Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Numerical evaluation of the performance of back-to-back MSE walls with T

hybrid select-marginal fill zones
Gopika Rajagopal, Sudheesh Thiyyakkandi
⁎

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Palakkad, Kerala 678623, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Back-to-Back Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls have become an integral part of the transportation
Back-to-back MSE wall infrastructures, especially as ramps, bridge approaches, etc. The permeability, strength and constructability
Hybrid-fill attributes of well-graded granular soils have rendered them as the most suitable fill material for MSE walls.
Marginal fill However, the scarcity of such good materials compels the usage of locally available soil with high fine content
Finite element modelling
(marginal fill) having low permeability and high plasticity characteristics, which can cause excessive wall de­
Matric suction
Rainwater infiltration
formation or even failure, if not adequately designed and constructed. This study focused on the assessment of
Fully coupled flow-deformation analysis overall performance of back-to-back MSE walls with a trapezoidal marginal fill zone surrounded by a near-
optimal amount of select fill (i.e., hybrid-fill) as an alternative to the wall with select fill only. The behaviour of
hybrid-fill wall at the end of construction and during heavy rainfall infiltration were investigated through finite
element modelling and compared with fully select fill and fully marginal fill walls. The study revealed that the
overall performance (i.e., horizontal and vertical deformations, reinforcement tension, and factor of safety) of
the hybrid-fill wall with 31–47% select fill is much better than that of fully marginal fill wall, especially during
the extreme rainfall infiltration scenario. The response of this hybrid configuration is even comparable with that
of fully select fill wall, suggesting the proposed hybrid-fill wall as a stable as well as cost-efficient alternative
system in locations where sufficient quantity of well-graded soil is not readily available.

Introduction
Back-to-Back Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall is a type of
reinforced earth structure, widely used for transportation advancement
projects like highway ramps and bridge-approach embankments. The
design of such structures is generally performed following the guide­
lines of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) [16], American As­
sociation of State Highway and Transportation Official (AASHTO) [1],
or British Standards (BS 8006-1) [21], in which foremost re­
commendations are given for the quality of backfill. As per the design
guidelines of FHWA [16], AASHTO [1], BS 8006-1 [21] or Indian Road
Congress (IRC: SP-102) [36], well-graded granular soil or select fill is
the most recommended backfill material for the reinforced zones, in
which % fines and plasticity index (PI) should not exceed 15% and 6%,
respectively. National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) [47] al­
lows the use of fill with fine content up to 35%, with appropriate
provision for drainage. The backfill soils that are not meeting the
guidelines of select fill are categorized as marginal fill. However, for
retained zone of single-faced MSE wall, soil with % fines, liquid limit,
and plasticity index not exceeding 50%, 40% and 20%, respectively, are
permitted [1,16]. For back-to-back MSE walls, FHWA [16] has directed
to practice high quality select fill even in retained zone, provided the
distance between the reinforced zones is less than half of the total
height of wall. Similarly, IRC: SP-102 [36] has recommended select fill
completely for up to four-lane highways.
However, due to the shortage of such select fill materials in the
locality and associated transportation cost and time, locally available
marginal soils are often used as reinforced and retained backfill. It is
evident from the existing literature that about 50% to 75% of total cost
is linked with backfill [40] and therefore, considerable cost reduction
(20–30%) can be achieved by using in-situ or locally available soil in­
stead of bringing in high quality well-graded granular soil [23]. For
instance, India is abundant of tropical soil due to its location and cli­
mate, and this soil is utilized as backfill material although not com­
plying with the select fill guidelines due to the scarcity of well-graded
granular material. Lateritic soil is one of the varieties of tropical soil,
formed by extensive deep weathering of gneiss, which covers major
portion of Kerala State, India (Western Ghats region) [49]. Due to its
ample availability in this region, lateritic soil is widely used as fill
material albeit it exhibits low permeability due to high fine content.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gopika795@gmail.com (G. Rajagopal), sudheesh@iitpkd.ac.in (S. Thiyyakkandi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100445
Received 7 May 2020; Received in revised form 14 August 2020; Accepted 10 September 2020
Available online 17 September 2020
2214-3912/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi
Fig. 1. Construction of back-to-back MSE wall on National Highway 544 Kerala
State, India.
Fig. 1 shows on-going construction of back-to-back-MSE wall on Na­
tional Highway 544, Kerala State (India), where on-site lateritic soil is
used as backfill.
Helwany et al. [33] examined the effect of backfill type on the
performance of MSE wall through finite element analysis and concluded
that the stiffness of reinforcement layers has an appreciable effect on
the performance of wall with backfill having low stiffness and shear
strength. Liu et al. [44] performed a long-term analysis of retaining wall
with marginal backfill and observed that relative creep rate between
geosynthetic reinforcement and marginal fill influences wall deforma­
tion, reinforcement load and stress state in soil. Balakrishnan and Vis­
wanadham [14] conducted centrifuge modelling and pull-out testing to
evaluate the performance of geogrid-reinforced marginal fill wall with
wrap-around facing. Their study revealed that the performance of wall
with marginal soil can be improved by using the reinforcement having
high stiffness. Later, Balakrishnan and Viswanadham [15] found out
that secant tensile stiffness of geogrid in marginal soil is less than that in
granular soil. One suggested method for improving the stiffness of
geogrid was by sandwiching with dense sand layer. The increased in­
terface frictional resistance mobilised in sand layer can enhance the
tensile stress-strain characteristics of geogrid.
Portelinha et al. [50] stated that MSE wall with marginal backfill can
exhibit even better performance than select fill due to matric suction as
long as unsaturated condition is preserved. A suction stress based ana­
lytical solution was proposed by Vahedifard et al. [54] for the determi­
nation of active earth pressure coefficient and predicting reinforcement
load in unsaturated backfill. Their studies showed that incorporation of
suction results in lower reinforcement load which is consistent with the
field measurement, in comparison with that based on classical earth
pressure methods. Unfortunately, most of the reported failures of re­
inforced walls or slopes were associated with marginal backfill, though it
was acceptable in its unsaturated state. The rainfall infiltration was found
to be one of the major triggering factors for most of the failures
[39,58,59]. As soon as the wetting of backfill initiates, translation from
unsaturated to saturated state befalls, suction disappears, and positive
pore water pressure develops. Kim and Borden [39] carried out transient
seepage analysis on reinforced earth wall with marginal backfill sub­
jected to surface water infiltration. Their study showed that reduction in
shear strength due to wetting resulted in excessive facing deformation as
well as surface settlement and high reinforcement tension. Vahedifard
et al. [55] studied the effect of initial suction and rainwater intensity on
the behaviour of MSE wall with marginal backfill under extreme pre­
cipitation event through the fully coupled (flow-deformation) finite ele­
ment analysis. Recently, Jayanandan and Viswanadham [38] performed
2
Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445
numerical study on geogrid reinforced wall with different backfill sub­
jected to rainfall and observed that factor of safety of backfill having 40%
fine content decreases continuously even after the stoppage of rainfall;
whereas, a minute recovery of factor of safety was observed subsequent
to the rainfall for backfill with 20% fine content.
Collin [25] reported a forensic investigation on failed segmental
retaining wall, wherein the failure was due to the increase in connec­
tion load. However, it was observed after a heavy rainfall and the
backfill had a fine content of 23%. Similar failure case study was re­
ported by Yoo and Jung [59] in Korea during a monsoon season. Low
quality backfill and inappropriate design were reportedly the main
reasons for the collapse. Koerner and Soong [43] presented the litera­
ture survey of 26 cases of reinforced wall failures and identified that 17
of them had low permeable backfill. Another important issue addressed
by Christopher and Stulgis [23] is the increased vertical and horizontal
displacement of MSE wall with high fine content backfill. Their survey
showed that pore water pressure due to poor drainage resulted in ex­
cessive deformation and collapse. This was substantiated by Hossain
et al. [34] in a case study of MSE wall located in Lancaster, Texas; the
perched water zone formed by the infiltration of rainwater within the
reinforced fill caused excessive lateral deformation of the wall. Recently
released database of geosynthetic reinforced wall failures marked that,
more than 60% of total 171 failure cases had silty or clayey backfill and
were affected by drainage related issues [41]. Of late, their survey ex­
tended to 320 failure cases and found out that 73% of them had silty or
clayey backfill and 63% of total cases failed due to internal or external
water related issues [42].
Poor drainage characteristics of wet marginal soil were found to be
the root cause for unsatisfactory performance of MSE walls [40,46,61].
Improper drainage builds positive pore water pressure, which in-turn
reduces the strength, stiffness, and interfacial shear resistance of re­
inforced zone [22,23,43,58,59]. Koerner and Koerner [40] reported the
importance of both internal and external drainage measures in geo­
synthetic reinforced wall with silty and clayey backfill. Their study
clearly explains the sequence of failure in a modular-block-facing MSE
wall due to seepage. Mitchell [46] carried out several studies on MSE
walls and slopes with low permeable backfill and found that perfor­
mance of such walls and slopes can be improved by using geosynthetic
reinforcement with high in-plane permeability. In addition, Christopher
et al. [24] substantiated that reinforcement with good in-plane drainage
properties can mitigate the development of pore-water pressure and
advancing of wetting front into the reinforced zone. The effectiveness of
using non-woven geotextile as reinforcement in marginal backfill had
also been reported in the literature [5,37,48,51,61]; their hydraulic
properties were useful in the quick dissipation of pore-water pressure
and subsequent improvement in the internal stability.
Since the major issue with the marginal soil is their poor drainage
characteristics, several studies have been undertaken in this direction
[2,3,17,29,45,52,53,57]. Incorporation of various measures such as
sand cushion, electrokinetic geosynthetics, geogrid encapsulated with
sand layer, hybrid geosynthetics, chimney sand drains, etc., within the
backfill were reported to improve the drainage and hence the overall
stability of the wall. However, quality control and long-term efficacy of
such system on field are of great concern. In addition, no long-term case
studies demonstrating the successful performance of MSE walls with
any of such drainage measures are reported hitherto.
In essence, use of well-graded granular soil as fill material seems to
be the most efficacious way to ensure the adequate drainage and long-
term performance of MSE walls. However, it is anticipated that a hybrid
backfill system with select fill in the critical regions (near facings) and
marginal soil in the remaining areas of back-to-back MSE wall can re­
sult an optimal balance between the cost and overall performance. For
instance, IRC: SP-102 [36] has recommended using alternate fill with
angle of internal friction (ϕ) ≥ 25° and plasticity index (PI) ≤ 20, in
specific configuration within the retained zones for highways having six
or more lanes. However, no detailed studies are reported in literature
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

on such partial replacement of fill materials for back-to-back MSE walls. Table 1
This research focused on studying the effectiveness of potential hybrid- Geometric details of cases considered for the study.
fill combination, specifically, marginal soil core (trapezoidal cross- Cases W/H H (m) W (m) L (m) b h
section) surrounded by well-graded select fill, on improving the overall
infiltration characteristics and thus the performance of back-to-back Case A, L < H/2 1.7 4 6.8 1.2 0.4B – 1B 0.5H – 1H
6 10.2 1.8
MSE wall without altering the drainage properties of marginal fill.
10 17 3
Two-dimensional finite element (FE) program, PLAXIS 2D, was used Case B, L ≈ H/2 2 4 8 2.4 0.4B – 1B 0.5H – 1H
for the numerical modelling of MSE wall. The marginal fill for the study 6 12 3.6
was the typical lateritic soil collected from Palakkad district of Kerala 10 20 6
State, India and the select fill used was the freely draining sandy soil. Case C, L > H/2 3 4 12 6.4 0.6B – 1B 0.5H – 1H
6 18 9.6
Firstly, plastic analyses without considering suction were carried out to
10 30 16
identify the near-optimal geometric configuration immediately after
construction. Subsequently, rainwater infiltration was simulated con­
sidering the effect of suction for the selected hybrid walls (from initial cases, the inclined face of trapezoidal zone was assumed parallel to the
analyses) to appraise its performance towards extreme seasonal Rankine’s failure line of select fill zone. Reinforcement length was fixed
changes. The reported rainfall data during the recent flood (2018) in (equals to 0.7H) and provided at a vertical spacing of 0.6 m on both
Kerala State [26] was adopted for infiltration analyses. The nearly op­ sides. The analyses of the following cases, (i) select fill in both reinforced
timal dimensions for the marginal core in terms of total width and and retained zones (fully select fill wall); (ii) marginal fill in both zones
height of the back-to-back MSE wall were established using the results (fully marginal fill wall); and (iii) select fill in reinforced zone and
of analyses. marginal fill in retained zone (retained-marginal fill wall), were also
carried out for comparison.
Proposed hybrid back-to-back MSE wall
Experimental characterization of hybrid core fill
Back-to-Back MSE wall with three heights (4 m, 6 m, and 10 m) and
three width-to-height (W/H) ratio (1.7, 2.0, and 3.0) were considered in The core fill material used for the numerical modelling of hybrid-fill
the study. Fig. 2 illustrates the schematic diagram of proposed hybrid-fill wall was typical lateritic soil from Palakkad district of Kerala State,
wall with trapezoidal core of marginal fill surrounded by well-graded India. A series of laboratory tests were carried out on this soil to ex­
select fill. FHWA [16] highly recommends the usage of select fill even in amine the geotechnical properties, adopting ASTM test procedures. This
the retained zone if the spacing between the reinforced zones (L) is less includes sieve analysis and hydrometer analysis [10,12], Atterberg
than one-half of the wall height (H). Consequently, the present study limits test [8], standard Proctor test [11], direct shear test [7] and
investigated the following three back-to-back wall cases: (A) L < H/2; falling head permeability test [35]. The soil was classified as clayey
(B) L ≈ H/2; and (C) L > H/2. Note that W/H ratios of 1.7, 2.0 and 3.0 sand (SC), according to unified soil classification system (USCS) [6],
considered in this study are corresponding to Case A [L/(H/2) = 0.6], with liquid limit and plasticity index of 34% and 13%, respectively. As
Case B [L/(H/2) = 1.2] and Case C [L/(H/2) = 3.2], respectively. seen from particle size distribution curve (Fig. 3), 37% of particles pass
Table 1 lists the details of different geometric cases considered in the through #200 sieve. Hence, the soil properties show deviations from
study. A drainage layer of 0.3 m thickness, as recommended by FHWA the recommendations given by FHWA [16], AASHTO [1], BS 8006-1
[16], was provided behind the facing. The trapezoidal marginal core- [21] or IRC: SP-102 [36] for select fill. The summary of the experi­
base-width (b) and height (h) are the two varying parameters in the mental results is given in Table 2.
proposed hybrid-fill system and are represented as a fraction of total In addition, to simulate the behaviour of hybrid-fill wall under
backfill width (B) and total wall height (H), respectively; i.e., b = αB and rainwater infiltration and depict its transition from unsaturated to fully
h = βH, where, α and β are variables ≤ 1. The analyses began with the saturated state, Soil Water Characteristic Curve (SWCC) for the hybrid
case of trapezoidal core with b = 1B and h = 1H and was repeated by core fill (lateritic soil) was required, which gives the relationship be­
reducing b with a decrement of 0.1B (0.05B in some cases) until the stage tween matric suction and degree of saturation. Filter paper technique
where marginal fill is completely outside the reinforced zone. Similarly, h following ASTM D5298 – 16 [9] was adopted to determine the SWCC and
was reduced from maximum height (H) to half height of the wall (0.5H). is shown in Fig. 4. Several hydraulic models are available in literature for
About 200 models were simulated by varying W, H, b, and h; in all the fitting the experimental data into a smooth SWC curve; Brooks and Corey

Fig. 2. Proposed hybrid back-to-back MSE wall.

3
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

100 where S, Sres and Ssat are the degree of saturation at given state, residual
Sample I state and fully saturated state, respectively; ga and gn are the SWCC fitting
90
Sample II parameters; pw and γw are the pore water pressure and unit weight of
80 water, respectively.
70 Relative permeability (i.e., ratio of permeability at given saturation
60 to saturated permeability) of the soil corresponding to the different
% Finer

value of matric suction can be estimated using Hydraulic Conductivity

50 Function (HCF), Eq. (2) [56].
40 gn 1 2
30 krel = Se gl 1 1
gn
Se gn 1
gn

20 (2)
10 where Se =
S Sres
, is the effective degree of saturation and gl is HCF
Ssat Sres
0 fitting parameter.
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Numerical Modelling
Particle Size (mm)
Fig. 3. Particle size distribution curve. Hybrid-fill wall – construction simulation

As mentioned, the numerical modelling of MSE wall was carried out

Table 2
using two-dimensional FE software package, PLAXIS 2D. The plane-
Summary of lateritic soil properties.
strain model with 15-node triangular elements was adopted and the
Properties Result modelling was carried out in stages replicating the actual field con­
% Fines 37
struction, i.e., placement of soil in lifts along with facing and re­
Liquid Limit (%) 34 inforcement layers. Modular block facing was considered in this study,
Plastic Limit (%) 21 which was modelled as a concrete segment with linear-elastic beha­
Plasticity Index (%) 13 viour. The soil mass was modelled with the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive
Soil Classification (USCS) SC
model and the reinforcement layers were simulated using geogrid ele­
Max Dry Density (kN/m3) 18.3
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 13.8 ments available in PLAXIS 2D. Interface elements with suitable reduc­
Angle of Internal Friction, ϕ' (0) 31.5 tion factors were used to create boundaries between the dissimilar
Cohesion, c' (kN/m2) 2.6 materials. The vertical and horizontal displacements were restrained at
-7
Coefficient of permeability (m/sec) 5.5 x10 the bottom boundary which was placed sufficiently below the bottom of
the MSE block to avoid boundary effect.

100
Experimental Data Validation of construction modelling procedure using full scale experimental
90 data
Degree of Saturation (%)

80 Fitted Curve
Firstly, the modelling procedure of MSE wall construction adopted
70 in this study was validated by simulating a full-scale study on single-
60 faced MSE wall constructed at Royal Military College of Canada
50 (RMCC) reported by Bathurst et al. [13]. Note that the single-faced MSE
wall data had to be used in this study as no full-scale study results on
40
back-to-back (double-faced) MSE walls were available in literature.
30 Hatami and Bathurst [32] have also utilized this experimental data for
20 the development and verification of their numerical model. The test
10 wall was constructed to a height of 3.6 m with 8° facing batter. Solid
0 masonry blocks (200 mm × 300 mm × 150 mm) and biaxial poly­
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 propylene geogrids with very low tensile strength (axial stiffness = 97
kN/m) was used as facing and reinforcement, respectively. The re­
Matric Suction (kPa) inforcement was extended to a length of 2.52 m with 0.6 m vertical
spacing. Horizontal displacement was measured using displacement
Fig. 4. Soil Water Characteristic Curve of typical lateritic soil.
potentiometers mounted against the wall face; whereas, reinforcement
strain was measured with both strain gauges and extensometers. Ma­
[20], van Genuchten [56], Fredlund and Xing [27] are some of the terial properties used for modelling were as per the actual experimental
widely used models. In the present study, van Genuchten - Mualem data [13,32], as given in Table 3. Soil layer with a lift thickness of
model, Eq. (1) [56] was used to fit the experimental data. 0.15 m was placed in each phase of staged construction. Rigid interface
was considered for geogrid and backfill; whereas an interface reduction
pw
gn (1 gn )/ gn factor of 0.7 was assumed for facing and backfill.
S = Sres + (Ssat Sres ) 1 + ga Fig. 5 shows the numerical model of the wall and Fig. 6 presents a
w (1) comparison of the FE results with the experimental results. As can be

Table 3
Backfill soil properties [13,32].
Parameters Unit weight, γ (kN/m3) Cohesion (kN/m2) Friction angle (°) Dilation angle (°) Young’s Modulus (kN/m2) Poisson’s ratio

Backfill 16.8 1 44 11 56,667 0.25

4
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

Fig. 5. Numerical model of experimental wall [13,32].

Numerical
0.8
Hatami and Bathurst (2005) Strain guage
Strain (%)

0.5
4 Extensometer
0.2 Numerical
-0.1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Layer 4
3 (2.1 m above the base)
Distance from facing (m)
Elevation (m)

1.5
Strain (%)

1.1
2 0.7
0.3
-0.1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Layer 3
1 (1.5 m above the base)
Distance from facing (m)
1.0
Strain (%)

0.6
0 0.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 -0.1
Facing Displacement 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Layer 2
(mm) (0.9 m above the base)
Distance from facing (m)

(a) (b)
Fig. 6. (a) Facing displacement; (b) Reinforcement strain [13,32].

Table 4 Table 5
Comparison of predicted and measured [13,32] facing displacements. Soil properties used for the FE modelling of proposed hybrid-fill wall.
Elevation (m) Measured displacement Predicted Difference (%) Soil properties Marginal fill Select fill Foundation soil
(Hatami and Bathurst displacement (mm)
[32]) (mm) Model Mohr- Mohr- Mohr-Coulomb
Coulomb Coulomb
3
0.3 2.3 2.9 26 Unit weight, γ (kN/m ) 17.4 * 16.8 18.85
0.9 3.7 4.5 21.6 Angle of internal friction, ϕ' (0) 31.5 44 45
1.5 5.1 5.4 5.8 Cohesion, c' (kN/m2) 2.6 1 15
2.1 5.6 5.5 1.8 Dilation angle, ψ (0) 0 11 15
2.7 5.4 4.4 18.5 Young’s modulus, E (kN/m2) 15,700 56,667 110,000
3.3 2.3 2.7 17.4 Poisson’s ratio, µ 0.3 0.25 0.3
Coefficient of permeability, k 0.04752 20 2
(m/day)

* 95% of maximum dry density.

5
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

Fig. 7. Hybrid back-to-back MSE wall simulated in PLAXIS 2D.

4 6 10 Select
Retained Marginal
H=4m 5 H=6m 8 b = 0.6B
3
Elevation (m) H = 10 m b = 0.7B
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)

4 b = 0.8B
6 b = 0.85B
2 3 b = 0.9B
b = 1B
4 Marginal
2
1
1 2

0 0 0
0 5 10 15 0 7 14 21 28 35 0 40 80 120
Facing displacement Facing displacement Facing displacement
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Fig. 8. Variation in facing displacement with core-base-width, b (Case B; W/H = 2; h = 1H).

6 wall construction. The difference between the predicted and measured

displacements is ≤1 mm at all elevations, although the percentage
5 Select variation is more than 20% in some cases owing to the very small
Retained Marginal magnitude of displacement. This shows that the modelling technique
using PLAXIS 2D adopted in this study is capable of modelling the re­
Elevation (m)

4 h = 0.5H
sponse of full-scale MSE wall with reasonable accuracy.
h = 0.7H
3 h = 0.9H
Performance of hybrid-fill wall immediately after construction
h = 1H
2 Analysis of proposed hybrid walls with varying dimensions (W, H, b,
Marginal
and h) were carried out to evaluate their performance immediately after
1 the construction and to identify a nearly optimal dimension for the
marginal trapezoidal core. An elastic-plastic deformation analysis using
0 plastic calculation type was adopted. Soil properties used for the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 modelling are listed in Table 5. Properties of select fill used for the
modelling were taken from Bathurst et al. [13,32] and the same was
Facing displacement (mm) used as drainage layer as well with a permeability of 20 m/day. High
quality foundation soil (hard stratum) was assumed here to eliminate its
Fig. 9. Variation in facing displacement with core-height, h (Case C; W/H = 3;
influence on the overall behaviour of wall. The matric suction in the
H = 6 m and b = 0.9B).
marginal soil was ignored in the first series of analysis as it has positive
impact on the overall stability of the system and will be lost upon sa­
seen from the Fig. 6, the facing displacement and mobilized re­ turation. However, after establishing the nearly optimal geometry of
inforcement strain from numerical analysis were in agreement with the the marginal core based on the initial analyses (i.e., ignoring suction), a
experimental data. Table 4 compares the experimental and numerical comparative study was also undertaken to investigate the performance
facing displacement values. Note that the facing displacement was of wall with the suction of marginal fill.
measured from the time of placement of each facing unit to the end of Simulation of the hybrid-fill wall model followed similar modelling

6
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

Distance from centre of wall (m)

0.0 1.7 3.4 5.1 6.8 8.5

Settlement (mm)
0
Case A; W/H = 1.7
-40
Surface
-80
-120
-160
Distance from centre of wall (m)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Select
0
Settlement (mm)

Retained Marginal
Case B; W/H = 2
-40 b = 0.7B
Surface

b = 0.8B
-80 b = 0.9B
-120 b = 1B
Marginal
-160
Distance from centre of wall (m)
0 5 10 15
Settlement (mm)

0
Case C; W/H = 3
-40
Surface

-80
-120
-160
Fig. 10. Variation in surface settlement with core-base-width, b (H = 10 m; h = 1H).

Distance from centre of wall (m)

Select
0 2 4 6 Retained Marginal
Settlement (mm)

0
h = 0.5H
-5
Surface

h = 0.7H
-10 h = 0.9H
-15 h = 1H
-20 Marginal

Fig. 11. Variation in surface settlement with core-height, h (Case C; W/H = 3; H = 4 m and b = 0.9B).

6 6 6
Case A; W/H = 1.7 Case B; W/H = 2 Select
Case C; W/H = 3
Retained Marginal
5 5 5 b = 0.57B
b = 0.7B
Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

4 4 4 b = 0.8B
b = 0.85B
b = 0.9B
3 3 3 b = 1B
Marginal
2 2 2

1 1 1

0 0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Maximum mobilized Maximum mobilized Maximum mobilized
tension (kN/m) tension (kN/m) tension (kN/m)
Fig. 12. Maximum mobilized tension in reinforcement layer at different elevations (h = 1H).

7
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

10

Tension (kN/m)
Layer 5 (2.8 m above the base)
5
Marginal
0 Select
0 1 2 3 4 5 Hybrid
Distance from facing (m) Retained Marginal
15
Tension (kN/m)

Layer 2 (1 m above the base)

10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Distance from facing (m)
Fig. 13. Distribution of mobilized tension along reinforcement layer at different elevations (Case C; W/H = 3; H = 6 m, b = 0.9B; h = 1H).

6 Table 6
SWCC fitting parameters.
Marginal
5 Hydraulic properties Marginal fill Select fill Foundation soil
Select
Hybrid Ssat 1 1 1
4
Elevation (m)

Sres 0 0 0
Retained Marginal ga (m−1) 1.5 14.5 3
3 Marginal Theorectical gn 1.27 2.68 3
gl 0.5 0.5 0.5
Select Theorectical
2
technique to obtain the global factor of safety (FS) [19,30]. Deforma­
1 tion responses, reinforcement load, lateral earth pressure distribution
and safety factor for each hybrid configuration were investigated. Si­
mulated model of hybrid wall (Case B, H = 6 m, b = 0.9B and
0
h = 0.9H) is shown in Fig. 7.
0 10 20 30 40 50 Fig. 8 shows the variation of horizontal displacement along the fa­
Lateral earth pressure (kN/m²) cing of wall (Case B; H = 4 m, 6 m, and 10 m) with core-base-width, b
for a constant h = 1H. As evident from the figure, the response of walls
Fig. 14. Lateral earth pressure behind the reinforced zone (Case C; W/H = 3;
with b < 0.9B was closer to that of a complete select fill wall. Similar
H = 6 m; b = 0.9B; h = 1H).
responses were noticed for Case A and Case C as well. The displacement
response of wall with “select fill in reinforced zone and marginal fill in
settings used for the validation. Initial phase (in-situ stress state) was retained zone” (Retained Marginal in Fig. 8) was essentially the same as
simulated by adopting k0 loading type. As construction progresses, each that of fully select fill wall. The variation of facing displacement with
layer of soil with a lift thickness of 0.2 m along with facing block marginal core-height (h) at a constant core-base-width of 0.9B (Case C
(200 mm height × 300 mm width) and reinforcement (axial stiffness and H = 6 m) is shown in Fig. 9. It is apparent from the figure that no
1100 kN/m) was placed. An interface reduction factor (Rinter) of 1 was much variation in horizontal displacement occurred with increase of h.
taken between geogrid and soil, and 0.7 between facing and soil as To compare the influence of hybrid-fill configuration on the settle­
adopted in the validation. After the simulation of wall construction in ment response, variation in surface settlement of walls with different
stages, a safety analysis was performed using the ϕ-c reduction combinations of b and h were plotted. Fig. 10 shows surface settlement

2.6 2.2 1.8

Hybrid
2
Factor of Safety
Factor of Safety

Factor of Safety

2.2 1.6 Select

1.8
Marginal
1.8 1.6 1.4
Retained Marginal
1.4
1.4 1.2
H=4m 1.2 H=6m H = 10 m
1 1 1
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Normalised Marginal Normalised Marginal core Normalised Marginal
core base-width (b/B) base-width (b/B) core base-width (b/B)
Fig. 15. Global factor of safety.

8
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

6
Hybrid without Suction
5 Hybrid with Suction

Elevation (m)
4 Marginal without Suction
Marginal with Suction
3 Select without Suction
2 Select with Suction
Retained Marginal without Suction
1 Retained Marginal with Suction
0
0 10 20 30
Facing Displacement (mm)
Fig. 16. Effect of suction on facing displacement (Case C; W/H = 3; H = 6 m; b = 0.85B; h = 1H).

3.0
Factor of Safety

Without Suction
2.5
With Suction
2.0
1.5
1.0
Marginal Hybrid Retained Select
Marginal
Type of Backfill
Fig. 17. Effect of suction on factor of safety (Case C; W/H = 3; H = 6 m; b = 0.85B; h = 1H).

Table 7 in case of hybrid wall. It should be noted that the observed surface
Strength and hydraulic properties of soil and geotextile used for modelling settlement was only due to the vertical deformation of MSE fill as the
[5,51]. foundation soil was modelled as hard stratum. The similar settlement
Soil properties Backfill Geotextile responses were observed for other wall heights as well (H = 4 m and
6 m).
Maximum load mobilized in the reinforcement layers is another key
3
Unit weight, γ (kN/m ) 17.9 –
Angle of internal friction, ϕ' (0) 35 –
factor affecting the overall wall performance. Fig. 12 depicts the max­
Cohesion, c' (kN/m2) 0 –
Dilation angle, ψ (0) 0 –
imum mobilized tension in the reinforcement layers for Case A, Case B,
Tensile strength (kN/m) – 12 and Case C walls with H = 6 m, h = 1H and varying b. From the figure,
Elongation at failure (%) – 83 it is clear that, the variation of maximum mobilized tension in each
Coefficient of permeability, k (m/sec) 4.9 × 10−7 0.00058 layer with core-base-width (b) was not significant when b ≤ 0.9B. In all
Ss 1 1
the cases, the response of retained marginal fill wall is similar to that of
Sres 0 0
ga (m−1) 1.118 19.62 fully select fill wall.
gn 1.11 3.03 Distribution of tension along the reinforcement of hybrid wall with
gl 0.5 0.5 b = 0.9B and h = 1H at two different elevations is illustrated in Fig. 13
(Case C; W/H = 3; H = 6 m). As evident from the figure, the hybrid
wall shows good agreement with the complete select fill wall and re­
profiles for walls with varying b and a constant h = 1H (H = 10 m; tained-marginal fill wall, even though some portion of the reinforced
Case A, B, and C). Similarly, Fig. 11 presents the settlement profiles for zone was occupied by marginal fill.
different h keeping b constant (b = 0.9B). The variation of surface It is also important to study the variation of earth pressure dis­
settlement with the increase in core-base-width (b) was more pro­ tribution for the proposed hybrid-fill wall as it can influence both ex­
nounced at larger base width (> 0.9B); no considerable difference was ternal and internal stability of the wall. The variation of earth pressure
observed with the variation of b below 0.9B. In all the hybrid cases, the behind the reinforced zone of hybrid wall having b = 0.9B and h = 1H
observed surface settlement was less than that for complete marginal is presented in Fig. 14 along with that observed for fully select fill, fully
fill wall. As in the case of face displacement, the influence of core- marginal fill, and retained-marginal fill cases. Also shown in the figure
height (h) on surface settlement was minimal. An interesting observa­ are the Rankine’s active earth pressure distribution for fully select fill
tion was that the differential surface settlement for hybrid wall was and fully marginal fill walls. As expected, earth pressure distribution for
negligible even when compared to conventional select fill wall, though hybrid wall follows that for marginal wall, as the marginal soil occupies
the observed total surface settlement was higher. This is attributed to major portion behind the reinforced zone. Hence, for external stability
the increased deformation of the central region, which is marginal soil consideration (e.g., fixing the length of reinforcement), it is more

9
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

Fig. 18. Numerical model of test wall [5,51] simulated in PLAXIS 2D.

1.05 10

1.00 0
Porewater pressure (kPa)

-10
0.95
NVWC (Experimental)
-20
0.90 NVWC (Predicted)
θ/θs

-30 PWP (Experimental)

0.85 PWP (Predicted)
-40
0.80
-50
0.75 -60
0.70 -70
0 10000 20000 30000
Time (min)
Fig. 19. Variation of normalized volumetric water content (NVWC) and porewater pressure (PWP) with infiltration at 0.45 m depth.

appropriate to use earth pressure coefficient of marginal soil.
Following the simulation of construction phase, a strength reduction
analysis (ɸ-c reduction) implemented in PLAXIS 2D was adopted to
determine the global safety factor (FS) of the system. The variation of FS
of hybrid model with normalized core-base-width (b/B) is shown in
Fig. 15 for 4 m, 6 m and 10 m high walls (Case C), along with FS for
fully select fill, marginal fill and retained-marginal fill walls. As can be
seen from the figures, FS of hybrid fill wall was closer to that of select
fill wall as long as b ≤ 0.85B in comparison to the complete marginal
fill wall. Though FS of hybrid fill wall (with b ≤ 0.85B) was less than
the FS of retained-marginal fill wall, the difference was minimal.
From the analyses of hybrid-fill models under different sets of
geometric configurations discussed above, marginal core with a base-
width of 0.85B to 0.9B and height of 1H is found to be a satisfactory
configuration. In order to evaluate the relative performance of hybrid-
fill wall with the consideration of matric suction, additional analyses
were carried out. The van-Genuchten model was used to simulate the
hydraulic parameters. Table 6 lists the SWCC parameters used for the
modelling. Note that these parameters for the marginal fill were ob­
tained by fitting the experimental results using Eq. (1). For select fill
and foundation soil these parameters were taken from Vahedifard et al.
[55]. Water table was assumed at 2 m below the ground surface to

10
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

2.5 where σ' – effective stress; σ – total stress; pa – pore-air pressure; pw –

1440 min (Experimental)
Displacement (mm)

2 1440 min (Predicted)
24500 min (Experimental)
1.5 24500 min (Predicted)
1 30300 min (Experimental)
30300 min (Predicted)
0.5
0 k ( pw +
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Time (min)
Fig. 20. Variation in displacement along reinforcement layer 4 (1.05 m from
bottom) with infiltration.
introduce suction with respect to head.
Fig. 16 compares the effect of suction on the facing displacement of
selected hybrid-fill wall (b = 0.85B and h = 1H) with that of complete
select fill and marginal fill walls. As evident from the figure, the facing
displacement decreases in both hybrid-fill and fully marginal fill walls
as suction imparts an apparent cohesion to the system. The maximum
facing displacement of the hybrid-fill wall is found to be still less than
that of marginal fill wall, although the degree of reduction is more
pronounced in the latter. The global factor of safety (FS) of the walls
with and without suction is presented in Fig. 17 for Case C (H = 6 m
and b = 0.85B). As expected, increased FS due to suction was more
evident in the case of complete marginal fill in comparison to the hy­
brid-fill case. However, the difference in FS between hybrid-fill and
marginal fill walls was negligible. No noticeable reduction in facing
displacement and increase in FS was observed for fully select fill wall, as
suction was nearly zero.
However, as mentioned previously, majority of the reported failures
of fully marginal fill MSE walls were due to the reduction of suction and
the induced pore water pressure by rainfall infiltration. Therefore, it
was of great interest to investigate the performance of the hybrid-fill
wall under rainwater infiltration as well.
Hybrid fill wall - Infiltration analysis
Behaviour of hybrid-fill wall under rainfall infiltration was eval­
uated by performing fully coupled flow-deformation analysis of the
system. This calculation type, available in PLAXIS 2D, is capable of
conducting both flow as well as deformation analyses simultaneously
[19,28].
Fully coupled flow-deformation analysis and Validation
In the fully coupled flow-deformation analysis, shear strength of
unsaturated soil is determined using Bishop’s effective stress, Eq. (3)
[18] and transient flow through the soil is governed by the continuity
equation, Eq. (4) [28].
'
=( pa ) + (pa pw )
pore-water pressure; and χ – matric suction coefficient (assumed as
effective degree of saturation, Se). The program assumes pore air
pressure = 0 [19,28]. Here, (pa – pw) is defined as matric suction and
(pa pw ) is represented as effective suction.
T krel sat S S pw
w g) n =0
wg Kw pw t (4)
where ρw – density of water; g – acceleration due to gravity; ksat – sa­
turated permeability; n – soil porosity; Kw – bulk modulus of water; and
S – degree of saturation.
Several studies on the response of MSE walls and soil slopes utilizing
this analysis type have been reported in literature [31,55,60]. Hamdhan
and Schweiger [31] have validated the adequacy of this analysis ap­
proach by carrying out the numerical modelling of a fully instrumented
unsaturated soil slope subjected to rainfall. In the present study, the
validation of this calculation type was conducted by simulating water
infiltration study on a full scale MSE wall carried out in Geosynthetics
Laboratory of the Sao Carlos School of Engineering at the University of
Sao Paulo, Brazil [5,51].
The wall was constructed to a height of 1.65 m and a width of
1.55 m on a rigid concrete foundation. Clayey sand (SC) with % fines
and plasticity index (PI) of 44% and 21%, respectively, were used as
backfill. Non-woven needle-punched geotextile was used as reinforce­
ment, and the same was wrapped around the backfill to form facing.
Further, a protective coat of shotcrete (thickness: 0.05 m to 0.08 m) was
provided on the wrap-around facing of the wall. The reinforcement was
extended to the whole width of the wall and was placed at a vertical
spacing of 300 mm. Infiltration was simulated using an irrigation
system with a uniform flow rate of 1.8 × 10−7 m/s installed over the
wall. It consists of a series of pipes connected to a water reservoir,
capable of maintaining a constant hydraulic head. A drainage layer of
thickness 0.15 m was provided on top of the wall to facilitate uniform
distribution of water. In addition, a uniform surcharge of 100 kPa was
applied on top using airbags and was maintained throughout the ex­
periment. Frequency domain reflection (FDR) sensors, piezometers,
extensometers, and LVDTs were used to monitor the volumetric water
content (θ), porewater pressure, reinforcement strain, and facing dis­
placement of the test wall, respectively, during the progress of in­
filtration.
The test wall was simulated using a plane strain model with 15-
noded triangular elements. Table 7 lists the strength as well as hy­
draulic properties of both the backfill and non-woven geotextile [5,51].
Unlike geogrid, non-woven geotextile exhibits high in-plane perme­
ability characteristics, which helps the quick drainage of water. The
hydraulic parameters of the reinforcement were incorporated by mod­
elling interface elements and assigning the relevant properties. The
SWCC fitting parameters of backfill, non-woven geotextiles, and top
drainage layer (sand) were obtained by fitting the suction data [5]
(3) using van Genuchten model (Eq. (1)). The facing of the wall was

3.0 3.0
2.5 2.5
Displacement

Displacement

Experimental (0.9 m) Experimental (0.6 m)

2.0 2.0
Predicted (0.9 m) Predicted (0.6 m)
(mm)

(mm)

1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 10000 20000 30000 0 10000 20000 30000
Time (min) Time (min)

(a) (b)
Fig. 21. Variation in facing displacement with infiltration (a) 0.9 m above the base; (b) 0.6 m above the base.

11
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 22. Variation in effective suction during rainfall (W/H = 3; H = 6 m) (a) Fully marginal fill wall; (b) Hybrid-fill wall (b = 0.85B); (c) Retained marginal fill
wall.

6 6 6
EOC
5 5 5
After 10 days
Elevation (m)

4 4 4
Elevation (m)
Elevation (m)

After 20 days
3 3 3 After 30 days

2 After 61 days
2 2
After 61 days + 1 day
1 1 1 heavy rain

Fully marginal Hybrid-fill Retained-marginal

0 0 0
0 15 30 45 0 15 30 45 0 15 30 45
Facing Displacement Facing Displacement Facing Displacement
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Fig. 23. Variation in facing displacement during rainfall (Case C; W/H = 3; H = 6 m; b = 0.85B).

considered as permeable (i.e., seepage boundary condition) with a
hydraulic conductivity of 1 × 10−10 m/s; whereas, impermeable
boundary condition was adopted for the back side and bottom of the
wall. The initial suction of the backfill was in the range of 45–60 kPa.
The required initial suction was simulated by inputting the corre­
sponding degree of saturation. After modelling the construction of wall,
a fully coupled flow-deformation analysis was performed to investigate
the behaviour of wall upon infiltration. The infiltration boundary
condition was assigned at the top of the drainage blanket with a pre­
scribed intensity of 1.8 × 10-7 m/s to model the rainwater infiltration.
Fig. 18 shows the numerical model of experimental wall simulated in
PLAXIS 2D.
Fig. 19 shows the predicted variation of normalized volumetric
water content (θ/θs; where, θs – volumetric water content at the fully

12
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

Distance from centre of wall (m)

0 3 6 9
0

Settlement (mm)
Fully marginal

Surface
-15
-30
-45
EOC
Distance from centre of wall (m)
0 3 6 9 After 10 days
0
Settlement (mm)

After 20 days
Hybrid-fill
-15 After 30 days
Surface

After 61 days
-30
After 61 days + 1 day
-45 heavy rain

Distance from centre of wall (m)

0 3 6 9
0
Settlement (mm)

Retained-marginal
-15
Surface

-30
-45
Fig. 24. Variation in surface settlement during rainfall (Case C; W/H = 3; H = 6 m; b = 0.85B).

6 6 6
Fully marginal Hybrid-fill Retained-marginal
5 5 5 EOC

4 4 After 10 days
4
Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

After 20 days
3 3 3
After 30 days

2 2 2 After 61 days

1 1 After 61 days +
1 1 day heavy rain

0 0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Max. Mobilized Max. Mobilized Max. Mobilized
Tension (kN/m) Tension (kN/m) Tension (kN/m)
Fig. 25. Variation in maximum mobilized tension during rainfall (Case C; W/H = 3; H = 6 m; b = 0.85B).

saturated state) and pore water pressure during infiltration along with
the experimental results. Fig. 20 depicts the experimental and predicted
variation in horizontal displacement along a reinforcement layer lo­
cated 1.05 m above the base during water infiltration. Similarly, shown
in Fig. 21 is the change in facing displacement (at 0.9 m and 0.6 m
above the base) as the infiltration progresses. As evident from
Figs. 19–21, the results of numerical simulation matched closely with
the measured data. The difference between the measured and predicted
displacement values was within the range of 0 to 0.5 mm. This implies
that fully coupled flow-deformation analysis available in PLAXIS 2D is
capable to simulate the behaviour of MSE wall under rainwater in­
filtration with reasonable accuracy.
Performance of hybrid-fill wall upon rainwater infiltration
A comparative performance evaluation study was carried out
between the proposed hybrid-fill wall, retained-marginal fill wall, and
fully marginal fill wall under typical rainfall in Kerala State, India. In
case of hybrid-fill wall, 0.3 m thick select fill layer was considered on
top (i.e., above marginal fill) to facilitate continuous and uniform dis­
charge below road pavement. “Infiltration” boundary condition avail­
able in PLAXIS was assigned at the top of the wall and ground surface
with prescribed rainwater intensity for simulating the hydraulic
boundary condition. Effective suction, horizontal and vertical de­
formation responses, reinforcement tension and safety factor variations
during the several days of rainfall were studied in detail.
Recent rainfall intensity data from the study report on “Kerala Flood
of August 2018” by Central Water Commission, India [26] was used in
this research. The report includes the total monthly rainfall (in mm) for
June and July 2018 and the rainfall data during the period of 1st to
19th of August 2018. There was a sudden raise in the intensity of

13
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445

6 shows the surface deformation profile of fully marginal fill wall, hybrid-
Marginal
fill wall (b = 0.85B) and retained marginal fill wall (Case C and
Hybrid
5 H = 6 m) during rainwater infiltration. The upward deformation was
Retained Marginal
noticeable at the surface of the fill as the rainwater infiltration pro­
gresses due to the reduction of suction in the marginal soil (Fig. 24).
4
Elevation (m)

After the entire removal of suction, downward deformation (i.e., set­

3 with further high intensity rainfall. In general, it can be seen from
2
1 ‘marginal core zone’ of hybrid-fill wall has minimal effect on both the
0 critical portion of the reinforced zone can eliminate the rainfall induced
0 5 10
Max. Mobilized Tension
(kN/m)
Fig. 26. Comparison of reinforcement tension (Case C; W/H = 3; H = 6 m;
b = 0.85B).
rainfall in August, which lasted for a relatively shorter duration and
resulted in severe flooding. The present coupled flow-deformation
analyses considered the following sequence of rainwater infiltration to
simulate the condition under typical rainfall scenario: (i) 0.025 m/day
for June; (ii) 0.028 m/day for July; and (iii) 0.24 m/day for one day (in
August) to simulate peak rainfall as observed. The above average
rainfall intensities (m/day) for June and July were calculated from the
total monthly rainfall data. The peak rainfall intensity (0.24 m/day) in
August was obtained from the intensity–duration-frequency (IDF) curve
(2-year return period) of Kerala State, India reported by Adarsh and
Reddy (2018) [4].
Fig. 22 shows the variation of effective suction (i.e., Se (pa pw ) )
within the fully marginal fill wall, hybrid-fill wall (b = 0.85B) and
retained-marginal fill wall of Case C with increase in the number of
days of rainfall. It was found that effective suction completely dis­
appeared in fully marginal fill wall and retained-marginal fill wall by
40 days and in hybrid-fill wall by 46 days. Further rainfall was causing
the rise of water table and consequently the increase in positive pore
water pressure in the backfill.
Fig. 23 depicts the variation of horizontal displacement along the
facing of fully marginal fill wall, the proposed hybrid-fill wall
(b = 0.85B) and retained-marginal fill wall of Case C and H = 6 m with
the different days of rainfall. Even though the facing displacement for
three walls was found to increase with the infiltration, the influence
was more noticeable in fully marginal fill wall. The response of hybrid-
fill wall was miniscule even after the heavy rainfall. Similarly, Fig. 24
tlement) was observed at the reinforced zone of fully marginal fill wall
Fig. 24 that the vertical deformation response was more pronounced for
the fully marginal fill wall; whereas, for hybrid-fill and retained-mar­
ginal fill walls, it was minimal and relatively uniform even after the
peak intensity rainfall. This implies that the reduction of suction in the
lateral and vertical deformation of the wall, i.e., having select fill in the
15 deformation of the wall. Similar response was observed for Case A and
Case B as well.
Another major factor investigated was the tension development in
reinforcement during rainwater infiltration. Fig. 25 shows the variation
of maximum mobilized tension in fully marginal fill, hybrid-fill
(b = 0.85B) and retained marginal fill walls at different elevations
during the infiltration. As expected, maximum tension in reinforcement
was found to increase with the number of days of infiltration in case of
fully marginal fill wall. However, no significant variation in reinforce­
ment tension was observed for the case of hybrid-fill wall due to the
presence of freely draining granular material in the active zone of wall.
A similar response was observed for retained-marginal fill wall also.
Fig. 26 compares the maximum reinforcement tension in different walls
(Case C; H = 6 m) following the heavy intensity rainfall. As evident,
maximum reinforcement force is moderately higher in fully marginal
fill wall. This is due to the reduction in suction in the reinforced zone of
the wall. The hybrid-fill wall in the proposed configuration is least in­
fluenced by reduction in suction.
Safety analysis using strength reduction technique was performed
for hybrid-fill, complete marginal fill, and retained-marginal fill walls
after the fully coupled flow-deformation analysis to examine the FS of
the walls upon rainwater infiltration. Fig. 27 illustrates the variation of
FS after the different duration of rainfall infiltration. The FS of all the
walls was seen to decrease with the rainwater infiltration. However, the
rate of reduction was more for fully marginal fill wall, resulting in a
lower value in response to heavy rainfall, though its initial FS was
slightly higher than that of hybrid-fill wall due to suction effect.
Overall, the performance evaluation of the proposed hybrid-fill
walls upon rainfall infiltration as well as immediately after construction
reveal that the base-width (b) of marginal fill zone is the key parameter
influencing the behaviour of wall. The height of marginal fill zone (h) is
found to have relatively minor influence on the overall performance. A
hybrid-fill wall with marginal core-base-width, b ≤ 0.85B and height, h
≈ 1H is found to be a satisfactory configuration for the cases discussed

2.6
2.4 Marginal
Factor of Safety

2.2 Hybrid
2.0 Retained Marginal
1.8
1.6
Case C; H = 6 m
1.4
1.2
EOC 10 days 20 days 30 days 61 days +1 day
heavy
Duration of Rainfall (days) rain
Fig. 27. Variation of global factor of safety during rainfall (b = 0.85B).

14
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi
(i.e., W/H = 1.7, 2, and 3). The amount of select fill required for this
configuration ranges from 31% to 47% for all the cases (different W and
H) considered in this study. It should be noted that the corresponding %
of select fill for wall ‘with marginal soil in the retained zone only’ will
be varying from 44% to 81%. Since these findings are based on the
results of finite element modelling, which has inherent limitations (e.g.,
material models, coupled flow deformation analysis, etc.) in simulating
the exact field behaviour, validation of the findings through in­
strumented experimental study (centrifuge or full-scale) is warranted
before its implementation.
Conclusions
The present study investigated the behaviour of a new hybrid back-
to-back MSE wall, made of marginal fill in the central trapezoidal zone
and well-graded select fill in the remaining area, immediately after
construction and upon rainfall infiltration. The hybrid-fill core-base-
width (b) was identified as one of the governing factors affecting the
overall wall performance, whereas, the core-height (h) has the least
influence. The facing displacement and surface settlement of the hy­
brid-fill wall just after construction were found to be similar to that of a
fully select fill wall as long as core-base-width, b is ≤ 0.9B. Also, the
differential surface settlement for the proposed hybrid-fill wall was less
in comparison with both fully select fill and fully marginal fill walls, as
the vertical deformation of the central marginal zone minimizes the
non-uniformity. For the configurations with b ≤ 0.9B, mobilized ten­
sion in the reinforcement layers was also comparable to that observed
in fully select fill wall. The FS of the hybrid-fill wall with b ≤ 0.85B and
h = 1H was much greater than that of fully marginal fill wall, when the
matric suction was ignored; whereas, incorporation of suction results in
a slightly higher FS for the fully marginal fill wall. Similarly, suction in
marginal soil decreases the deformation response of both the marginal
fill and hybrid-fill walls. However, larger displacement was still ob­
served for the fully marginal fill wall in comparison with the proposed
hybrid-fill wall.
The influence of rainfall infiltration on the horizontal and vertical
deformation, and reinforced tension of the proposed hybrid-fill wall
was seen to be insignificant in contrast to the fully marginal fill wall.
The variation of FS during rainfall was negligible in case of hybrid-fill
wall as opposed to the fully marginal fill wall, even though its initial FS
was slightly higher due to suction. Based on the performance assess­
ment immediately after construction and upon rainfall infiltration, a
hybrid-fill configuration with core-base-width, b = 0.85B and core-
height, h ≈ 1H was found be acceptable and reasonably comparable to
the fully select fill wall with regard to deformation response, re­
inforcement tension, and safety factor. The percentage of select fill (by
volume) required for this satisfactory hybrid-fill configuration ranges
from 31 to 47% for all the cases considered in this study. On the whole,
this study suggests that the proposed hybrid-fill combination is a viable
fill option for back-to-back MSE wall in terms of strength, serviceability
and economy with minimum usage of select soil.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Gopika Rajagopal: Software, Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Visualization.
Sudheesh Thiyyakkandi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing -
review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acqui­
sition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author declare that there is no conflict of interest.
15
Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445
Acknowledgments
The financial support provided to the first author by the Ministry of
Human Resource Development (MHRD), India, for completion of this
work is greatly acknowledged.
References
[1] Aashto L. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specification. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC; 2012.
[2] Abdi MR, Arjomand MA. Pullout tests conducted on clay reinforced with geogrid
encapsulated in thin layers of sand. Geotext Geomembranes 2011;29(6):588–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.04.004.
[3] Abdi MR, Sadrnejad A, Arjomand MA. Strength enhancement of clay by en­
capsulating geogrids in thin layers of sand. Geotext Geomembranes
2009;27(6):447–55.
[4] Adarsh S, Reddy MJ. Developing hourly intensity duration frequency curves for
urban areas in India using multivariate empirical mode decomposition and scaling
theory. Stoch Env Res Risk A 2018;32(6):1889–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00477-018-1545-x.
[5] Albino UR, Portelinha FHM, Zornberg JG, Futai MM. Numerical simulation of in­
filtration into the fill of a wall reinforced with nonwoven geotextiles. Comput
Geotech 2019;108:27–39.
[6] ASTM D2487-17. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA; 2017.
[7] ASTM D3080 / D3080M-11. Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils
Under Consolidated Drained Conditions. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA; 2011.
[8] ASTM D4318-17e1. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and
Plasticity Index of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA; 2017.
[9] ASTM D5298-16. Standard Test Method for Measurement of Soil Potential (Suction)
Using Filter Paper. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA; 2016.
[10] ASTM D6913 / D6913M-17. Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution
(Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA; 2017.
[11] ASTM D698-12e2. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)).
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA; 2012.
[12] ASTM D7928-17. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of
Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA; 2017.
[13] Bathurst RJ, Walters D, Vlachopoulos N, Burgess P, Allen TM. Full scale testing of
geosynthetic reinforced walls. Adv Transport Geoenviron Syst Using Geosynthetics
2000:201–17. https://doi.org/10.1061/40515(291)14.
[14] Balakrishnan S, Viswanadham B. Performance evaluation of geogrid reinforced soil
walls with marginal backfills through centrifuge model tests. Geotext
Geomembranes 2016;44(1):95–108.
[15] Balakrishnan S, Viswanadham B. Evaluation of tensile load-strain characteristics of
geogrids through in-soil tensile tests. Geotext Geomembranes 2017;45(1):35–44.
[16] Berg RR, Christopher BR, Samtani NC, Berg RR. Design of mechanically stabilized
earth walls and reinforced soil slopes–Volume I (No. FHWA-NHI-10-024). Federal
Highway Administration, United States; 2009. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/en­
gineering/geotech/pubs/nhi10024/nhi10024.pdf.
[17] Bhattacherjee D, Viswanadham BVS. Numerical studies on the performance of hy­
brid-geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes subjected to rainfall. Geosynth Int
2015;22(6):411–27. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.15.00022.
[18] Bishop AW, Blight GE. Some aspects of effective stress in saturated and partly sa­
turated soils. Geotechnique 1963;13(3):177–97. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.
1963.13.3.177.
[19] Brinkgreve RBJ, Kumarswamy S, Swolfs WM, Foria F, Waterman D, Chesaru A,
Bonnier PG. PLAXIS 2018. PLAXIS bv, the Netherlands; 2018.
[20] Brooks R, Corey T. HYDRAU uc properties of porous media. Hydrology Papers.
Colorado State University 1964;24:37.
[21] BS 8006-1. Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills. British
Standards Institution; 2010.
[22] Chen HT, Hung WY, Chang CC, Chen YJ, Lee CJ. Centrifuge modeling test of a
geotextile-reinforced wall with a very wet clayey backfill. Geotext Geomembranes
2007;25(6):346–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.01.003.
[23] Christopher BR, Stulgis RP. Low permeable backfill soils in geosynthetic reinforced
soil walls: state-of-the-practice in North America. Proc North Am Geo-synthetics
Conf 2005:14–6.
[24] Christopher BR, Zornberg JG, Mitchell JK. Design guidance for reinforced soil
structures with marginal soil backfills. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, Georgia; 1998;2:797–804.
[25] Collin JG. Lessons learned from a segmental retaining wall failure. Geotext
Geomembranes 2001;19(7):445–54.
[26] CWC. Study report Kerala floods of August 2018. Central Water Commission,
Hydrological Studies Organisation, Hydrology (S) Directorate, Govt. of India; 2018.
[27] Fredlund DG, Xing A. Equations for the soil-water characteristic curve. Can Geotech
J 1994;31(4):521–32. https://doi.org/10.1139/t94-061.
[28] Galavi V. Ground water flow, fully coupled flow deformation and undrained ana­
lyses in PLAXIS 2D and 3D. Plaxis Report 2010.
G. Rajagopal and S. Thiyyakkandi
[29] Glendinning S, Jones CJ, Pugh RC. Reinforced soil using cohesive fill and electro­
kinetic geosynthetics. Int J Geomech 2005;5(2):138–46. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1532-3641(2005)5:2(138).
[30] Guler E, Hamderi M, Demirkan MM. Numerical analysis of reinforced soil-retaining
wall structures with cohesive and granular backfills. Geosynth Int
2007;14(6):330–45. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2007.14.6.330.
[31] Hamdhan IN, Schweiger HF. Finite element method–based analysis of an un­
saturated soil slope subjected to rainfall infiltration. Int J Geomech
2013;13(5):653–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000239.
[32] Hatami K, Bathurst RJ. Development and verification of a numerical model for the
analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental walls under working stress con­
ditions. Can Geotech J 2005;42(4):1066–85. https://doi.org/10.1139/t05-040.
[33] Helwany S, Reardon G, Wu J. Effects of backfill on the performance of GRS re­
taining walls. Geotext. Geomembranes 1999;17(1):1–16.
[34] Hossain MS, Kibria G, Khan MS, Hossain J, Taufiq T. Effects of backfill soil on
excessive movement of MSE wall. J Perform Constr Fac 2012;26(6):793–802.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000281.
[35] Indian Standard, IS: 2720 (Part 17). Laboratory Determination of Permeability.
Indian Standards Institution, New Delhi; 1986.
[36] IRC, SP. 102. In Guidelines for design and construction of reinforced soil walls.
Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi; 2014.
[37] Iryo T, Rowe RK. Infiltration into an embankment reinforced by nonwoven geo­
textiles. Can Geotech J 2005;42(4):1145–59.
[38] Jayanandan Midhula, Viswanadham BVS. Geogrid reinforced soil walls with mar­
ginal backfills subjected to rainfall: numerical study. Indian Geotech J 2019:1–14.
[39] Kim WS, Borden RH. Numerical simulation of MSE wall behavior induced by sur­
face-water infiltration. J Geotech Geoenviron 2013;139(12):2110–24. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000927.
[40] Koerner RM, Koerner GR. The importance of drainage control for geosynthetic re­
inforced mechanically stabilized earth walls. J GeoEng 2011;6(1):3–13.
[41] Koerner RM, Koerner GR. A data base, statistics and recommendations regarding
171 failed geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls.
Geotext Geomembranes 2013;40:20–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.
2013.06.001.
[42] Koerner RM, Koerner GR. An extended data base and recommendations regarding
320 failed geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls.
Geotext Geomembranes 2018;46(6):904–12.
[43] Koerner RM, Soong TY. Geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls. Geotext
Geomembranes 2001;19(6):359–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(01)
00012-7.
[44] Liu H, Wang X, Song E. Long-term behavior of GRS retaining walls with marginal
backfill soils. Geotext Geomembranes 2009;27(4):295–307. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.geotexmem.2009.01.002.
[45] Mamaghanian J, Viswanadham BVS, Razeghi HR. Centrifuge model studies on
geocomposite reinforced soil walls subjected to seepage. Geosynth Intl
2019;26(4):371–87.
[46] Mitchell JK. Reinforced soil structures with poorly draining backfills part II: case
16
Transportation Geotechnics 26 (2021) 100445
histories and applications. Geosynth Int 1995;2(1):265–307. https://doi.org/10.
1680/gein.2.0011.
[47] NCMA. Design manual for segmental retaining walls. 3rd Ed. Herndon VA: National
Concrete Masonry Association; 2009.
[48] Noorzad R, Mirmoradi S. Laboratory evaluation of the behavior of a geotextile re­
inforced clay. Geotext Geomembranes 2010;28(4):386–92.
[49] Ollier CD, Rajaguru SN. Laterite of Kerala (India). Geogr Fis Din Quat
1989;12:27–33.
[50] Portelinha FHM, Bueno BS, Zornberg JG. Performance of geotextile reinforced soil
wall in unsaturated poorly draining backfill soil conditions. In Proceedings of the
5th European geosynthetics congress. 2012. p. 455–65.
[51] Portelinha FHM, Zornberg JG. Effect of infiltration on the performance of an un­
saturated geotextile-reinforced soil wall. Geotext Geomembranes
2017;45(3):211–26.
[52] Raisinghani DV, Viswanadham BVS. Evaluation of permeability characteristics of a
geosynthetic-reinforced soil through laboratory tests. Geotext Geomembranes
2010;28(6):579–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.01.001.
[53] Raisinghani DV, Viswanadham BVS. Centrifuge model study on low permeable
slope reinforced by hybrid geosynthetics. Geotext Geomembranes
2011;29(6):567–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.07.003.
[54] Vahedifard F, Mortezaei K, Leshchinsky BA, Leshchinsky D, Lu N. Role of suction
stress on service state behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. Transp
Geotech 2016;8:45–56.
[55] Vahedifard F, Tehrani FS, Galavi V, Ragno E, Agha Kouchak A. Resilience of MSE
walls with marginal backfill under a changing climate: Quantitative assessment for
extreme precipitation events. J Geotech Geoenviron 2017;143(9):04017056.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001743.
[56] Van Genuchten MT. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic con­
ductivity of unsaturated soils 1. Soil Sci Soc Am J 1980;44(5):892–8. https://doi.
org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x.
[57] Viswanadham BVS, Razeghi HR, Mamaghanian J, Manikumar CHSG. Centrifuge
model study on geogrid reinforced soil walls with marginal backfills with and
without chimney sand drain. Geotext Geomembranes 2017;45(5):430–46. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.06.005.
[58] Yoo C. Effect of rainfall on performance of reinforced earth wall. In: Han J,
Alzamora DE (eds) Geo-frontiers congress 2011. ASCE, GSP 211,
2011;3:1852–1861. https://doi.org/10.1061/41165(397)189.
[59] Yoo C, Jung HY. Case history of geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining wall
failure. J Geotech Geoenviron 2006;132(12):1538–48. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:12(1538).
[60] Yubonchit S, Chinkulkijniwat A, Horpibulsuk S, Jothityangkoon C, Arulrajah A,
Suddeepong A. Influence factors involving rainfall-induced shallow slope failure:
numerical study. Int J Geomech 2017;17(7):04016158. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000865.
[61] Zornberg JG, Mitchell JS. Reinforced soil structures with poorly draining backfills.
Part I: reinforcement interactions and functions. Geosynth Int 1994;2(1):103–47.