Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-019-00396-0

S.I. : DEVELOPMENTS IN TRANSPORTATION GEOTECHNICS

Geogrid Reinforced Soil Walls with Marginal Backfills Subjected

to Rainfall: Numerical Study
Midhula Jayanandan1 • B. V. S. Viswanadham1

Received: 4 July 2019 / Accepted: 5 November 2019 / Published online: 12 December 2019
Ó Indian Geotechnical Society 2019

Abstract Altering natural landforms without impacting Keywords Geosynthetics  Reinforced soil walls 
stability has become quintessential due to unprecedented Backfill  Rainfall  Pore water pressure  Drainage
infrastructure development. Geosynthetic reinforced soil
wall (GRSW) as a retaining structure is a congenial option
List of Symbols
addressing land scarcity and right of way challenges.
c0 Cohesion of soil (Pa)
However, with dearth of good-quality backfill soil and
f Percentage open area (dimensionless)
prohibitive transportation costs, engineers are being forced
h Height of the slope (m)
to use native low-permeable marginal soils for constructing
I Average hourly rainfall intensity (m/s)
geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. Adverse climatic chan-
mw Coefficient of volumetric water change with
ges leading to erratic rainfall have triggered numerous
respect to change in negative pore pressure
failures in such soils due to their inefficiency to dissipate
(Pa- 1)
excess pore water pressure. The objective of the present
k Coefficient of permeability (m/s)
paper is to evaluate applicability of different backfill soils
ks Saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil (m/s)
for GRSW. Seepage and stability analyses were conducted
q Applied rainfall flux (m/s)
to appraise the behaviour of a geogrid reinforced soil wall
Tult Ultimate tensile load (kN/m)
with rigid facing of height 9.6 m having 6° batter during
u/ch Normalised pore water pressure
rainfall. The effects of backfill soil types with fines content
(dimensionless)
of 0%, 20% and 40% on seepage behaviour and stability
umid/ch Normalised pore pressure measured at the base,
were assimilated under moderate rainfall. It was ascer-
at a point vertically below the midlength of the
tained that failure occurred faster when the backfill soil
slope crest (measured at a distance 4.8 m from
with 20% fines was considered. For backfill soil with 40%
the upstream end of the wall) (dimensionless)
fines, a significant portion of rainfall was observed to
utoe/ch Normalised pore pressure measured on the base
simply disappear as runoff. In the section with sand
at the toe (measured at a distance 9.6 m from
backfill, failure did not occur as water drained off faster
the upstream end of the wall) (dimensionless)
than rainfall infiltration, restraining mounting of water
Dupwp/ch Variation in normalised pore water pressure
table.
from upstream end to downstream end of the
wall is measured along the base of the GRE
wall from t = 0 days to t = 40 days
& Midhula Jayanandan (dimensionless)
midhula.jayanand@iitb.ac.in cdmax Maximum dry unit weight of soil (kN/m3)
B. V. S. Viswanadham eult Ultimate tensile strain (dimensionless)
viswam@civil.iitb.ac.in hs Saturated volumetric water content of soil
(m3/m3)
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of hw Volumetric water content of soil (m3/m3)
Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India

123
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251
sb Bond skin friction (Pa)
/0 Angle of internal friction of soil (°)
/b Angle indicating the rate of increase in shear
strength relative to the matric suction (°)
sf Shear strength of soil (Pa)
r Total stress on the failure plane (Pa)
ua Pore air pressure (Pa)
uw Pore water pressure (Pa)
qw Density of the soil domain (in g/m3)
Introduction
Geosynthetic reinforced walls owing to their innate flexi-
bility, expediency in construction, cost-effectiveness and
tolerance to deformations without structural distress, have
gained immense popularity. Stringent guidelines have been
imposed on the selection of backfill soil. Good-quality
granular soil is the preferred backfill for construction of
geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. But the scarcity and
exorbitant cost of good-quality soils have compelled
engineers to use locally available low-permeable soil as
backfills. The usage of such low-quality low-permeable
soils (with high fines) directly results in effective use of
waste materials and reduction in the overall cost of con-
struction by approximately 30%. However, the typical
characteristics of such marginal soils such as low peak
shear resistance, loss of shear strength on wetting, poor
drainage characteristics and volume changes and creep
potential are aggravated when exposed to rainfall condi-
tions. In fact, a steady increase in rainfall-triggered natural
disasters has been witnessed recently. Heavy rains even for
a few days or incessantly happening for several days can be
detrimental as they cause saturation of overburden, induce
positive pore water pressure which reduces matric suction
and result in low shear strength and subsequent failure
(Koerner and Koerner [1], Christopher et al. [2], Christo-
pher and Stuglis [3]). After evaluating 320 failures of
geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilised earth
walls, Koerner and Koerner [4] concluded that 73% used
silty and clayey backfill soils and 94% were geogrid rein-
forced. The selection of backfill material from a wide
variety of reinforced backfill materials available today is
contingent on factors such as strength and deformation
requirements, availability, interaction with the reinforce-
ment, grain size, plasticity, permeability, shear strength and
compaction characteristics of the backfill material.
There are several guidelines for selection of the backfill
soil. While Koerner et al. [5] recommend a granular
backfill material which is devoid of fines, AASHTO [6]
and FHWA (Berg et al. [7]) allow backfill materials with
239
less than 15% of fines passing 0.075-mm sieve and with
plasticity index less than or equal to six. A recent report by
National Concrete Masonry Association [8] permits the
usage of soils having less than 35% fines, whereas
MORTH (Ministry of Road Transport and Highway, Govt.
of India) restricts the fines to 15%. Casagrande has defined
that the value of 10-6 m/s for saturated coefficient of
permeability is the boundary of poor drainage material
(Holtz and Kovacs [9]).
Numerical investigation carried out by Yoo [10, 11] on a
reinforced earth wall with fine-grained backfill soil having
segmental concrete block facing, studied the effect of long-
duration rainfall on the performance of reinforced earth
wall. It was observed that the factor of safety significantly
reduced which can be attributed to the reduction of shear
strength due to the reduction in matric suction. Kim and
Borden [12] performed transient seepage analyses and
stress deformation analyses on a 5.4-m-high MSE wall
with marginal backfills under surface infiltration and
observed that the soil yielded with the reduced shear
strength and large wall-face deflection and vertical settle-
ment. As reported by Yoo and Jang [13], geotextile rein-
forced soil wall with a poorly grade non-plastic sand
backfill subjected to cycles of wetting and drying, devel-
oped maximum pore water pressure of 4 kPa only
throughout the rainfall period. The pore water pressure
developing within the low-permeable soils should be
effectively dissipated either using external drainage means
or incorporating internal drainage measures within the soil.
Groundwater drainage must be intercepted by a back drain
(chimney drains) between the reinforced and retained soil
zones given as a continuation of base drain which should
be provided throughout the reinforced zone length. The use
of sand and geocomposite chimney drains has been proved
effective in arresting the development of positive pore
water pressures in the reinforced zone of low-permeable
marginal soils to a great extent (Bui Van et al. [14],
Viswanadham et al. [15], Mamaghanian et al. [16, 17]).
Mamaghanian et al. [16] noted that the use of a geotextile
as a chimney drain could not prevent the failure of the wall
on inducing seepage; however, it can manage to delay the
time of failure initiation. Another viable solution is
encapsulating geogrid layers with sand cushion (Abdi et al.
[18], Raisinghani and Viswanadham [19], Abdi and Arjo-
mand [20], Balakrishnan and Viswanadham [21]). But the
difficulty in placing sand and marginal fill soils in alternate
layers and the possible intermixing of the two different soil
layers make this method unfeasible. The use of geocom-
posite layers (sometimes referred as hybrid geosynthetics)
as internal drainage measures which offers dual function-
ality of reinforcement and drainage has also proved to be a
major breakthrough in enhancing behaviour of soil walls
and slopes with such low-permeable marginal backfills
123
240
(Raisinghani and Viswanadham [22], Bhattacharjee and
Viswanadham [23, 24], Razeghi et al. [25]).
Viswanadham et al. [15] conducted seepage and stabil-
ity analysis to determine the performance of geogrid rein-
forced soil walls with panel facing using marginal backfill
(a blend of sand and kaolin in 4:1 proportion by dry
weight) with and without chimney sand drain subjected to
seepage. On comparison, a soil wall reinforced with stiff
geogrid layers was found to perform effectively at the onset
of seepage than the wall using low stiffness geogrid and
without any chimney drain. The normalised pore water
pressure values were considerably reduced at the midheight
and wall toe after provision of chimney sand drain resulting
in enhanced wall performance under the effect of seepage
forces. Also, the effect of increase in thickness of sand
layer in chimney drain was studied and it was noticed that
there was an improvement in the discharge values and
factor of safety against piping near the toe region. Yang
et al. [26] numerically assessed the combined effect of
different backfill–reinforcement–drainage conditions on
the infiltration response and global stability of a reinforced
soil slope (RSS). The investigation deduced that RSS with
sand backfill independent of reinforcement and drainage
provision was more competent under heavy rainfall con-
ditions owing to its high permeability and rapid pore water
dissipation. On the other hand, for geotextile RSS with silty
and clayey soils, sandwiching the reinforcement within a
thin layer of sand was proven to be effective in improving
interaction properties and shear strength preventing built-
up of pore water pressures and capillary barrier effect. In
high-permeability soils, high-intensity–small-duration
rainfall is considered to cause failures with antecedent
rainfall having little influence on landslide occurrence
(Corominas [27]). On the contrary, in low-permeability
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of
the model RE wall used in the
present analysis
123
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251
soils, failures are caused primarily by long-duration–
moderate-intensity rainfall events (Wieczorek [28]).
In the present paper, it is intended to appraise the
behaviour of a GRSW with different backfill soil condi-
tions subjected to rainfall by performing numerical analy-
ses. Three soil types with fines content of 0%, 20% and
40% were used as backfill materials. The finite-element-
based software SEEP/W and the limit equilibrium-based
software SLOPE/W were employed, respectively, for
seepage and stability analyses of this wall section (GeoS-
tudio [29]). A 9.6-m-high wall having 6° batter with ver-
tical provided with rigid precast concrete panel facing was
subjected to rainfall. A panel facing of thickness 185 mm
was adopted according to Viswanadham et al. [15]. The
rainfall of intensity 10 mm/h was simulated numerically
for 25-day duration, and seepage and stability analyses
were performed at the onset of rainfall, during rainfall and
up to a total duration of 40 days. The numerical results
were compared for the three backfill conditions to com-
prehend the hydraulic response as well as static global
stability of the GRSW with an emphasis on the pore water
pressure developed within the soil and factor of safety of
reinforced wall.
Details of the Reinforced Wall Section
A wall with 9.6 m height having 6° batter with vertical
provided with rigid precast concrete panel facing of
thickness 185 mm subjected to rainfall was considered for
numerical analyses. The wall was founded on 2.4-m-thick
foundation soil with levelling pad at an embedment depth
of 1 m from wall base. The initial water table was assumed
at a height of 2.4 m from the base. Three different backfill
soils with fines content 0% (Soil A), 20% (Soil B) and 40%
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251 241

analysis was carried out using SLOPE/W software. A

rainfall with intensity 10 mm/h was applied on the wall
crest for a period of 25 days. The change in pore water
pressures and loss in matric suction with progress of
infiltration were recorded. The analysis was continued for a
total duration of 40 days to monitor the recovery of matric
suction in the soil. The corresponding change in factor of
safety values against rainfall progression was also noted
throughout the analysis period. The procedure was repeated
for all the three backfill soil conditions, and the results
were compared.

Validation of the Present Study

The present study is a numeral analysis which appraises the

seepage and stability performance of a geogrid reinforced
soil wall with different backfill conditions subjected to
Fig. 2 Particle size distribution curves of different backfill soils used rainfall. However, as the numerical model is not validated
in the present study
by any experimental or real data, the present study was
validated with one of the published literature (Rahardjo
(Soil C) were considered in the present analysis. A geogrid
et al. [31]) by performing a finite-element analysis using
with ultimate tensile strength of 40 kN/m and ultimate
GeoStudio [29]. Rahardjo et al. [31] conducted a para-
tensile strain of 25% in machine direction (as per ASTM
metric study to examine the effect of groundwater
D6637-10 [30]) was used as the reinforcement in the
table position in affecting slope stability. A 15-m-high, 27°
analysis. The percentage hopen area fiof the geogrid used
unreinforced slope was considered with three different
was 97.23% (f defined as ðal aþb
l at
l Þ ðat þbt Þ
where al, at are grid
groundwater table positions corresponding to the wettest,
opening sizes and bl, bt are rib widths and l, t are longi-
average and driest periods in Singapore. In Singapore,
tudinal and transverse directions, respectively). Six layers
majority of slope failures occurred within a shallow depth.
of geogrid reinforcements were attached to the wall facing
Typical soil properties of a residual soil obtained from the
with a uniform centre-to-centre spacing of 1.6 m. The
Bukit Timah (BT) Granite zone in Singapore were incor-
length of reinforcements was taken as 8 m (* 0.85H) to
porated into the numerical analyses. To simulate a maxi-
prevent chances of any rupture failure. The geogrid and its
mum total amount of precipitation of 533.2 mm reported in
aforementioned properties used for the analysis were
a day, a rainfall intensity of 22 mm/h was applied contin-
selected according to Balakrishnan and Viswanadham [21].
uously on the ground surface for 24 h. The analysis con-
Figure 1 depicts the schematic diagram of the geogrid
tinued for another 24 h to evaluate the behaviour of BT
reinforced wall used in the present analysis.
slope in terms of matric suction recovery. The configura-
In the present study, Goa sand with zero per cent fines is
tion of model slope adopted for validation is presented in
used as Soil A. The soil types Soil B and Soil C are
Fig. 3.
obtained by blending locally available Powai soil and
Two-dimensional transient seepage analyses were per-
uniformly graded sand passing through 4.25-mm sieve in
formed in this study using the finite-element software
different proportions to achieve 20% and 40% fines con-
SEEP/W (GeoStudio [29]). SWCC and permeability
tent, respectively. The grain size distribution curves of the
function adopted for the analyses are considered according
three different backfill soils are depicted in Fig. 2. The
to Rahardjo et al. [31]. Non-ponding boundary condition
properties of the three backfill soils are summarised in
was selected to prevent any excessive accumulation of
Table 1.
rainfall on the slope surface. The flux boundary q equal to
the desired rainfall intensity and duration was applied to
the surface of the slope. Further, global stability analysis
Numerical Modelling of Geogrid Reinforced Soil
was carried out using SLOPE/W and the factor of safety for
Wall Subjected to Rainfall
different time intervals was plotted corresponding to the
three different ground water table positions. The results of
The geogrid reinforced wall section was numerically
the present study were found to be in close agreement with
modelled using GeoStudio [29] suite, wherein seepage
the results of Rahardjo et al. [31] as illustrated in Fig. 4.
analysis was carried out using SEEP/W and slope stability

123
242 Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251

Table 1 Properties of soils used in the present analysis

Properties Units Soil A Soil B Soil C

Fine content % 0 20 40
Specific gravity, Gs –a 2.654 2.697 2.737
Particle size distribution
Gravel (G) % 0 0 0
Sand (S) % 100 79.44 59.965
Silt (M) % 0 19.96 38.035
Clay (C) % 0 0.6 2
Effective particle size, D10 mm 0.101 0.045 0.015
Average particle size, D50 mm 0.191 0.165 0.085
a
USCS classification – SP SM SM
Plasticity characteristics (Atterberg limits)
Liquid limit (%) % –a 27.7 35.02
Plastic limit (%) % –a Non-plastic Non-plastic
Plasticity index (%) % –a –a –a
Compaction characteristics (standard proctor)
Optimum moisture content, OMC % –a 15.25 16.76
3
Maximum dry density, cd kN/m –a 17.65 19.87
Permeability characteristics
c
k m/s 1.54 9 10-4 d
2.5 9 10-7 d
6 9 10-9
Shear strength parametersb
Cohesion, c kPa 0 0.2 2
Angle of internal friction, / degrees 32 29.63 25
a
Not relevant/ reported
b
From direct shear test on sample moist compacted at cdmax and OMC (saturated for 24 h at a normal stress 100 kPa)
c
Constant head permeability test (at 40% relative density)
d
Falling head permeability test conducted on sample moist compacted at cdmax and OMC

The observed deviation is attributed to the difference in employed. The governing equation representing the tran-
mesh properties and tolerances in time step increments. sient seepage flow through an unsaturated, heterogeneous
Factor of safety of the BT slope reached a minimum and anisotropic soil in SEEP/W is:
value when rainfall stopped regardless of the position of      
o oh o oh o oh oh
groundwater table. The changes in factor of safety during k þ k þ k ¼ m2w qw g ð1Þ
ox ox oy oy oz oz ot
rainfall were not affected significantly by the groundwater
table near the ground surface due to the relatively small where mw is the coefficient of volumetric water change
changes in matric suction during rainfall. Factor of safety with respect to change in negative pore pressure (in Pa-1)
for the BT slope in the driest period 2.16 and at the average and is the slope of soil water characteristic curve (SWCC),
condition 2.04 decreased drastically and reached a mini- h is the hydraulic head (in m), k is the permeability of soil
mum value at 1.7. After the rainfall ceased, the factor of (in m/s), qw is the density of the soil domain (in g/m3) and
safety for the BT slope at the driest period and at the g is gravitational acceleration (in m/s2).
average condition increased rapidly at the same recovery The rainfall in SEEP/W was simulated by providing a
rate. The factor of safety for the BT slope in the wettest unit flux boundary condition with a positive value on a
period decreased gradually from 1.7 to 1.45, and then, it potential seepage face. Non-ponding condition was acti-
increased slowly after the rainfall stopped. vated to prevent accumulation of excess water along the
soil surface. The initial position of water table was pro-
Seepage Analysis of the RE Wall Section Subjected vided along the wall base. No flow condition (Q = 0 m3/s)
to Rainfall Using SEEP/W was provided at the base and along the side boundaries. A
toe drain was simulated within the sand layer towards the
For conducting transient seepage analysis, finite-element left of the base layer (pore pressure head, H = 0 m) to
analysis-based SEEP/W software of GeoStudio [29] was drain out all the excess water along with runoff. Since the

123
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251 243

Fig. 3 Model slope adopted for validation of Rahardjo et al. [31]

Fig. 4 Comparison of variation

of FOS with time for a rainfall
of intensity 22 mm/h with
different GWT positions of the
present study and published
literature work

wall facing is constituted by discrete precast concrete
panels, potential seepage face was provided along the wall
facing to account for water seeping out through gaps
between the facing panels. A stiff panel facing in a rein-
forced soil wall has the function of reducing the wall
deformation significantly and retaining the backfill soil and
hence minimising the transferred loads to reinforcement
layers. The facing is modelled as an impervious soil
medium in SEEP/W software by assigning it a very low
value of hydraulic conductivity. The value of hydraulic
conductivity was selected such that it encompasses the
effect of gaps between panels Mamaghanian et al. [16, 17].
Geogrid inclusions are generally considered to exhibit only
reinforcement function. Further, geogrids rarely showcase
drainage function capabilities and accordingly they are not
modelled in seepage analysis. This geogrid behaviour was

123
244
previously established by Bhattacherjee and Viswanadham
[23]. Saturated/unsaturated constitutive material properties
were adopted for both backfill soil and foundation base
layer. Foundation soil was assumed to have similar prop-
erties as that of backfill soil with both compacted at OMC
and cdmax. The hydraulic conductivity function (HCF) was
obtained by considering the saturated soil properties in
conjunction with the SWCC based on Iryo and Rowe [32]
database. The SWCC and hydraulic conductivity function
(HCF) curves for the three backfill soils thus obtained are
illustrated in Fig. 5a and b.
The global element size for the model mesh was taken
as 0.25 m. According to Tsaparas et al. [33], the pore water
pressure change during a rainfall is predominantly confined
to a depth of 2 m from the ground surface, when the
groundwater table is at a significant depth from the surface.
Hence, a finer mesh size of 0.05 m was considered up to a
depth of 2 m from the surface to get more precise results
Fig. 5 Hydraulic properties of soils used in seepage analysis of the
present study. a SWCC. b Hydraulic conductivity function
123
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251
within the infiltration zone. The seepage analysis results for
geogrid reinforced walls with various backfill soils are
depicted using pore pressure contours for 25 days (end of
rainfall) and 40 days (end of analysis duration) as given in
Figs. 6a–c and 7a–c, respectively.
It was identified that the ratio of saturated hydraulic
conductivity of the soil (ks) to the rainfall flux (I) has a
predominant role in determining the infiltration rate of
rainfall into the soil medium. When ks/I [[ 1, the rainfall
flux is far lower than the saturated hydraulic conductivity
of the soil, resulting in almost all the rain being percolated
into the soil. This results in very high infiltration rate, and
water drains rapidly through the soil. On the other hand,
when ks/I \\ 1, the rainfall flux is much higher than the
water permeation capacity of the soil. As a result, the
infiltration is observed to be very low and majority of the
rainwater disappears as runoff. Hence, it can be inferred
that soils with very low permeability when subjected to
heavy intensity rainfall usually fail due to surface runoff
causing erosion.
The pore pressure profiles clearly indicate that Soil A
with 0% fines (ks/I * 55) has the least pore water pressure
(no measurable positive pore water pressures observed
throughout the wall section) at the end of rainfall period.
Soil A had persistent matric suction of 5 kPa and negligible
rise in phreatic level at the end of rainfall which indicates
that the wall section is safe from failure. This is attributed
to its high permeability and high water drainage capacity.
In case of Soil B with 20% fines (ks/I = 0.9), the pore water
pressure developed substantially with progress of rainfall,
resulting in mounting of water table. The infiltration rate
was adequate for the soil to develop positive pore water
pressures, but its inefficiency to dissipate this built-up
pressure was ascribed to its low hydraulic conductivity.
Only a small part of the applied rainfall entered the wall
section with backfill Soil C with 40% fines (ks/I = 0.002),
which resulted in less pore water pressure build up by the
end of 25 days of continuous rainfall. However, it can be
deduced that a prolonged duration rainfall can result in
high pore pressures in Soil C. Once the rainfall was stop-
ped, apart from Soil C, both Soil A and Soil B demon-
strated recovery of matric suction. The recovery rate was
very fast in Soil A, whereas Soil B exhibited a slow rate of
matric suction recovery. Soil C, owing to its extremely low
permeability, was inefficient in the revival of matric
suction.
The normalised pore water pressure u/ch (defined as a
ratio of pore water pressure to the product of bulk unit
weight of the soil and height of the wall) was measured at
two points, at the toe and midpoint, along the wall base of
the RE wall. The dimensionless umid/ch values are nor-
malised pore water pressure values measured at the base, at
a point vertically below the midlength of the slope crest
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251 245

Fig. 6 Pore pressure contours

of geogrid reinforced soil wall
subjected to rainfall intensity of
10 mm/hour after 25 days for
different backfills (pore water
pressure in kPa). a Soil A with
0% fines. b Soil B with 20%
fines. c Soil C with 40% fines

123
246 Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251

Fig. 7 Pore pressure contours

of geogrid reinforced soil wall
subjected to rainfall intensity of
10 mm/hour after 40 days for
different backfills (pore water
pressure in kPa). a Soil A with
0% fines. b Soil B with 20%
fines. c Soil C with 40% fines

123
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251
which is measured at a distance 4.8 m from the upstream
end of the wall. Further utoe/ch values are the normalised
pore pressure values measured on the base at the toe (9.6 m
from the upstream end of the wall). The variation of nor-
malised pore water pressures with time elapsed during
rainfall for different wall sections with various backfills is
illustrated in Fig. 8a and b. As indicated in Fig. 8a and b,
the maximum u/ch is attained at the end of 25 days (rainfall
stopped) which then decreased for the rest of the analysis
period in both Soil A and Soil B. At the end of rainfall, it
can be observed that Soil A does not develop any positive
pore water pressure even after 25 days of continuous
rainfall indicating very high drainage capacity of such
good-quality soils. The final phreatic surface was formed
well within the base layer and did not rise to the wall
section. Soil B exhibited maximum umid/ch and utoe/ch
values of 0.269 and 0.096, respectively (Fig. 8a, b
considered).
Fig. 8 Variation of normalised pore water pressures with time
elapsed during rainfall of intensity 10 mm/hour for wall sections with
different backfill soils. a At toe. b At midpoint
247
It was also observed that in all three backfill cases, u/ch
values increased with the distance from the toe/toe drain,
i.e. umid/ch values are greater than utoe/ch values. This is
corroborated using Fig. 9a and b, which shows the varia-
tion of u/ch along the base of the RE wall with various
backfills. It can also be clearly stated that for all the backfill
soils, the pore water pressure values decreased as the
rainfall stopped. In case of Soil A due to its high draining
capability, the rise in phreatic surface above the base layer
was inconsiderable and hence the pore water pressure built-
up was also considered trivial. Also, it is evident that Soil B
displayed highest u/ch values under the considered rainfall
throughout the duration of analysis. Even after the end of
rainfall, the previously infiltrated rainwater gradually per-
colated through Soil C resulting in continuous increase in
u/ch values because of the low draining capability and low
permeability of such soils. Similarly in the present study,
Dupwp/ch which is the variation in normalised pore water
Fig. 9 Variation of normalised pore water pressures along the base of
geogrid reinforced wall section for different backfills a After 25 days.
b After 40 days
123
248 Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251

pressure from upstream end to downstream end is mea-

sured along the base of the geogrid reinforced soil wall.
Dupwp/ch is an index which shows the relative change in
pore water pressure from the initial ground water
table condition (at t = 0 days) to the final water table con-
dition (at t = 40 days). Figure 10 illustrates the variation of
pore water pressure (Dupwp/ch) with the horizontal distance
along the base of the wall. Since Dupwp/ch values are
positive irrespective of the backfill conditions, it can be
clearly ascertained that there is an increase in pore water
pressures with time due to the rainfall. It can also be
concluded that Dupwp/ch values decreased from upstream
end to downstream end (toe) of the wall. Soil A, as
expected, exhibited the least Dupwp/ch values as there was
no significant mounting of water table and hence very less
increase in pore water pressures. Soil B showed the max-
imum Dupwp/ch values compared to Soil A and Soil C.
Figure 11 represents the u/ch values measured along the
height of RE wall sections with different backfill condi-
tions for a period of 25 days and 40 days at a distance
4.8 m from the right boundary indicating midcross section
of the wall. Major portion of RE wall section modelled
with Soil C backfills exhibited matric suction contrary to
the belief that the soil with such high fines content (i.e.
40%) is more susceptible to develop positive pore pres-
sures. This is again attributed to the fact that Soil C being
less permeable did not allow the rainwater to percolate into
the wall section; therefore, phreatic surface rise was very
slow resulting in positive pore pressures developing only to
a height 1.6 m and 2.2 m from the wall base after 25 days
and 40 days, respectively (Fig. 11a, b). As revealed in
Fig. 11a and b, the entire wall cross section with 0% fines
developed no positive pore water pressures throughout the
40-day analysis period. The geogrid reinforced soil wall Fig. 11 Variation of normalised pore water pressures along the
height of geogrid reinforced wall section for different backfill soil
cross section with 20% fines backfill showed positive pore
types. a After 25 days. b After 40 days

pressures throughout the wall section by the end of rainfall.

However, with the stoppage of rainfall, the soil recovered
matric suction up to a depth of 2.6 m from the crest.

Stability Analysis of RE Wall Section Subjected

to Rainfall Using SLOPE/W

The static stability analysis of the reinforced wall section

was carried out using limit equilibrium-based software
SLOPE/W. The stability analysis of the soil wall under
rainfall condition was performed by incorporating the
phreatic surfaces captured from SEEP/W transient seepage
analyses during various stages of rainfall into SLOPE/W.
The variation of negative pore pressures was incorporated
in the slope stability analysis, by utilising the modified
Fig. 10 Variation of Dupwp/ch with the horizontal distance measured
from upstream end to downstream end of the GRE wall

123
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251
Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion presented in Eq. (2), as
proposed by Fredlund et al. [34]:
sf ¼ c0 þ ðr  ua Þ tan /0 þ ðua  uw Þ tan /b ð2Þ
where sf is the shear strength (in Pa); r is the total stress on
the failure plane (in Pa); (r - ua) is the net normal stress
on the failure plane (in Pa); (ua - uw) is the matric suction
(in Pa); and /b is the angle indicating the rate of increase in
shear strength relative to the matric suction (in °).
Bishop’s simplified method of analysis was chosen for
conducting the stability analyses. The entry and exit
method was used for identifying the potential slip surface.
For achieving convergence, thirty slices were considered in
each iteration for a maximum of 2000 iterations with a
tolerance of 0.01 in factor of safety values. The geogrid
reinforcements which exhibit tensile strength have been
modelled as fabric-type reinforcement and the ultimate
fabric capacity (or ultimate tensile load) of 40 kN/m which
was selected in accordance with Balakrishnan and
Viswanadham [21]. The ultimate tensile load adopted was
considered to be distributed evenly along the length of the
reinforcement with a bond resistance (sb) of 10.07 kPa.
The facing was modelled in SLOPE/W equivalent to the
soil with an unit weight of concrete (M30 grade). The
material properties for the soil considered in the stability
analysis are summarised in Table 1. The stability analysis
was carried out for a total duration of 40 days with a
rainfall of intensity 10 mm/h applied for 25 days. The
variation in factor of safety with time during rainfall for
geogrid reinforced soil wall with different backfill soils
was obtained and is depicted in Fig. 12.
From Fig. 12, it can be inferred that irrespective of
backfill soil type, factor of safety values decreased with the
progress of rainfall. There was a steady reduction in factor
Fig. 12 Variation of factor of safety with time elapsed during rainfall
of intensity 10 mm/h
249
of safety in all the wall sections till the end of rainfall. RE
wall section with Soil A showcased superior performance
with a very small reduction in FOS during the rainfall and
showed fast recovery rate poststoppage of rainfall. This, as
expected, is due to its high-permeability characteristics and
drainage capability. The above observation is supported by
Yang et al. [26, 35]. Their study revealed that the loss of
matric suction induced by rainfall infiltration influenced the
stability of the reinforced sand slope minimally. In case of
Soil B, there was an abrupt reduction in FOS after the 19th
day which is assumed to be caused by the complete loss of
matric suction throughout the wall section. The lowest FOS
was obtained after 25 days of rainfall which gradually
increased after the rainfall stopped with failure occurring
on the 22th day. It is evident that the recovery of matric
suction after rainfall resulting in increase in FOS values is
very gradual in low-permeability soils. It was observed that
FOS values continuously reduced in Soil C backfill because
of incompetency to drain off infiltrated water. In the pre-
sent study, since the stability analysis is carried out purely
considering the rainfall infiltration into the wall section
(evaporation losses or runoff is neglected), it can be con-
cluded that a rainfall with prolonged duration and moderate
intensity is required to trigger failure in soil walls with
backfills having very high fines content (Soil C).
Conclusions
The behaviour of a geogrid reinforced soil wall having
rigid facing with marginal backfill subjected to a rainfall of
10 mm/hour was evaluated based on a series of stability
analyses coupled with transient seepage analyses. The
rainfall was simulated for 25 days, and seepage and sta-
bility analyses were performed at the onset of rainfall,
during rainfall and up to 40-day completion of rainfall. The
applicability of different backfill soils varying in fines
content (0%, 20% and 40%) was inspected numerically.
Based on the analysis and interpretation of the results, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Soil A with 0% fines exhibited a matric suction of
5 kPa, and umid/ch values were found to be negative
even at the end 25 days of rainfall. The matric suction
increased to 20 kPa by the end of 40 days after the
rainfall was stopped. Also, the rise in phreatic level
was observed to be insignificant. Similarly, the entire
cross section of wall with Soil A developed no
significant positive pore water pressure built-up
throughout the 40-day analysis period. This is
attributed to the extremely high-permeable nature of
Soil A which allows rapid pore water dissipation and
rapid percolation of rainfall. Thus, it can be noted that
123
250
the wall section with backfill soil containing no fines
content considered in the present study is safe from
failure.
(2) There was a considerable increase in the normalised
pore water pressure values in Soil B with 20% fines
when compared to Soil A and Soil C. A maximum
normalised pore water pressure value (u/ch) of 0.33
was observed by the end of 25 days of rainfall at the
farthest point from toe along the base of the wall
which reduced to 0.28 with stopping of rainwater
entry into the soil. The phreatic surface had risen to
the crest of the wall by the end of rainfall which
gradually lowered by the restoration of matric suction
after the rainfall was stopped.
(3) In Soil C with 40% fines, the mounting of water
table was found to be very slow, but at the same time
the phreatic surface continued to rise with no recovery
in matric suction even after the end of the rainfall.
Major portion of rainwater is disappearing as runoff,
and the rainwater infiltrating into the wall section is
very less and hence phreatic surface had risen to a
height of 1.6 m only.
(4) With application of rainfall, the FOS values decreased
steadily in all backfill soils. However, for the
considered rainfall characteristics, Soil A demon-
strated high competence than marginal soils (Soil B
and Soil C) with high fines content as the factor of
safety values never reduced below 1.38 throughout
the stability analysis. There was a gradual recovery in
the FOS values in Soil B with 20% fines after the
rainfall; however, in Soil C with 40% fines content,
FOS values continued to decrease even after the
rainfall was stopped. This indicates soil walls with
very high fines content fail mostly due to soil erosion
or due to long-duration rainfall. Hence, it can be
inferred that granular soil with no fines content is the
ideal backfill soil for RE wall section. However, it
appears that a higher quantity of fines could be
allowed in the reinforced fill, provided properties of
materials are well defined and controls are well
established.
(5) The values of Dupwp/ch indicate the change in
normalised pore water pressures of final ground water
table condition from the initial ground water table con-
dition. Irrespective of the backfill soil conditions,
Dupwp/ch values were observed to be positive which
substantiated the built-up of pore water pressures in
soil with time due to the rainwater infiltration. The
variation of Dupwp/ch values with the horizontal
distance measured along the base of the wall showed
a decreasing trend from upstream end to downstream
end. This indicated that the change in pore water
pressure from t = 0 days to t = 40 days is maximum
123
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251
at the upstream end. The increase in pore water
pressure was negligible in Soil A with 0% fines and
hence had the least Dupwp/ch values. In comparison
with Soil A and Soil C, Soil B which showed
maximum increase in pore water pressures also
observed maximum Dupwp/ch values by the end of
40 days.
In the present study, deformation analysis of the various
soil wall cross sections was not carried out to study the
effect of different backfill soils and rainfall on a geogrid
reinforced soil wall. Further studies are also warranted to
understand the seepage and stability behaviour of the
reinforced walls subjected to different rainfall intensities,
durations and with different reinforcement types and lay-
out. Also, numerical studies shall be further extended by
adopting different reinforcement layouts to achieve the
same initial factor of safety for walls with the three dif-
ferent backfill soils considered, thereby providing an
insight to the effectiveness of spacing, length and tensile
load of reinforcement. Further, it is also warranted to val-
idate the above by performing appropriate physical model
studies on geogrid reinforced soil walls subjected to
rainfall.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge editor
and reviewers for their constructive comments in improving the
quality of the manuscript.
References
1. Koerner RM, Koerner GR (2011) The importance of drainage
control for geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth
wall. J GeoEng 6(1):3–13
2. Christopher BR, Zornberg JG, Mitchell JK (1998) Design guid-
ance for reinforced soil structures with marginal soil backfills.
Proc Sixth Int Conf Geosynth 2(6):797–804
3. Christopher BR, Stuglis RS (2005) Low permeable backfill soils
in geosynthetic reinforced soil wall: state of the practice in North
America, In: Proceedings of North American geosynthetics
conference (NAGS), GRI-19, cooperative conference proceed-
ings, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, pp 16
4. Koerner RM, Koerner GR (2018) An extended data base and
recommendations regarding 320 failed geosynthetic reinforced
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. Geotext Geomembr
46(10):904–912
5. Koerner J, Soong TY, Koerner RM (1998) Earth retaining wall
costs in the USA. Geosynthetic Institute, Folsom
6. AASHTO (2009) Standard specifications for highway bridges.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington D.C
7. Berg RR, Christopher BR, Samtani NC (2009) Design and con-
struction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced
soil slopes. FHWANHI-10-024 Report. National Highway Insti-
tute, Washington, DC, vol 1, pp 306
8. National Concrete Masonry Association (1997) Design manual
for segmental retaining walls, Second edition, Second Printing, J
Collin (Editor), Herndon, Virginia
Indian Geotech J (April 2020) 50(2):238–251
9. Holtz RD, Kovacs WD (1981) An introduction to geotechnical
engineering. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. ISBN 978-0-13-
484394-0
10. Yoo C, Jung HY (2006) Case history of geosynthetic reinforced
segmental retaining wall failure. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ASCE 132(12):1538–1548
11. Yoo C (2011) Effect of rainfall on performance of reinforced
earth wall. In: Han J, Alzamora DE (eds) Geo-frontiers congress
2011. ASCE, GSP 211, vol 3, pp 1852–1861.
https://doi.org/10.1061/41165(397)189. ISBN: 9780784411650
12. Kim WS, Borden RH (2013) Numerical Simulation of MSE Wall
Behaviour Induced by Surface-Water Infiltration. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 139(12):2110–2124
13. Yoo C, Jang DW (2013) Geosynthetic reinforced soil wall per-
formance under heavy rainfall. In: Delage P, Desrues J, Frank R,
Puech A, Schlosser F (eds) Proceedings of the 18th international
conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering:
challenges and innovations in geotechnics, Paris, vol 1,
pp 2131–2134
14. Van Bui D, Chinkulkijniwat A, Horpibulsuk S, Yubonchit S,
Limrat I, Arulrajah A, Jothityangkoon C (2017) Steady flow in
mechanically stabilised earth walls using marginal soils with
geocomposites. Geosynth Intl 24(6):590–606
15. Viswanadham BVS, Razeghi HR, Mamaghanian J, Manikumar
CHSG (2017) Centrifuge model study on geogrid reinforced soil
walls with marginal backfills with and without chimney sand
drain. Geotext Geomembr 45(5):430–446
16. Mamaghanian J, Razeghi HR, Viswanadham BVS, Manikumar
CHSG (2018) Behaviour of geogrid reinforced soil walls with
marginal backfills with and without chimney drain in a
geotechnical centrifuge. In: McNamara A, Divall S, Goodey R,
Taylor N, Stallebrass S, Panchal J (Eds). Proceedings of the 9th
international conference on physical modelling in geotechnics.
17–20 July 2018, University of London. Taylor & Francis Group
(Pubs.), London, ISBN 978-1-138-34422-8. 1:1211–1216
17. Mamaghanian J, Viswanadham BVS, Razeghi HR (2019) Cen-
trifuge model studies on geocomposite reinforced soil walls
subjected to seepage. Geosynth Intl 26(4):371–387
18. Abdi MR, Sadrnejad A, Arjomand MA (2009) Strength
enhancement of clay by encapsulating geogrids in thin layers of
sand. Geotext Geomembr 27(6):447–455
19. Raisinghani DV, Viswanadham BVS (2010) Evaluation of per-
meability characteristics of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil through
laboratory tests. Geotext Geomembr 28(6):579–588
20. Abdi MR, Arjomand MA (2011) Pullout tests conducted on clay
reinforced with geogrid encapsulated in thin layers of sand.
Geotext Geomembr 29(6):588–595
21. Balakrishnan S, Viswanadham BVS (2019) Centrifuge model
studies on the performance of soil walls reinforced with sand-
cushioned geogrid layers. Geotext Geomembr.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103496) (in Press)
251
22. Raisinghani DV, Viswanadham BVS (2011) Centrifuge model
study on low permeable slope reinforced by hybrid geosynthetics.
Geotext Geomembr 29(6):567–580
23. Bhattacherjee D, Viswanadham BVS (2015) Numerical studies
on the performance of hybrid-geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes
subjected to rainfall. Geosynth Intl 22(6):411–427
24. Bhattacherjee D, Viswanadham BVS (2018) Effect of geocom-
posite layers on slope stability under rainfall condition. Indian
Geotech J 48(2):316–326
25. Razeghi HR, Viswanadham BVS, Mamaghanian J (2019) Cen-
trifuge and numerical model studies on the behavior of geogrid
reinforced soil walls with marginal backfills with and without
geocomposite layers. Geotext Geomembr.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.10347. (in Press)
26. Yang KH, Thuo JN, Huynh VDA, Nguyen TS, Portelinha FHM
(2018) Numerical evaluation of reinforced slopes with various
backfill reinforcement- drainage systems subject to rainfall
infiltration. Comput Geotech 96:25–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.10.012
27. Corominas J (2001) Landslides and climate. Keynote Lect 8th
Intl Symp Landslides. 4:1–33
28. Wieczorek GF (1987) Effect of rainfall intensity and duration on
debris flows in central Santa Cruz Mountains, California. Geolog
Soc Am Rev Eng Geol 7:93–104
29. GeoStudio (2012) SEEP/W and SLOPE/W. Ver. 7.15. User’s
Guide, GeoSlope International Ltd, Calgary, Canada
30. ASTM D6637 (2010) Standard test method for determining ten-
sile properties of geogrids by the single or multi-rib tensile
method. American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken
31. Rahardjo H, Nio AS, Leong EC, Song NY (2010) Effects of
groundwater table position and soil properties on stability of
slope during rainfall. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
136(11):1555–1564
32. Iryo T, Rowe RK (2005) Hydraulic behaviour of soil–geocom-
posite layers in slopes. Geosynth Intl 12(3):145–155
33. Tsaparas I, Rahardjo H, Toll DG, Leong EC (2002) Controlling
parameters for rainfall-induced landslides. Comput Geotech
29(1):1–27
34. Fredlund DG, Morgenstern NR, Widger RA (1978) Shear
strength of unsaturated soils. Can Geotech J 15(3):313–321
35. Yang KH, Thuo JN, Chen JW, Liu CN (2018) Failure investi-
gation of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil slope subjected to rain-
fall. Geosynth Int 26(1):1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.18.00035
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123