9th International Symposium on Lowland Technology

September 29-October 1, 2014 in Saga, Japan

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS USING FEM 2D COMPARED TO FEM 3D AND OBSERVED

BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED FULL SCALE EMBANKMENT

S. Shrestha1, P. Baral1, D. Bergado2, J.C. Chai3, T. Hino4

ABSTRACT: A full scale test embankment (6 m height) was constructed by Department of Highways, the Bureau of Road
Research and Development in Phitsanulok, Thailand. A surcharge fill of 1.2 m thick without reinforcements was added at the
top of the embankment equivalent to 2 tsm of load. One side of this embankment was reinforced with polymeric
reinforcements consisting polyester (PET), polypropylene (PP) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) and referred as
reinforced steep slope (RSS), which is at an angle of 70 degrees from horizontal. The other side of the embankment was
reinforced with metallic reinforcements consisting of metallic strips (MS) and steel wire grids (SWG) combined with precast
concrete panel and termed as mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSEW). The comparisons of these reinforcing materials in
terms of stiffness from highest to lowest are metallic strip (MS), steel wire grids (SWG), polypropylene (PP), high density
polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester (PET). The behavior of the test embankment on hard foundation was analyzed and
compared with the simulated results using PLAXIS software. The FEM 2D and the FEM 3D simulations were compared with
the observed data. The results obtained from FEM 3D have good agreement with the field measurements in terms of vertical
and lateral deformations of the embankment. However, there were slight differences when compared with the FEM 2D
simulations due to its limitations.

Keywords: FEM 3D, FEM 2D, metallic reinforcement, polymer reinforcement, hard foundation, test embankment

BACKGROUND and direct shear mechanisms as well as the behavior of

Soil reinforcement, has become a widely used
earthwork construction method that provides technically
attractive and cost-effective grade separations at the ground
surface. The increasing use and acceptance of soil
reinforcement has been triggered by a number of factors
including cost savings, aesthetics, simple and fast
construction techniques, good seismic performance, and the
ability to tolerate large total and differential settlement
without structural distress.
Numerical analysis has been proved as a powerful and
convenient tool for predicting the performance of the MSE
wall (Bergado et al. 2003). Furthermore, many investigators
have demonstrated the use of the finite element method
(FEM) in the analysis of reinforced soil wall (Chai and
Bergado 1993 a;b Bergado and Chai 1995; Tanchaisawat et
al. 2008).This paper deals with modeling of the full-scale
test Mechanically Stabilized Earth wall/embankment by
FEM 2D and FEM 3D as compared to the observed data.
Bergado et al. 2003 suggested FEM under plane strain
condition can be successively utilized to analyze the pullout
hexagonal wire mesh reinforced embankment with silty
sand backfill. Bergado and Teerawattanasuk 2008
compared the reliability of FEM 2D and FEM 3D by
studying two full-scale embankments; steel grid
embankment having longer plan dimensions with length-to-
width ratio of 3.0 (long embankment) and hexagonal wire
mesh reinforced embankment having shorter plan
dimensions with length-to-width ratio of 1.0 (short
embankment). The actual behavior of the steel grid
reinforced long embankment corresponded more closely to
the results of the 2D numerical simulations. Furthermore,
the actual behavior of the hexagonal wire mesh reinforced
short embankment corresponded more closely to the results
of the 3D numerical simulations. The geometric effects
were important factors that affected the results of the
numerical simulations. Suksiripattanapong et al. 2012
performed numerical simulation on the bearing
reinforcement earth wall constructed on the hard stratum
using FEM 2D. The behavior of the BRE wall was
simulated satisfactorily and agreed well with the predictions
in terms of changes in foundation settlements, bearing

1
M. Eng. Graduate, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, shresthasailesh@gmail.com
2
Guest Professor, Institute of Lowland and Marine Research (ILMR), Saga University, Saga, Japan, dbergado@gmail.com
3
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Saga University, Saga, Japan, chai@cc.saga-u.ac.jp
4
Professor, Institute of Lowland and Marine Research (ILMR), Saga University, Saga, Japan, hino@ilt.saga-u.ac.jp
 Shrestha, et al.

stresses, lateral earth pressures and tensions in the MODEL PARAMETERS

reinforcements during and after construction.
A full scale test embankment (6 m height) was
constructed in Phitsanulok, Thailand consisting of
Reinforced Steep Slope (RSS) and Mechanically Stabilized
Earth Wall (MSEW) with high strength polymeric geogrid
and metallic reinforcements. The behavior of this
embankment on hard foundation was re-analyzed with FEM
2D and compared with the simulated results from previous
studies (FEM 3D). The soil and reinforcement parameters
along with the interface strengths of the MSE
embankment/wall were back-analyzed. The input
parameters for metallic and polymeric reinforcements were
obtained from laboratory testing at AIT. Similarly, the input
parameters for the backfill materials and surcharge were
also initially obtained from the laboratory test and then
back calculated until the suitable values were obtained.
Backfill Materials
The material used as backfill in the embankment
consisted of 50% lateritic soil mixed with 50% silty sand
(by volume) and has moisture content and dry unit weight
as 7% and 22.05 kN/m3, respectively. The friction angle
and cohesion of this backfill material obtained from direct
shear test were 42 degrees and 80 kPa. From triaxial 1 (CU)
test, the effective friction and cohesion were 37 degrees and
20 kPa, respectively. Moreover, from triaxial 2 (CU) test,
the effective friction angle and cohesion were 32.8 degrees
and 0 kPa, respectively. Thus, the effective friction angle
varied from 32.8 degrees to 37 degrees, and effective
cohesion varied from 0 to 20 kPa, as obtained from two
different triaxial (CU) tests.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MSE EMBANKMENT Table 1 Soil properties of the backfill soil
Property Lateritic Soil Mixed with Sand
In the full scale embankment, reinforced steep slope (50:50 by volume)
(RSS) of 70 degrees from the horizontal with soil bags as Atterberg Limit Test LL = 20.8%, PL=17.3 %,
facing was utilized in one side whereas mechanically PI=3.5%.
stabilized earth wall (MSEW) with concrete panel as facing Sieve Analysis Test Sample No.1
was used in another side. The test embankment with facing Percent Finer=0.94%, Cu=40,
(RSS and MSEW) was designed up to a height of 6m. A Cc=0.34
surcharge fill 1.2 m thick was later added without Sample No.2
reinforcement at the top of the embankment equivalent to 2 Percent Finer=0.14%,
tsm load. The length of the embankment was 18 m and Cu=42.86, Cc=0.55
width was 15m. Polyester (PET), polypropylene (PP) and Unified Classification Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
high density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrids were used as AASHTO A-2-4(0)
polymeric reinforcements in the reinforced steep slope Classification
(RSS) whereas metallic strips (MS) and steel wire grid Compaction Test Maximum Dry Unit Weight
(SWG) were utilized as metallic reinforcements in (d) = 22.05 kN/m3
mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSEW) facing of the Optimum Moisture Content
embankment. (OMC) = 7.0%
The vertical spacing between each reinforcement layer California Bearing CBR=50.5%
was 0.5 m and the length was 5 m while the upper layers of Ratio (CBR) Test
metallic strip from layer 7 to layer 12 had 5.80 m length. Direct Shear Test Friction Angle, ’ =42 degrees
Different monitoring instruments were installed to monitor Cohesion,C’ = 80 kPa
the vertical and lateral displacements, total stresses, excess Triaxial 1 (CU) Test Friction Angle, ’ =37 degrees
pore water pressure, groundwater and strains in reinforcing Cohesion,C’ = 20 kPa
material including inclinometers, settlement plates, total Triaxial 2 (CU) Test Friction Angle, ’ =32.8
pressure cells, standpipe piezometers, vibrating wire strain
degrees
gauges and fiber optic strain gauges. In addition,
Cohesion,C’ = 0 kPa
observation wells were installed to monitor the level of
Plane strain from ps’=38.5 degrees
groundwater at the dummy area located more than 10.0 m
Triaxial 1 (CU) Test
from the embankment. The plan and section views of the
Plane strain from ps’=32.2 degrees
embankment are shown in Figs. 1 a, b.
Triaxial 2 (CU) Test
pH Value 6.16
Organic Content 0.9918%
Resistivity 5088 -cm
Numerical Simulations using FEM 2D compared to FEM 3D and observed behavior of reinforced full scale embankment

For the plane strain condition the friction angle is Table 3 Material properties of reinforcements
converted by Lade and Lee (1976) formula as ’=38.5 Tensile Thick Normal
degrees and 32.2 degrees, respectively. The various Material Strength -ness Stiffness,
properties of backfill material are tabulated in the Table 1. Name Model (kN/m) (mm) EA (kN/m)
Metallic Strip
Foundation Soils (MS) Geogrid 277.6 4.00 88000
Steel Wire
The soil profile in Phitsanulok Province consisted of Grid (SWG) Geogrid 128.1 6.00 35000
generally hard ground. One borehole was located (BH-1) in Polyester
the middle of the embankment. Three additional boreholes (PET) Geogrid 83.6 1.50 925
BH-2, BH-3 and BH-4 were drilled adjacent to the Polypropylen
embankment near the RSS facing in order to obtain more e (PP) Geogrid 91.9 1.45 1360
data on the soil profile. The borehole locations and High Density
instrumentations at MSE wall/embankment are shown in Polyethylene
Fig.1a. Fig.1b indicates the cross section of MSE wall. The (HDPE) Geogrid 85.8 1.91 1320
soil profiles are from dense to very dense clayey sand to
hard silty clay. The level of the groundwater was found at Soil / Reinforcement Interfaces
2m depth below the ground surface.
Interface elements were attached on the grid elements in
Precast Concrete Panel Facing order to simulate the frictional interaction between the
geogrid and the backfill soil. The various properties of R
The precast concrete panel was used as wall facing. The interface parameter from Large-Scale Direct Shear Test
dimensions of the panel are 1.5 m width, 1.5 m height and results are tabulated in the Table 4.
0.15 m thick. In this study, the precast concrete panels were
modeled using plate elements.. The properties of concrete Table 4 Interface strengths from large-scale direct shear test
panel facing are tabulated in Table 2. result
Soil to Friction Cohesion, c Rinter
Table 2 Material properties of concrete panel facing angle, Ф (º) (kPa)
Parameter Name Value Unit Soil 40 23 1.00
Steel Strip 36 23 0.87
Type of behavior Material type Elastic
Normal stiffness EA 42000000 kN/m Steel Grid 40 28 1.00
Flexural rigidity EI 78500 kN.m2/m Miragrid 33 21 0.79
Equivalent thickness d 0.15 m GX80/30
PET
Weight w 3.6 kN/m/m
Secugrid 35 25 0.83
Poisson's ratio  0.15 - 80/80 Q1 PP
Model Plate TT 090 33 24 0.77
SAMP HDPE
Metallic and Polymeric Reinforcement

The metallic and polymeric reinforcement were

modeled as geogrid material in FEM 2D, specifically
designed to simulate the behavior of thin, flat and discrete
reinforcing strips. The strip element can yield in
compression and tension. The axial stiffness was obtained
from laboratory tests. The various properties of
reinforcements are tabulated in the Table 3. The
comparison of the reinforcement stiff nesses from highest
to lowest is as follows: metallic strip (MS), steel wire grid
(SWG), polypropylene (PP), high density polyethlene
(HDPE) and polyester (PET).

Fig.1a Plan and instrumentations of MSE wall/embankment

 Shrestha, et al.

Fig. 1b Cross section of MSE wall/embankment indicating the locations of monitoring instruments

Table 5 Material conditions and parameters used in the analysis

sat unsat c'
Mo Depth(m Conditi Kx(m/ Ky(m/ Ф'ps
Soil Description (kN/m3 (kN/m  E (kPa) (kPa
del ) on day) day) (º)
) 3) )
Draine
Backfill material MC - d 22.7 21.0 0.8 0.4 0.37 12,000 10 38.5
Dense to very 0.00- Draine
dense MC 2.00 d 19.0 17.0 0.001 0.0005 0.35 20,000 15 30
clayey sand
2.00- Draine
Loose MC 4.00 d 18.0 16.0 0.001 0.0005 0.35 15,000 7 34
clayey sand
4.00- Draine
Medium dense MC 5.50 d 18.0 16.0 0.001 0.0005 0.35 25,000 5 36
clayey sand
5.50- Undrai 0.0000
Very stiff to hard MC 10.00 ned 19.0 17.0 0.0001 5 0.35 50,000 70 28
silty clay
11.50- Draine
Dense clayey sand MC 13.00 d 19.0 17.0 0.001 0.0005 0.35 30,000 8 33
13.00- Undrai 0.0000
Hard silty clay MC 21.45 ned 22 20 0.0001 5 0.35 80,000 100 26
Rint(PET)=0.79 , Rint(PP)=0.83 , Rint(HDPE)=0.77 , Rint(SWG)=1.0 , Rint(MS)=0.87
Numerical Simulations using FEM 2D compared to FEM 3D and observed behavior of reinforced full scale embankment
NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS AND STAGED
CONSTRUCTION OF THE EMBANKMENT
The numerical model of the MSE wall/embankment was
performed using FEM 2D (PLAXIS V 8.2, 2009). The
program allowed for plane strain idealizations including
simulation of the construction sequences. The FEM
software used required material properties (Table 5) to be
established and explicitly model the soil, facing panels,
reinforcement layers, and the interfaces. As shown in the
Fig. 2, the mesh is created and the nodal points at the
bottom boundary were fixed in both directions, and those
on the side boundaries were fixed only in the horizontal
direction. The FEM 3D (PLAXIS 3D, 2011) was done by
Baral (2012).The mesh created in FEM 3D is shown in Fig.
3 respectively. The side boundaries were placed at a
distance of two times the width of the embankment, and the
bottom boundary was fixed up to the known soil layer.
Such distances and assumed boundary conditions are
considered to approximately simulate the semi-infinite
extent of the system. The in-situ stresses in the foundation
soil were generated by the Ko procedure. Then, the backfill
which was divided into 13 layers, as in the field was placed
on the foundation soil layer by layer. After the placement of
the compacted fill layer the reinforcement was placed at
interval of 0.5 m vertical spacing per stage until the
completion of full height of the embankment. During this
construction stage drained Mohr Coulomb analysis is used
to simulate the layer by layer construction. After the
completion of the full height of the embankment drained
analysis is used to simulate the consolidation process for
186 days. The constitutive model to simulate the behavior
of the reinforced backfill used was a linear elastic,
perfectly-plastic model with Mohr-Coulomb’s failure
criterion. This constitutive model was characterized by five
parameters: elastic parameters (E: Young modulus, ν:
Poisson’s ratio) and plastic parameters (ϕ: friction angle, c:
cohesion, and ψ: dilatancy angle).
Fig. 2 FEM 2D of full scale reinforced test embankment
Fig. 3 FEM 3D of full scale reinforced test embankment
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:
Lateral Displacements
Comparison of FEM 2D and observed data
The influence parameters to lateral displacements of the
test embankment were investigated. The soil-reinforcement
interaction parameter(Rinter), modulus of elasticity (E’),
cohesion (C’) were varied to study their influences in lateral
displacements. Table 4 shows the interface parameters
(Rinter) that were used in the analysis. Based on the
simulated results, the total horizontal displacement,
foundation settlement were analyzed and compared with the
observed data. The lateral displacements of HDPE on RSS
side, and MS on MSEW side obtained from field
measurement by inclinometers were compared with the data
from numerical simulations at 186 days after the end of the
construction. Figures 4 to 5 show the measured and
simulated lateral deformations at HDPE and MS
reinforcements, respectively. Inclinometers I3 and I5 were
used to measure the lateral displacement for HDPE and MS
section in the field (see Fig. 1a). The FEM 2D (Shrestha,
2013) yielded the overall behavior of the test embankment
closer in the MSEW facing i.e. MS reinforced side than the
RSS facing i.e. HDPE reinforced side when compared with
the observed data. The results showed that the observed and
FEM 2D simulated displacements were underpredicted
above 4.50 m and overpredicted below 4.50m height of the
embankment. These discrepancies may be due to the
limitations under plane strain conditions with asymmetric
embankment structure. The lateral displacement of geogrids
HDPE at the top level of the embankment after 186 days
were 16mm. The lateral displacement for HDPE cross
section was found to be larger than MS cross section due to
the lower stiffness of the former than the latter.
Comparison of FEM 2D (Shrestha, 2013) versus FEM 3D
(Baral, 2012) simulations
According to the FEM 2D analyses, at the HDPE cross-
section the lateral displacement of HDPE geogrid after 186
days was found to be 7 mm at the top level of the
 Shrestha, et al.
embankment. The large lateral displacement was observed
from the bottom to middle height of RSS facing. The
predicted results from FEM 2D slightly overpredicted both
the field measured lateral displacement and results from
FEM 3D (Baral, 2012) on the lower half of the
embankment height and underpredicted for the upper half
of the embankment (Fig. 4).
According to the FEM 2D analyses, at the MS cross
section the lateral displacement of MS geogrid after 186
days was found to be 4 mm at the top of the embankment.
The predicted results from FEM 2D slightly overpredicted
both the field measured lateral displacement and results
from FEM 3D (Baral, 2012) (Fig. 5).
Fig. 4 Observed and simulated lateral displacements of the
high density polyethylene (HDPE)
Vertical Settlements
Surface and subsurface settlement plates were installed
in the embankment at different heights such as S1 to S15 at
the foundation (Level 0.00 m) to measure the vertical
settlements and S31 to S45 at the top (Level 5.5m) to
measure the compression of the embankment (Fig. 1b). The
settlement prediction on the MSE wall/embankment on
hard ground foundation mostly depended on the uppermost
Dense to Very Dense Clayey Sand layer in the subsoil
profile. Settlements were affected when the permeability
values of the subsoil layer were varied.
Comparison of FEM 2D and observed data
Surface and subsurface settlement plates were installed
in the embankment at different heights to measure the
vertical settlements. Due to the construction of
embankment in the hard ground; the values of vertical
settlements were relatively low. The settlement profile of
the section HDPE-MS at Level 0.00m at the base of the
embankment and the embankment compression at level
5.50m at the top of embankment are plotted together with
the simulated data in Figs. 6 to 7, respectively.
Fig. 5 Observed and simulated lateral displacements of the
metallic strip (MS) reinforcement
Numerical Simulations using FEM 2D compared to FEM 3D and observed behavior of reinforced full scale embankment

Comparison of FEM 2D (Shrestha, 2013) versus FEM 3D
(Baral, 2012) simulations
For the HDPE-MS cross-section the maximum
settlement at the base of the embankment (Level 0.00m)
ranged from 40 to 60 mm at 186 days after construction.
The compression of the foundation was found to increase
slightly towards the middle, as shown in Fig. 6 for this
section. Similarly, the compression of the embankment
(Level 0.00m to Level 5.50m) varied between 20 to 30 mm
and is shown in Fig. 7. The FEM 2D over- predicted the
vertical settlement when compared with FEM 3D (Baral,
2012).
The simulated results from FEM 2D overpredicted
vertical settlements in comparison to the simulated result of
FEM 3D (Baral, 2012). The over prediction may be due to
the limitation of analyses under plane strain condition with
asymmetric embankment structure. From the FEM 2D
simulations, the foundation settlements were larger towards
the middle height of the embankment as shown in Fig. 6.
The compressions of the embankment were also larger
towards the embankment slope as shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 6 Compression of the foundation at 186 days (Level 0.00m) in HDPE-MS cross-section

Fig. 7 Compression of the embankment at 186 days (Level 5.5m) in HDPE-MS

 Shrestha, et al.
CONCLUSIONS
The full scale test embankment (6 m height) was
constructed by Department of Highways in Phitsanulok,
Thailand on hard foundation. An unreinforced surcharge fill,
1.2 m thick, was added at the top of the test embankment
after construction. One side of this embankment was
reinforced with polymeric reinforcements consisting
polyester (PET), Polypropylene (PP) and high density
polyethylene (HDPE) and referred as reinforced steep slope
(RSS), which is at an angle of 70 degrees from horizontal.
The other side of the embankment was reinforced with
metallic reinforcements consisting metallic strips (MS) and
steel wire grids (SWG) combined with precast concrete
panel and termed as mechanically stabilized earth wall
(MSEW). The comparisons of the behavior of both metallic
and polymeric reinforcements were monitored and
observed in terms of stiffness. The lateral displacements
and vertical settlements in the MSEW faced side was less in
comparison with the RSS faced side from monitored data.
The RSS side has more settlement and displacement as a
result of lower stiffness than MSEW side. The stiffness
was found from highest to lowest as metallic strip (MS),
steel wire grids (SWG), polypropylene (PP), high density
polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester (PET). The results
obtained from 3D finite element method simulation (FEM
3D) have good agreement with the field measurements in
terms of vertical and lateral deformations in the
reinforcements of the embankment. However, there were
slight differences when compared with the FEM 2D
simulations due to its limitations. The discrepancy between
the measured data and the simulated data may be due to
some limitations of the boundary conditions in FEM 2D for
shorter embankments with asymmetric embankment
structure and varying physical and engineering properties at
short distances apart. FEM 3D is better for analyzing the
behavior of the embankment with shorter plan dimensions
than FEM 2D. In the boundary value problem, the effects of
boundary conditions (2D or 3D) applied in numerical
analysis should be considered as important factors that may
affect the numerical results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the International
Engineering Consultants (IEC) and Department of Highway,
Thailand for supporting this research.
REFERENCES
Baral P., 2012. Simulation and Back-analyses of Design
Parameters of MSE wall/embankment on Hard
Foundations using PLAXIS 3D Software. M. Eng.
Thesis No. GE-12-, AIT, Bangkok, Thailand.
Bathurst, R. J., Miyata, Y., Nernheim, A., Allen, A. M.,
(2008).Refinement of K-Stiffness Method for
geosynthetic reinforced soil walls, Geosynthetics
International. 15: 269-295.
Bergado, D.T. and Chai J. C. (1995). FE analysis of Grid
reinforced embankment system on soft bangkok clay.
Computers and Geotechnics.17: 447-471.
Bergado, D.T., S. Youwai, C. Teerawattanasuk, P.
Visudmedanukul (2003). The interaction mechanism
and behavior of hexagonal wire mesh reinforce
embankment with silty sand backfill on soft clay.
Computers and Geotechnics. 30 :517-534.
Bergado, D.T. and Teerawattanasuk, C. (2008). 2D and 3D
numerical simuations of reinforced embankments on
soft ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 20(6):
343-365.
Chai, J.C., Bergado, D.T. (1993a). Performance of
reinforced embankment on Muar clay deposit. Soils and
Foundations. 33(4): 1–17.
Chai, J.C., Bergado, D.T. (1993b). Some techniques for FE
analysis of embankment on soft ground. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. 30: 710–719.
Lade, P. V. & Lee, K. L. (1976). Engineering Properties of
Soils. University of California, Los Angeles, CA,
Report UCLA-ENG-7652.
PLAXIS 2D-Version (8.2), PLAXIS Manual, PLAXIS b.v.,
The Netherlands.
PLAXIS 3D-Version (2011). PLAXIS Manual, PLAXIS
b.v., The Netherlands.
Shrestha, S. (2013). Reanalysis of full scale test
embankment with polymer and metallic reinforcement
on hard ground using FEM-PLAXIS 2D. M. Eng.
Thesis No. GE-13-, AIT, Bangkok, Thailand.
Suksiripattanapong, C., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Horpibulsuk,
S., Rujikiatkamjorn, C. and Tanhsutthinon, T. (2012).
Numerical analysis of bearing reinforcement earth wall,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 32: l28-37.
Tanchaisawat, T. , Bergado , D.T., Voottipruex, P. (2008).
Numerical simulation and sensitivity analyses of full-
scale test embankment with reinforced lightweight
geomaterials on soft Bangkok clay. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes. 26: 498-511.