top of the wall. For
the wrapped-face wall, however, this value occurred near the bottom of the wall. In addition, the
horizontal displacement in the wrapped-face wall was higher than that measured in the block-face wall at
the end of construction and under the 100 kPa surcharge load.
Fig. 4 shows the vertical displacement measured at different locations at the top of the walls,
corresponding to surcharge values of 10 and 100 kPa. For both walls, the vertical displacement decreased
with distance from the wall facing. In the wrapped-face wall, very large movements were concentrated
near the face, similar to what was observed for the horizontal displacements. The difference was more
apparent for points near the face and decreased with distance. Near the face, with a maximum external
surcharge of 100 kPa, the vertical displacements were approximately 17 mm and 2 mm for the wrapped
and block-face walls, respectively.
An interrelationship was found between the high vertical and lateral displacements near the face in the
wrapped-face wall. A local displacement occurred near the face due to soil bulging in this wall, which
took place during construction. This result is in agreement with that of Benjamim et al. (2007). However,
this local instability at the wall facing did not occur in the case of the block-faced wall. That may explain
why different values for lateral displacements were obtained, while the values of ΣTmax measured in the
walls were similar.
 1.5

1
Height, m

0.5
w Block face
— Wrapped face

0
0 20 40 60 80

Horizontal displacement, mm

Figure 3. Horizontal displacement of the block and wrapped-face walls at the end of construction (dashed line) or with an
external surcharge load of 100 kPa (solid line).

18
Block face
16
Wrapped face
14
Vertical displacement, mm

12

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Distance from back of facing, m

Figure 4. Vertical displacement in the wrapped and block-face walls with an external surcharge load of 10 kPa (dashed line) or
100 kPa (solid line).

3 NUMERICAL MODELING

The numerical modeling was performed using the 2D finite element program PLAXIS (Brinkgreve &
Vermeer, 2002). The numerical modeling was validated with the results of the physical model described
in the previous section. Details about the validation can be found in the papers presented by Ehrlich and
Mirmoradi (2013) and Mirmoradi and Ehrlich (2014).
Parametric studies were carried out to evaluate the combined effects of facing type, facing stiffness, toe
fixity, and wall height. The analyses were performed assuming no induced stress due to backfill soil
compaction. Three different wall heights were considered: 4, 8, and 16 m. The length and the vertical
spacing of reinforcements were 0.7H and 0.4 m, respectively. Block facing with vertical facing
inclination was considered.
Fig. 5 shows the geometry of the numerical model with a 4 m high wall. The facing stiffness was
evaluated considering block facing with a variable stiffness modulus. Mohamad et al. (2007) evaluated
the characteristics of concrete blocks and the range of stiffness moduli defined in this paper was used in
the current study. The values of facing stiffness were calculated with the different magnitudes of the
stiffness modulus multiplied by the area moment of inertia of the solid block. Two different toe fixity
conditions (free and fixed base conditions) were considered.

Figure 5. Typical numerical model.

A hardening soil model was applied. Hyperbolic stress-strain curves were arranged to fit the data
measured from laboratory plane strain tests. Curves were fit considering lower strain (i.e., < 1%) in order
to better represent the working stress condition verified in the performed model test (Ehrlich &
Mirmoradi, 2013). A fixed boundary condition in the horizontal direction was employed on the right
lateral border. At the bottom of the model, a fixed boundary condition in both the horizontal and vertical
directions was applied. Reinforcement was modeled as a linear elastic material with perfect interface
adherence to the adjacent soil. Jewell (1980) and Dyer and Milligan (1984) have shown that perfect
adherence is a reasonable assumption for a soil-reinforcement interface under working stress conditions.
The interface parameters defined by Hatami and Bathurst (2005) was used for the block facing. Table 1
lists the input parameters used in the analyses.
Table 1. Input parameters for analysis
Property Value
Soil properties
Model HS
Peak plane-strain friction angle, φ (°) 50
Cohesion, c (kPa) 1
Dilation angle, Ψ (°) 0
Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 20
E50ref (kPa) 42500
Eoedref (kPa) 31800
Eurref (kPa) 127500
Stress dependence exponent, m 0.5
Failure ratio, R f 0.9
Poisson’s ratio, υ 0.2
Reinforcement
Elastic axial stiffness (kN/m) 600
Modular block properties
Model Linear elastic
Size (m×m) 0.4 ×0.2 (length×height)
Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) 22
Stiffness modulus (kPa) 1×106, 5×106, 1×107, 5×107
Poisson’s ratio, υ 0.15
Toe condition Fixed, free
3.1 Results of the numerical modeling
Fig. 6 shows the comparison of the determined normalized values of the summation of the maximum
tension in the reinforcements versus the normalized facing stiffness, with the values predicted using the
Ehrlich and Mitchell (1994) method, the AASHTO (2002) simplified method, and the modified version of
the K-stiffness method (Bathurst et al., 2008). In Fig. 6, the symbols represent the different toe conditions
(i.e., fixed and free base conditions) and wall height.
Comparison of the results determined using PLAXIS for the free base condition and the values predicted
using the Ehrlich and Mitchell (1994) method shows very good agreement. It should be noted that the
method proposed by Ehrlich and Mitchell (1994) is based on a no-facing condition. These results are
similar to the corresponding active Rankine condition that also represents the AASHTO simplified
method. Nevertheless, Ehrlich et al. (2012) have shown that the AASHTO (2002) simplified method may
underestimate results depending on the induced stresses due to backfill compaction and toe resistance.
Fig. 6 also shows a good agreement between the values determined using PLAXIS for the fixed base
condition and the modified version of the K-stiffness method (Bathurst et al., 2008), particularly for the
higher wall models (i.e., 8 and 16 m).
It should be noted that either free or fixed base conditions may be found in the field. Huang et al. (2010)
demonstrated numerically that there is a significant variation of load carried by the toe with the assumed
toe stiffness values. Results showed that the percentage of the total load carried by the toe may vary from
almost zero to 70% for variations in toe stiffness from 0.04 (MN/m/m) to fixed base conditions. For the
lowest value of toe stiffness, the free base condition may be assumed. Leshchinsky (2009), using basic
statics, demonstrated that the K-stiffness design method could be unsafe. This finding was attributed to
ignoring the apparent cohesion in the calibration process of the empirical method and/or to an existing
large toe resistance that may not always occur in the field. Riccio et al. (2014) also demonstrated the
unsafe nature of the K-stiffness method by comparing the calculated and measured results of the
monitored GRS wall.

0.08

E&M Method
Ka

0.06 Base Free Fixed

H
∑T max
4 m
8 m
γH
2
0.04 16 m

0.02 K-stiffness Method

0.00
1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
EI
γ
5
H
Figure 6. Normalized values of the summation of the maximum tension in the reinforcements versus the normalized facing
stiffness.

A comparison of the determined T max values for the wrapped-face wall and block-face wall with fixed and
free base conditions with the predicted values calculated using the Ehrlich and Mitchell (1994), the
AASHTO (2002) simplified method, and the modified version of the K-stiffness methods is shown in Fig.
7, which represents an 8 m high wall, with a facing stiffness modulus of 1×10 6 (kPa). For all methods and
the FEM analyses, regardless of restrain at the block’s base, similar T max values were calculated in the
upper part of the wall. For the lower part of the wall, the K-stiffness method and FEM analysis for the
block facing with fixed base condition lead to similar results. Numerical modeling for the wrapped-face
wall, the Ehrlich and Mitchell (1994) method, and the AASHTO (2002) simplified approach return
similar results. Taken together, these findings highlight the significant effect of toe restrain on mobilized
tension of reinforcements, especially at the bottom of walls.

8
Block face, Fixed
7 Block face, Free
K-stiffness
AASHTO
6
E&M
Wrapped face
5
Elevation, m

0
0 5 10 15 20
Reinforcement load, Tmax, kN/m

Figure 7. Elevation versus individual values of T max.

4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The behavior of GRS retaining walls was studied via numerical and laboratory physical modeling. The
physical models were constructed by using the same soil and reinforcement type and spacing. The walls
were compacted with both a vibrating plate and vibratory tamper, which induced an equivalent vertical
stress of 8 and 63 kPa, respectively. The first 1 m wide zone at the bottom of the walls was lubricated
using a sandwich of rubber sheets and silicon grease. Both of the walls were identical except for the
facing type, which was block or wrapped facing. The numerical analysis of GRS walls for this study was
carried out using the computer program PLAXIS. A 2D plane-strain model was used in this finite-element
program. The numerical approach was first verified against the results from an instrumented, wrapped-
faced, full-scale reinforced soil wall performed at the Geotechnical Laboratory of COPPE/UFRJ.
Parametric studies were carried out to evaluate the combined effect of facing type, facing stiffness, toe
fixity, and wall height.
Analysis of the results showed similar values for the summation of the mobilized maximum tension in
the reinforcements, ΣTmax, for the block and wrapped-face walls under various applied surcharge loads.
This behavior was attributed to the toe fixity. Note that for both walls, toe resistance may be ignored due
to the lubrication at the facing base. Therefore, it was calculated that if there were no toe resistance
conditions, regardless of the magnitude of facing stiffness, the values of ΣTmax would remain the same.
The values determined by PLAXIS for block-face walls with different facing stiffness and free base
conditions were consistent with the physical model studies and showed the same values for Tmax,
independent of the value used for facing stiffness and wall height.
Greater values of the horizontal displacement of the wrapped-face wall the end of construction and
under surcharge loads was measured compared with those the values measured for the in block-face wall.
In the wrapped-face wall, very large vertical displacements were concentrated near the face, similar to
what was observed for the horizontal displacements. This result was attributed to a local displacement
 that occurred near the face due to soil bulging in the wrapped-face wall that took place during
construction.
Results of the numerical modeling for the free base conditions showed good agreement with those
predicted using the Ehrlich and Mitchell (1994) and the AASHTO simplified methods. Nevertheless,
Ehrlich et al. (2012) have shown that the AASHTO (2002) simplified method may underestimate results
depending on the induced stresses due to backfill compaction and toe resistance. On the other hand, for
the fixed base conditions, the determined values indicated, in general, good agreement with those
predicted using the modified version of the K-stiffness design method. It should be noted that either fixed
or free base conditions are possible conditions that may be considered in design. Nevertheless, the
practice of ignoring the toe restrain produced by a 0.3–0.5 m deep block may be justified and should be
considered a conservative procedure to be applied in the case of some uncertainties.
Calculated values of individual maximum reinforcement tension, T max, showed similar distributions for
the Ehrlich and Mitchell (1994) method, the AASHTO (2002) simplified method, and the numerical
modeling for the wrapped-face wall. In addition, similar T max distributions were determined for the K-
stiffness method and numerical modeling for block facing with a fixed base condition. Moreover, it
should be noted that although the summation of T max for the wrapped-face wall and the block-face with
free base conditions is similar, the distribution of the maximum reinforcement tension for those
conditions are different and this discrepancy would be more prominent near the bottom of the wall. Taken
together, these findings draw attention to the significant effect of toe restrain on mobilized tension of
reinforcements at the bottom of walls.

REFERENCES

AASHTO. 2002. Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. 17th ed. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA.
Bathurst, R. J., Miyata, Y., Nernheim, A., & Allen, A. M. 2008. Refinement of K-stiffness method for geosynthetic-reinforced
soil walls. Geosynthetics International, 15 (4), p. 269-295.
Bathurst, R.J., Vlachopoulos, N., Walters, D.L., Burgess, P.G., & Allen, T.M. 2006. The Influence of Facing Stiffness on the
Performance of Two Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls. Can. Geotech. J., 43, p. 1225-1237.
Benjamim, C.V.S., Bueno, B.S., & Zornberg, J.G. 2007. Field monitoring evaluation of geotextile-reinforced soil-retaining
walls. Geosynthetics International 14 (2), p. 100-118.
Brinkgreve, RBJ., Vermeer, PA. 2002. PLAXIS: finite element code for soil and rock analyses. V. 8. Balkema.
Ehrlich, M., Mirmoradi, S.H., & Saramago, R.P. 2012. Evaluation of the Effect of Compaction on the Behavior of
Geosynthetic-reinforced Soil Walls.Geotextiles and Geomembranes 34, p. 108-115.
Ehrlich, M., Mirmoradi, S.H. 2013. Evaluation of the Effects of Facing Stiffness and Toe Resistance on the Behavior of GRS
Walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 40, p. 28-36.
Ehrlich, M., Mitchell, J. K. 1994. Working Stress Design Method for Reinforced Soil Walls. Journal of Geot. Eng., ASCE,
120(4), p. 625-645.
Hatami, K., Bathurst, R. J. 2005. Development and Verification of a Numerical Model for the Analysis of Geosynthetic
Reinforced-soil Segmental Walls. Can. Geotech. J., 42 (4), p. 1066–1085.
Huang, B., Bathurst, R.J., Hatami, K., & Allen, T.M. 2010. Influence of Toe Restraint on Reinforced Soil Segmental Walls.
Can. Geotech. J., 47 (8), p. 885-904.
Itasca Consulting Group. 2001. FLAC—Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua. Version 4.00. Itasca Consulting Group Inc.,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Jewell, R.A. 1980. Some Effects of Reinforcement on the Mechanical Behavior of Soils. PhD thesis. Univ. of Cambridge,
Cambridge, England.
Juran, I., Chen, C.L. 1989. Strain Compatibility Design Method for Reinforced Earth Walls. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 115 (4), p. 435-456.
Leshchinsky, D. 2009. On Global Equilibrium in Design of Geosynthetic Reinforced Walls. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 135(3), p. 309-315.
Leshchinsky, D., Vahedifard, F. 2012. Impact of Toe Resistance in Reinforced Masonry Block Walls: design Dilemma. ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 138 (2), p. 236-240.
Mirmoradi, S.H., Ehrlich, M. 2014. Modeling of the Compaction-induced Stresses in Numerical Analyses of GRS Walls.
International Journal of Computational Methods (IJCM), Special Issue on "Computational Geomechanics", (DOI:
10.1142/S0219876213420024).
Mohamad, G., Lourenco, P.B., & Roman, H.R. 2007. Mechanics of hollow concrete block masonry prisms under compression:
review and prospects. Cement and Concrete Composites 29, p. 181-192.
Riccio, M., Ehrlich, M., & Dias, D. 2014. Field Monitoring and Analyses of the Response of a Block-faced Geogrid Wall
using Fine-grained Tropical Soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, (DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.01.006).
Tatsuoka, F. 1993. Roles of Facing Rigidity in Soil Reinforcing. In: Keynote Lecture. Proc. Earth Reinforcement Practice,
Fukuoka, Japan, vol. 2, p. 831-870.

View publication stats