Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

ISSN: 1064-119X (Print) 1521-0618 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/umgt20

Properties of geogrid-reinforced-marine-slope due

to the groundwater level changes

Ramin Vali, Mohammad Saberian, Jie Li, Gholamreza Shams & Pieter van
Gelder

To cite this article: Ramin Vali, Mohammad Saberian, Jie Li, Gholamreza Shams & Pieter
van Gelder (2017): Properties of geogrid-reinforced-marine-slope due to the groundwater level
changes, Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, DOI: 10.1080/1064119X.2017.1386741

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2017.1386741

Accepted author version posted online: 05

Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umgt20

Download by: [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] Date: 11 October 2017, At: 18:11
 Properties of geogrid-reinforced-marine-slope due to the

groundwater level changes

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

Ramin Vali

Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Shahid Mohajer, Isfahan Branch,

Technical and Vocational University (TVU), Isfahan, Iran

Mohammad Saberian

PhD Candidate, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Jie Li

Associate Professor, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Gholamreza Shams

Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Shahrekord

University (SKU), Shahrekord, Iran

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Shahid Mohajer, Isfahan Branch, Technical and Vocational

University (TVU), Isfahan, Iran

Guest Researcher, Hydraulic Engineering Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geoscience,

Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

Pieter van Gelder

1
 Professor, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, TU Delft Safety Security Institute,

Delft, Netherlands

Address correspondence to Mohammad Saberian, PhD Candidate, School of Engineering, RMIT

University, 376-392 Swanston Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. E-mail:

s3609245@student.rmit.edu.au
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of slope stability, especially in the absence of a proper bed such as marine

soils, is one of the most important issues in geotechnical engineering. Using geogrid layers to

enhance the strength and stability of embankments is regarded as a commendable stabilization

method. On the other hand, groundwater level erratically fluctuates in coastal areas. Therefore,

the aim of this research is to study effects of groundwater level changes on stability of a geogrid-

reinforced-slope on loose marine soils in Qeshm Island, Iran. At first, geotechnical properties of

the site were obtained by comprehensive series of geotechnical laboratory and in-situ tests. Then,

by simultaneous changes of groundwater level and several parameters such as embankment

slope, loading, geogrid length, geogrid number, and tensile strength of geogrid, different

characteristics such as embankment safety factor (SF), vertical and horizontal displacements at

embankment top and embankment base were studied. It was observed that groundwater level had

significant effects on behavior of the embankment. For most of the observations, by decreasing

the groundwater level, the displacements decreased and consequently safety factor increased.

Increasing the length, number, and tensile strength of geogrid led to the reduction of the

displacements and the increase of the safety factor.

2
 KEYWORDS: displacement, geogrid, groundwater level, marine soil, reinforced-embankment,

safety factor, Plaxis 2D.

1. Introduction

Geosynthetic and geogrid layers as tensile reinforcements have generally been used to

improve the engineering properties of soils. Geogrid -reinforced soil structures are widely used
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

to enhance the stability of the compacted fill embankments. An increased safety factor of the

slope can be attributed to the reinforcement which holds together the soil mass from both sides of

the failure surface (Shukla, Sivakugan, and Das 2011; Isakov and Moryachkov 2014; Jahandari,

Li, et al. 2017, Jahandari, Saberian, et al. 2017). The horizontal displacements and longtime

settlements, especially differential ones, are decreased due to the reinforcements. On the other

hand, due to the tsunamis or storm surges along coastal zones, saturation in soils or even in

natural clayey slopes increases, leads to flow slides or failures. Consequently, one of the

common treatments is to increase the soil overall stability using geogrid layers (Liu et al. 2012;

Pamuk et al. 2015).

A number of studies have been carried out to study the various effects of groundwater

level changes on reinforced embankment. Pamuk et al. (2015) pointed out that increasing

saturation in natural clayey slopes along coastal zones due to tsunamis or storm surges may

cause flow slides or failures. Pamuk et al. (2015) evaluated the insertion of geotextile strips with

drainage capability into natural clayey slopes through a series of centrifuge tests. It was

demonstrated that the geotextile strips could increase the stability of slopes and their drainage

capability as well as reduce the deformations under surcharge loadings. Yoshikawa et al. (2016)

studied the behavior of an unsaturated embankment on clay soil during its construction, during

3
 and after an earthquake. The numerical simulations were performed by using a soil–water–air

coupled finite deformation analysis software, considering the effect of groundwater level. It was

observed that due to the penetrative settlement during/after construction, a saturated area

(settlement-induced saturation area) was formed at the base of the embankment on the condition

that the groundwater level is high. Moreover, the mean skeleton stress was low compared with

the low groundwater level. In addition, for the embankment with the high groundwater level, the
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

co-seismic deformation was greater and the mean skeleton stress decreased significantly,

particularly in the settlement-induced saturation area during the earthquake. Also, the

groundwater level increased after the earthquake, since water flowed toward the unsaturated

embankment from the settlement-induced saturation area.

Rajesh and Viswanadham (2009) experimentally studied the effects of geogrid

reinforcement on the deformation behavior of clay based cover systems subjected to differential

settlements by a series of centrifuge tests at 40 gravities. Geogrid-reinforced-clay-barrier was

found to sustain large distortions with an enhanced imperviousness. Tavakoli Mehrjardi,

Ghanbari, and Mehdizadeh (2016) also experimentally investigated the influence of geogrid

reinforcement on slope deformations and its stability under a limited width of surcharge (strip

footing with a width of 140mm ) on the crest. It was observed that the particle size of sands had

significant effects on the behavior of reinforced-slope. Moreover, by application of a geogrid in

the slope beneath the footing, bearing capacity of the footing increased up to 250% and 760%,

for fine and coarse sands, respectively, compared to those in the unreinforced slope.

Liu, Ng, and Fei (2007) provided a case history of a geogrid-reinforced and pile-

supported (GRPS) highway embankment. The observed settlements at the soil surface and at the

pile heads showed that the GRPS reinforcement technique could significantly reduce the

4
 settlements. In addition, according to their three-dimensional finite-element results, the

maximum measured tensile force was about 16 kN/m, which was noticeably smaller than the

tensile strength of the geogrid at 90 kN/m. Oh and Shin (2007) studied the effectiveness of

constructing a geogrid-reinforced and pile supported embankment on the marine soft ground by

pilot scale field tests and numerical analysis. Based on the test results and numerical analysis, it

was found that the geosynthetic reinforcement slightly interfered with soil arching, reduced
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

differential settlement of the marine soft ground. Park et al. (2007) performed two-dimensional

numerical simulations and limit equilibrium analyses to study the behavior of a geosynthetic-

reinforced embankment supporting a bridge abutment. It was found out that the total and

differential deformations decreased due to the inclusion of reinforcement. For example, vertical

and lateral displacements of the reinforced embankment were measured to be 65% and 78%,

more than those of the unreinforced ones, respectively. By increasing the loading, maximum

settlements difference between reinforced and unreinforced embankments increased. Keskin and

Laman (2014) studied strip footings on geogrid-reinforced sand slopes and found that the

reinforcement had a significant effect on the ultimate bearing capacity of the strip footings. Also,

slope angle, the relative density of sand, and the tensile strength of geogrid played substantial

roles in the ultimate bearing capacity improvement of the strip footings on a reinforced slope. Sri

Wulandari and Tjandraa (2015) numerically studied the effects of geotextile as reinforcement in

road embankment to determine the optimum tensile strength of geotextile considering the

allowable safety factor and displacement. It was observed that the safety factors of reinforced

slopes were at 1.308, 1.5996, 1.6355, 1.6848, 1.7048, 1.6136, and 1.6142 for the geotextiles with

tensile strengths of 0, 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 kN/m, respectively. Therefore, safety

factor increased by increasing the tensile strength of geotextile. Also, slope displacements were

5
 measured at 0.336, 0.336, 0.335, 0.335, 0.334, 0.333, and 0.333 m for the geotextiles with tensile

strengths of 0, 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 kN/m, respectively. Ghazavi Baghini, Toufigh,

and Toufigh (2016) implemented a mesh-free method (i.e., Natural Element Method (NEM)) in

conjunction with conventional limit equilibrium to find the slip surface in the geogrid-reinforced

slopes. Slope safety factors were measured at 1.30, 1.32, 1.31, 1.36, and 1.39, based on the

methods of Spencer, Bishop’s simplified, Morgenstern-Price, Finite difference, and NEM,

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

respectively. Onur et al. (2016) experimentally and numerically investigated the behavior of

geotextiles and geogrids-reinforced slopes by applying a static loading to find deformations and

failure surface for each case. It was concluded that geogrid layers gave higher strengths and less

deformations compared with those of the geotextiles. For instance, slopes with geotextile and

geogrid layers failed under the stress of 6.6 kg /cm2 and 8.7 kg /cm2, respectively. Moreover,

slope with geogrid reinforcement deformed at 8.5 mm and 7.0 mm in Plaxis program and

laboratory, respectively. Although, slope with geotextile reinforcement deformed at 14.0 mm and

9.0 mm in Plaxis program and laboratory model, respectively.

Increased soil saturation due to the groundwater changes in coastal and marine soils, may

lead to unexpected high settlements and slope failures. The aim of this research is to study the

effects of groundwater level changes on the stability of a geogrid-reinforced-slope on loose

marine soils in the Qeshm Island, Iran. A comprehensive series of geotechnical laboratory and

in-situ tests were conducted to obtain the geotechnical properties of the site. Finite element

analyses were performed to evaluate the changes of groundwater level and several parameters

such as embankment slope, loading, geogrid layer length, the number of geogrid layers, the

tensile strength of geogrids, and different characteristics (such as safety factor, vertical and

horizontal displacements at embankment top and embankment base).

6
 2. Methods

2.1. Site description

Qeshm Island (26° 55´ N; 56° 10´ E) is located a few kilometers off the southern coast of

Iran (Persian Gulf) in the Strait of Hormuz. The surface area of the island is 1,491 square

kilometers (576 square miles) (Figure 1).

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

About 70% surface area of the island is formed by Aghajari Formation (Upper Fars).

Aghajari Formation consists of alternation layers of brown to gray calcareous sandstones and red

marls with gypsum interlayers and red siltstones (Motiei 1994; Bahrami 2009). Aghajari

Formation in the Island is characterized by three major lithofacies groups. The first group is

mostly brown to light gray continental clastic sediments (sandstone, mudstone, marl, and

conglomerate) with thickness of 35 to 50 m; the second group is medium to thick cream to gray

sandstone with thickness of 365 to 500 m; and the third one, that spreads in Coastal Fars, has

marine characteristics (brown to gray marl with gypsum inter-layers) with thickness of 300 to

500 m.

2.2. Geotechnical properties of the site

Soil samples were collected using an auger at a 1-meter interval to a depth of 15 m. A

series of laboratory and in-situ tests were conducted according to the standards of American

Society of Testing Materials [ASTM] (2000). The geotechnical properties of the soils of the

study site are summarized in Table 1. It is worth mentioning that groundwater table is at a depth

of 1.5m below the ground surface.

7
 From the experimental tests it can be seen that the studied area consists of four soil layers

as sandy silt, silty clay, lean clay (a), and lean clay (b) with thicknesses of 4, 2, 4, and 55 mm,

respectively. In addition, the sandy silt and silty clay layers have low cohesions. However, by

increasing the depth, liquid limit of the layers increases. On the other hand, based on the SPT

test, sandy silt, silty clay, lean clay (a), and lean clay (b) are classified as soft to medium,

medium, stiff, and hard, respectively (ASTM D1586-11 2011).

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

3. Numerical Simulation and Constitutive Models

3.1. Validation

Sri Wulandari and Tjandraa (2015) studied the behavior of geogrid reinforced

embankment with geogrid tensile strengths ranging from 0 to 1000 kN/m using Plaxis 2D finite

element program. Table 2 presents the dimensions of the finite element model and properties of

soil and embankment used in their study. In Table 2, E is Young modulus; γsat is saturated unit

weight; γunsat is unsaturated unit weight, C is cohesion; φ is angle of internal friction, and ψ is

dilation angle. Figure 2 shows the dimensions and load of the embankment (Sri Wulandari and

Tjandraa 2015). Plaxis 2D finite element program was used to simulate the embankment

reinforced with geogrid layers in this paper.

Figure 3 illustrates the failure pattern of a geogrid reinforced embankment predicted

using Plaxis 2D by Sri Wulandari and Tjandraa (2015). Also shown in Figure 3 is the failure

pattern of the finite element analysis conducted by authors which was used to evaluate the

numerical model developed in this study. The safety factor (SF) of the embankment reinforced

with the 60-meter-geogrid layer is plotted against the tensile strength of geogrid in Figure 4. It

8
 can be seen that safety factor obtained using the numerical model developed in this study

compares very well with that reported by Sri Wulandari and Tjandraa (2015).

3.2. Methods of slope stability analysis and design

From the stability point of view, a slope should meet the safety requirements, which

means that the soil mass under given loads should have an adequate safety factor with respect to
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

shear failure. Moreover, the deformation of the soil should not exceed certain tolerable limits.

The analyses are generally made for the worst conditions, which occur rarely at the time of the

investigation. There are mainly two methods for analyzing geogrid-reinforced soil slopes: (1)

limit equilibrium method, (2) strength reduction finite-element method (SRFEM) (phi-c-

reduction) (Shukla, Sivakugan, and Das 2011).

3.2.1. Limit equilibrium method

This method has been extensively used for slope stability calculations for more than fifty

years. Generally, a circular failure surface is assumed and divided into several slices. The overall

safety factor can be iteratively determined from the ratio between driving and resisting shear

forces along the slip surface (Kupka, Herle, and Arnold 2009).

3.2.2. Strength reduction method (phi-c-reduction)

The strength reduction finite element method (SRFEM) is increasingly being used in

slope stability analysis through the shear strength reduction algorithm in the recent years. The

SRFEM is a limit analysis using the numerical method to solve plastic limit problems (Zhao and

Deng 2017). The basic idea of this method is to replace the continuum having an unlimited or

infinite number of unknowns by a mathematical model which has a limited or finite number of

9
 unknowns at certain chosen discrete points called the "nodes". Many problems in soil mechanics

are concerned with stress and deformations in the soil due to boundary and body, forces;

therefore the finite element method is used for the evaluation of displacement, forces and strain

or stress field starting from initial boundary force or displacement field (Maula and Zhang 2011).

Within the finite element method, the so-called phi-c-reduction is used to determine the critical

slip surface and safety factor. The shear strength parameters φ and c are continuously reduced by
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

the safety factor until non-convergence of the calculation is reached. The reduced friction angle

𝜑𝐹 and cohesion 𝑐𝐹 are determined by the following equations (Kupka, Herle, and Arnold 2009).

tan  φ 
tan F   (1)
SF

C
CF  (2)
SF

3.2.3. Methods comparison

The advantages of using the finite element method in the analysis of slope stability over

the conventional limit equilibrium methods are listed as follows.

(a) Ability to model strain hardening or softening and progressive failure. In limit

equilibrium analysis it is assumed that the soil is isotropic and perfectly plastic.

While this may reliably predict the initial failure, the total extent of failure can be

overestimated or underestimated.

(b) Ability to model the stresses and strains developed within slope under given

conditions. Field inspection can then be orientated towards looking for areas of

local yielding or tension cracks predicted by the analysis.

10
 (c) Ability to model the staged construction of slopes, which is a time and strain-

dependent consolidation problem (Maula and Zhang 2011).

3.2.4. Phi-c-reduction method in Plaxis 2D software calculation

In the Phi-c-reduction approach, the strength parameters tan  φ  and c of the soil are

successively reduced until failure of the structure occurs in Plaxis 2D software modeling. The
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

strength of interfaces, if used, is reduced in the same way. The strength of structural objects is

not influenced by Phi-c-reduction. The total multiplier  Msf is used to define the value of the

soil strength parameters at a given stage in the analysis where the strength parameters with the

subscript ‘input’ refer to the properties entered for the material and parameters with the subscript

‘reduced’ refer to the reduced values used in the analysis (Equation 3) (Brinkgreve 2002).

tan φinput c
 Msf   input (3)
tan φreduced creduced

The strength parameters are successively reduced automatically until all steps have been

performed. If the final step has resulted in a fully developed failure mechanism, the safety factor

is given by below equation and if a failure mechanism has not fully developed, then the

calculation must be repeated with a larger number of additional steps (Equation 4) (Brinkgreve

2002).

available strength
SF   value of  Msf at failure (4)
strength at failure

3.3. Finite element model

The objective of this research is to study the effects of groundwater level changes on the

stability of geogrid-reinforced-embankment constructed on the loose marine soils. In the finite

11
 element numerical analysis, the settlements of the stabilized embankment and the safety factor

are calculated as a function of not only embankment geometry and loading but also the

groundwater level as well as the length, number, and tensile strength of geogrid layers. It is

worth mentioning that thicknesses and properties of soil layers used in the numerical analysis are

obtained from the laboratory and in-situ tests. Since the behaviors of layers are considered as

Mohr-Coulomb plasticity, only saturated unit weight, Young modulus, cohesion, the angle of
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

internal friction, and Poisson ratio of the soils are required. To investigate the effects of

groundwater level changes on the geogrid-reinforced-embankment, various loadings, different

length, number, and tensile strength of geogrid layers were used in the numerical simulation. The

following parameters and assumptions were adopted in the finite element analysis:

 The embankment was 5m in height and its width at the top and base was 10 and

20m, respectively (refer to Figure 5).

 Based on the lab tests, saturated unit weight, Young modulus, cohesion, angle of

internal friction, and Poisson ratio of the embankment were taken as 19 kN/m3,

2×104kPa, 10kPa, 24.7 degree, and 0.4, respectively.

 There are five geogrid layers in the embankment with distance intervals of 1m .

The tensile strength of the geogrid was 200 kN.

 A distributed load of 20 kN/m was applied on the top surface of the embankment.

 The size of the model was determined using trial and error method, during which

the mesh was progressively refined and its boundaries extended until stresses and

deformations at the highly-stressed zones have sufficiently stabilized. The results

indicated that the lateral boundaries should be extended to 70m on each side of

12
 the embankment. The modelled area had an overall horizontal width of 160m and

a vertical thickness of 45m . The model is presented in Figure 5.

 The bottom boundary of the finite element model was fully fixed (ux and uy = 0)

while the horizontal movements of both sides were fixed (ux = 0; uy = free). The

ground surface and embankment were free to move in all directions.

 The forth order, 15-node triangular elements were chosen for more accurate
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

calculation. A relatively fine mesh was used near the geogrid-soil and

embankment-soil interfaces while a coarser mesh was used farther from the

interfaces (Jesmani, Kasrania, and Kamalzare 2016). As shown in Figure 6, the

two-dimensional finite element model consists of 1500 triangular elements and

12000 nodes.

4. Results

4.1. Displacement of embankment

Figure 7 shows a typical view of the total displacement of the embankment.

Figures 8–11 show the horizontal and vertical displacements at the embankment top and

base due to groundwater level changes as well as different embankment slopes. Note that, NW

means no water.

Figures 12–15 illustrate the horizontal and vertical displacements at the top and base of

the embankment due to both groundwater level changes and different geogrid layer lengths.

Figures 16–19 show the horizontal and vertical displacements at the top and base of the

embankment, due to both groundwater level changes and different geogrid layer numbers.

13
 Figures 20–23 show the horizontal and vertical displacements at the top and base of the

embankment due to both groundwater level changes and the different tensile strengths of

geogrid.

Figures 24–27 show the horizontal and vertical displacements at the top and base of the

embankment due to both groundwater level changes and different embankment loadings.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

4.2. Safety factor

Figures 28–32 show the relationship between the safety factor (SF) of the embankment

and groundwater level for different embankment slopes, lengths of geogrid layer, numbers of

geogrid layer, tensile strengths of geogrid and embankment loadings, respectively.

5. Discussion

5.1. Displacement of embankment

According to Figure 8, increasing the embankment slope from 4H:1V to 1H:1V, the

horizontal displacements at the embankment top increased. When the groundwater level was

located at the ground surface, the top horizontal displacement of the embankment with 1H:1V

slope was 2.27 and 1.34 times that of the embankments with 4H:1V and 2.5H:1V slopes,

respectively. Similar results were also reported by Liu, Ng, and Fei (2007). It is interesting to

note that changing the groundwater level from the ground surface to complete removal of

groundwater, the horizontal displacements of the embankment top increased slightly. For

example, the horizontal displacements at the embankment top with 1H:1V slope were 6.918

when the groundwater level was located at the ground surface and 7.041 mm without any

14
 groundwater. Such effect of groundwater on slope stability was also observed by Liu et al.

(2012).

It can be seen from Figure 9 that by decreasing the groundwater level, the vertical

displacements of the embankment top decreased. For example, the vertical displacements at the

embankment top with 2.5H:1V slope when the groundwater level was located at the ground
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

surface and complete removal of groundwater were 56.045 and 54.19mm, respectively. This

implies a reduction of 1.86mm due to the groundwater level changes. Also, it can be seen that by

decreasing the slope of the geogrid-reinforced-embankment, the vertical displacements at the

embankment top reduced.

It is evident from Figure 10, that by decreasing the groundwater level from 0 to 5 m

below the ground surface, the horizontal displacements at the embankment base decreased, then

remain almost unchanged by reducing the groundwater level more than 5 m below the ground

surface. Moreover, by reducing the embankment slope, the horizontal displacements at the

embankment base reduced. For instance, by locating the groundwater level at 5 m below the

ground surface, the horizontal displacement of the embankment base with 1H:1V slope was 1.63

times more than that of the embankment with 4H:1V slope.

It can be seen from Figure 11 that the vertical displacement at the embankment base is

strongly influenced by the embankment slope, so that it significantly decreased by reducing the

embankment slope from 1H:1V to 4H:1 V. For example, when the groundwater level was at 10m

below the ground surface, the vertical displacements at the embankment base with 1H:1V and

4H:1 V slopes were at 30.63 and 3.35mm, respectively, which implies a reduction of 27.28 mm.

It is worth mentioning that by lowering the groundwater level, the vertical displacements at the

embankment base increased gently. As an illustration, for the embankment with 1H:1V slope, the

15
 vertical displacement at the embankment base increased slightly from 30.19mm (groundwater

level at the ground surface) to 30.66mm (no groundwater).

Figure 12 shows horizontal displacements at the embankment top due to changes of

geogrid length. It can be seen that by increasing the geogrid length from two layers of 3-meter

length in each level to a full length-geogrid in each level, the horizontal displacements at the
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

embankment top reduced.

Based on Figure 13, it can be seen that by increasing the geogrid length from two layers

of 3-meter length in each level to a full length-geogrid layer in each level, the vertical

displacements at the embankment top decreased. For example, when the groundwater level was

located at 15m below the ground surface, the vertical displacements at the reinforced

embankment top with two layers of 3-meter length, two layers of 5-meter length, and a full

length of geogrid layer in each level were 65.89, 65.60, and 64.94mm, respectively.

As shown in Figure 14, by increasing the geogrid length, the embankment became more

integrated which led to the reduction of the horizontal displacements at the embankment base.

On the other hand, the displacement remained almost unchanged by reducing the groundwater

level more than 5m below the ground surface.

According to Figure 15, it can be seen that vertical displacements at the reinforced

embankment base with two layers of 3-meter length and two layers of 5-meter length geogrids in

each level are almost similar. However, using a full length-geogrid layer in each level led to the

reduction of the displacements.

According to Figure 16, by reducing the groundwater level more than 5m below the

ground surface, the horizontal displacements at the embankment top reach a plateau. In addition,

16
 horizontal displacements at the embankment top reduced by increasing the number of geogrid

layers.

As shown in Figure 17, by decreasing the groundwater level, the vertical displacements

at the embankment top decreased exponentially. Also, by increasing the number of geogrid

layers, the vertical displacements at the embankment top decreased. Compared to the
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

embankment reinforced with three geogrid layers, the vertical displacement of the embankment

reinforced with four and five geogrid layers is smaller.

From Figure 18, it is apparent that by increasing the number of geogrid layers, the

horizontal displacements at the embankment base decreased. As an illustration, when the

groundwater level was located at 20 m below the ground surface, the horizontal displacements at

the embankment base were 7.89, 7.32, and 7.02 mm for the reinforced embankments with three,

four, and five geogrid layers, respectively. Similar to Figure 17, the reinforced embankment

with four and five geogrid layers has smaller the horizontal displacement compared to the

reinforced embankment with three geogrid layers.

The vertical displacements at the embankment base slightly decreased due to the increase

of geogrid layer numbers (refer to Figure 19). For instance, when the groundwater level was

located at 15 m below the ground surface, the vertical displacements at the embankment base

was constituted 30.71, 30.67, and 30.64 mm for the reinforced embankments with three, four,

and five geogrid layers, respectively. In addition, the vertical displacements at the embankment

base increased by reduction of the groundwater level.

Horizontal and vertical displacements at the embankment top decreased by an increase in

the tensile strength of geogrid (see Figures 20 and 21). For example, when the groundwater level

17
 was located at 10m below the ground surface, by increasing the geogrid tensile strength from 50

to 200 kN, horizontal displacements at the embankment top decreased from 7.036 to 7.025 mm.

However, reduction of the groundwater level more than 10 m below the ground surface, both

horizontal and vertical displacements at the embankment top remained almost unchanged. This

was also observed by Benmebarek et al. (2015).

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

According to Figure 22, horizontal displacements at the embankment base decreased

negligibly by increasing the geogrid tensile strength. Also, it can be seen that by decreasing the

groundwater level, the horizontal displacements decreased.

Based on Figure 23, by decreasing the groundwater level, vertical displacements at the

embankment base increased. For instance, for the geogrid with a tensile strength of 200 kN,

reducing the groundwater level from the ground surface to 25m below the ground resulted in an

increase in the vertical displacement from 30.20mm to 30.65 mm. It is worth mentioning that the

geogrid reinforced embankments with a tensile strength of 50 and 100 kN have almost same

displacement as the one reinforced with geogrid which has a tensile strength of 200 kN.

It can be seen from Figures 24 and 25 that by increasing the loading at the embankment

top, horizontal and vertical displacements at the embankment top increased. As an illustration,

for the case that the groundwater level was located at 10 m below the ground surface, the

horizontal displacement increased from 6.94 to 7.02 mm by increasing the loading from 5 to 20

kN/m, respectively.

On the other hand, horizontal and vertical displacements at the embankment base

increased by increasing the loading at the embankment top (see Figure 2). For example, when

the groundwater level was located at the ground surface, by increasing the loading from 5 to 20

18
 kN/m, the horizontal displacement increased from 6.25 to 8.85 mm, i.e. about 42%. It can be

seen from Figure 27 that by reducing the groundwater level more than 10m, the vertical

displacement remained almost unchanged. Similar results have been reported by Park et al.

(2007).

5.2. Safety factor (SF)

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

From Figure 28, it can be seen that by reducing the embankment slope, the safety factor

of the embankment increases significantly. For instance, for the groundwater level at 15 m below

the ground surface, the safety factor of the embankments with a slope of 1H:1V, 2.5H:1V, and

4H:1V is 2.92, 3.86, and 4.38, respectively. The safety factor of the embankment with a 4H:1V

slope is 1.5 times more than that of the embankment with a 1H:1V slope. Also, it is clear that

safety factor increases with decreasing the groundwater level. For example, for the 4H:1V

embankment, the safety factor rises from 3.55 (groundwater at the ground surface) to 4.48 (no

groundwater).

From Figure 29, it can be seen that inclusions of two layers of 3-m length and two layers

of 5-m length geogrids in each level resulted in similar safety factors, which are significantly less

than that of the embankment reinforced with a full-length geogrid in each level. This could be

contributed to a lack of continuity between the two layers. For instance, for the case that the

groundwater level is located at 5 m below the ground surface, the safety factors of the

embankments reinforced with two layers of 3-m length, two layers of 5-m length, and a full

length of geogrids in each level are 1.46, 1.57, and 2.84, respectively. Therefore, the continuity

of geogrid has noticeable effects on the safety factor. On the other hand, reduction of

19
 groundwater level more than 5m from the ground surface, the safety factor experiences a period

of immutability.

As it is shown in Figure 30, the numbers of geogrid also have significant effects on

safety factor. For example, when the groundwater level is located at 5m below the ground

surface, the safety factor of the embankment reinforced with five geogrid layers is 1.19 times
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

more than that of the embankment reinforced with three layers. Also, by decreasing the

groundwater level more than 5m from the ground surface, the safety factor remains almost

unchanged.

The safety factor also increases with an increase in the tensile strength of geogrid layers

(see Figure 31). As an illustration, when groundwater is located at the ground surface, the safety

factor increases from 1.97 to 2.41 by increasing the geogrid tensile strength from 50 to 200 kN.

This implies an increase at 22%. This result is in agreement with the findings of Sri Wulandari

and Tjandraa (2015).

As expected, reducing the loading applied at the embankment top is led to an increase in

the safety factor. From Figure 32, it can be seen that when the groundwater level is located at

5m below the ground surface, the safety factors of the 5, 10, and 20 kN/m loads are 3.26, 3.11,

and 2.84, respectively.

Since the main objective of this paper is to study the effects of properties of geogrid-

reinforced-marine-slope due to the groundwater level changes, considering the behavior of both

reinforced and unreinforced embankments is very important. On the other hand, due to the

location of the under-studied embankment in an environment with variable groundwater level,

improving the embankment safety factor is the most important parameter in this study. Based on

20
 the comparison between the unreinforced embankment and reinforced embankment with five

geogrid layers of 200 kN tensile strength and with distance intervals of 1m, the following results

can be obtained (refer to Table 3 and Figure 33).

From Figure 33, it can be seen that insulation of geogrid has negligible effects on the

displacements at the bottom and top of the embankment; however, it is led to the increase of the
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

safety factor by 75% compared to the unreinforced embankment. Based on the significant effect

of geogrid on safety factor, the behavior of embankment during different steps of numerical

modeling is provided in Figure 34. It can be seen that by increasing the simulation steps, the

safety factor of the reinforcement embankment increases noticeably compared to the

unreinforced embankment. Therefore, applying the geogrid layers has led to the increase of the

embankment stability.

Conclusion

In this research, the effects of groundwater level changes on the stability of a geogrid-

reinforced-slope built on loose marine soils in Qeshm Island, Iran were studied. The geotechnical

properties of the soil were obtained by a series of laboratory and in-situ tests. The finite element

analysis was conducted to investigate the effects of several parameters on the vertical and

horizontal displacements at the embankment top and embankment base, and the safety factor as

well, which include the depth of groundwater level, the embankment slope, the loading applied

on the top surface of the embankment, the length and tensile strength of geogrids and the number

of geogrid layers

Based on the results of the numerical analyses, the following conclusions could be drawn:

21
  From the geotechnical laboratory and in situ tests it was observed that the marine

site was characterized by sandy silt, silty clay, and lean clay.

 Groundwater level had a significant effect on the behavior of the embankment. In

the most of cases, the displacements decreased and consequently the safety factor

increased as a result of the groundwater level reduction.

 Increasing the embankment slope increased the horizontal and vertical

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

displacements at the embankment base and embankment top and reduced the

safety factor.

 Increasing the length, number, and tensile strength of geogrid layers led to the

reduction of the displacements of the embankment and increase of the safety

factor.

 The displacements increased and safety factor decreased as a result of increasing

the loading applied at the embankment top.

 While the number and tensile strength of geogrid layers had a significant effect on

the safety factor, the embankment slope and continuity of geogrids had more

noticeable effect on the behavior of the embankment.

 It was observed that installation of geogrid had minor effects on the displacements

at the bottom and top of the embankment; however, it led to increase the safety

factor by 75% compared to the unreinforced embankment. Moreover, safety

factor of the reinforcement embankment increased noticeably compared to the

unreinforced embankment by increasing the simulation steps. Therefore,

application of the geogrid layers led to increasing the embankment stability.

Acknowledgments

22
 The authors wish to express their gratitude to the “Qeshm Structure Sirvan Consulting

Engineers Co.” for their support to the research group.

References

American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM). 2000. Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Section four: Construction, vol. 04.08.
ASTM D1586-11. 2011. Standard test method for standard penetration test (SPT) and split-barrel
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

sampling of soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Bahrami, M. 2009. Lithofacies and sedimentary environments of aghajari formation in
Dehsheikh Mountain, west of Shiraz, Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal 6 (4):464–73.
doi:10.14419/ijbas.v1i4.251
Benmebarek, S., F. Berrabah, and N. Benmebarek. 2015. Effect of geosynthetic reinforced
embankment on locally weak zones by numerical approach. Computers and Geotechnics
65:115–25. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.12.004
Brinkgreve, R. B. J. 2002. Plaxis 2D, Version 8, www.plaxis.nl. A.A. Balkema Publishers.
Ghazavi Baghini, E., M. M. Toufigh, and V. Toufigh. 2016. Mesh-free analysis applied in
reinforced soil slopes. Computers and Geotechnics 80:322–32.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.09.001
Isakov, A., and Y. Moryachkov. 2014. Estimation of slope stability using two-parameter
criterion of stability. International Journal of Geomechanics 14:06014004.
doi:10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000326
Jahandari, S., J. Li, M. Saberian, and M. Shahsavarigoughari. 2017. Experimental study of the
effects of geogrids on elasticity modulus, brittleness, strength, and stress-strain behavior
of lime stabilized kaolinitic clay. GeoResJ 13:49–58. doi:10.1016/j.grj.2017.02.001
Jahandari, S., M. Saberian, F. Zivari, J. Li, M. Ghasemi, and R. Vali. 2017. Experimental study
of the effects of curing time on geotechnical properties of stabilized clay with lime and
geogrid. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1–12.
doi:10.1080/19386362.2017.1329259
Jesmani, M., A. Kasrania, and M. Kamalzare. 2016. Finite element modelling of undrained
vertical bearing capacity of piles adjacent to different types of clayey slopes.
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1–8.
doi:10.1080/19386362.2016.1254398
Keskin, M. S., and M. Laman. 2014. Experimental and numerical studies of strip footings on a
geogrid-reinforced sand slope. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 39:1607–
19. doi:10.1007/s13369-013-0795-7
Kupka, M., I. Herle, and M. Arnold. 2009. Advanced calculations of safety factors for slope
stability. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 3:509–15.
doi:10.3328/ijge.2009.03.04.509-515
Liu, C. N., K. H. Yang, Y. H. Ho, and C. M. Chang. 2012. Lessons learned from three failures
on a high steep geogrid-reinforced slope. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 34:131–43.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.05.003
Liu, H. L., C. W. W. Ng, and K. Fei. 2007. Performance of a geogrid-reinforced and pile-
supported highway embankment over soft clay: case study. Journal of Geotechnical and

23
 Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 133:1483–93. doi:10.1061/(asce)1090-
0241(2007)133:12(1483)
Maula, B. H., and L. Zhang. 2011. Assessment of embankment factor safety using two
commercially available programs in slope stability analysis. Procedia Engineering, the
Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction
14:559–66. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.070
Motiei, H. 1994. Geology of Iran; Zagros Stratigraphy, 630. GSI Publications.
Oh, Y. I., and E. C. Shin. 2007. Reinforcement and arching effect of geogrid-reinforced and pile-
supported embankment on marine soft ground. Marine Georesources and Geotechnology
25:97–118. doi:10.1080/10641190701359591
Onur, M. I., M. Tuncan, B. Evirgen, B. Ozdemir, and A. Tuncan. 2016. Behavior of soil
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

reinforcements in slopes. Procedia Engineering, Advances in Transportation Geotechnics

3. The 3rd International Conference on Transportation Geotechnics 143:483–89.
Pamuk, A., T. Zimmie, K. Adalier, and M. Mahmud. 2015. Ocean rise instability in coastal clay
slopes and possible countermeasures: A centrifuge modeling study. Marine Georesources
and Geotechnology 33:58–66. doi:10.1080/1064119x.2013.784835
Park, Y. J., M. A. Gabr, R. H. Borden, K. J. Kim, and C. A. Kreider. 2007. Limit equilibrium and
deformation analyses of a geogrid-reinforced embankment. Geosynthetics in
Reinforcement and Hydraulic Applications 165:1–12.
Rajesh, S., and B. V. S. Viswanadham. 2009. Evaluation of geogrid as a reinforcement layer in
clay based engineered barriers. Applied Clay Science 46:153–65.
doi:10.1016/j.clay.2009.07.019
Shukla, S. K., N. Sivakugan, and B. M. Das. 2011. A state-of-the-art review of geosynthetic-
reinforced slopes. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 5:17–32.
doi:10.3328/ijge.2011.05.01.17-32
Sri Wulandari, P., and D. Tjandraa. 2015. Analysis of geotextile reinforced road embankment
using Plaxis 2D. Procedia Engineering 125:358–62. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.075
Tavakoli Mehrjardi, G., A. Ghanbari, and H. Mehdizadeh. 2016. Experimental study on the
behaviour of geogrid-reinforced slopes with respect to aggregate size. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.06.006
Yoshikawa, T., T. Noda, T. Kodaka, and T. Takaine. 2016. Analysis of the effect of groundwater
level on the seismic behavior of an unsaturated embankment on clayey ground. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 85:217–30. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.02.008
Zhao, S., and L. Deng. 2017. Analyses of embedded piles reinforced landslides using strength
reduction finite element method. International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 1–
13. doi:10.1080/19386362.2017.1282844</bib>

24
 Table 1. Geotechnical properties of soil layers

De Passing Soil and Sam Moist γsat C φ E L PI SPT (N)

pth Sieve Litholog ple ure (gr/c (kP (degr (M L (

(m) 4 200 y (%) m3 ) a) ee) Pa) ( % 1 1 1 30

( (%) Descripti % ) 5 5 5 c

% on ) c c c m
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

) m m m

1 10 52. M San U 17.2 1.83 3 27.1 22 N N 3 4 5 9

2 0 77 L dy L P

3 10 84. Silt 22.6 1.91 5 25.9 22 N N 2 2 2 4

4 0 77 L P

5 10 87. C Silt 21.4 1.91 8 25.1 20 27 6 3 3 4 7

6 0 87 L- y

M Cla

L y

7 10 89. C Lea 23.2 1.95 14 23.9 19 39 22 3 5 8 13

8 0 27 L n

9 10 86. Cla 23.6 1.95 17 22.6 19 37 18 4 7 8 15

10 0 27 y

11 10 100 C Lea 24.5 1.99 21 21.8 19 42 25 1 2 3 >

12. 0 L n 9 5 3 50

5 Cla

13 10 98. y 24.4 1.99 18 23.4 19 43 20 2 2 3 >

25
 Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

15
14
0
5

26
1
7
5
50
 Table 2. Dimensions of the model and properties of soil and embankment (Sri Wulandari and
Tjandraa 2015).

Layer Dimension (m) Properties

E γsat γunsat C φ ψ

(kPa) (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (kPa) (degree) (degree)

Embankment Top Width = 50000 18 18 1 33 3

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

166mm

Base Width
2H:1V

= 322mm

Height =

44mm

Sand Mat 0.8m Thickness 30000 18 23 1 33 3

Clay 1 3m Thickness 2000 16.6 17.31 33.02 1 0

Clay 2 4m Thickness 2000 16.6 17.31 12.01 1 0

Clay 3 5m Thickness 2000 16.6 17.31 47.07 1 0

Clay 4 5m Thickness 2000 16.6 17.31 118.66 1 0

Clay 5 3m Thickness 2000 16.6 17.31 163.46 1 0

27
 Table 3. Displacements and safety factors of reinforced and unreinforced embankments.

Displacements and safety factors Unreinforced Reinforced

Top horizontal displacement (mm) 6.911 6.918

Top vertical displacement (mm) 66.209 66.170

Bottom horizontal displacement (mm) 9.000 8.851

Bottom vertical displacement (mm) 30.134 30.199

Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

Safety factor 1.384 2.412

28
 Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

29
Figure 1. Location of the island and the under studied site area.
 Figure 2. Embankment reinforced with geogrid (Sri Wulandari and Tjandraa (2015) (top)) and
finite element model used in this study (bottom).
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

30
 Figure 3. The failure patterns of a geogrid reinforced embankments predicted by finite element
model. (a) Predicted using Plaxis 2D by Sri Wulandari and Tjandraa (2015). (b) Verified using
Plaxis 2D by authors.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

31
 Figure 4. Comparative results of safety factor from the verification and Sri Wulandari and
Tjandraa (2015) models.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

32
 Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

Figure 5. Geometry model.

33
 Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

34
Figure 6. A typical view of the model with meshes and boundaries.
 Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

35
Figure 7. A typical view of total displacement of the embankment.
 Figure 8. Horizontal displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level
changes and different embankment slopes.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

36
 Figure 9. Vertical displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level changes
and different embankment slopes.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

37
 Figure 10. Horizontal displacements at the embankment base due to both groundwater level
changes and different embankment slopes.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

38
 Figure 11. Vertical displacement at the embankment base due to both groundwater level changes
and different embankment slopes.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

39
 Figure 12. Horizontal displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level
changes and different geogrid layer lengths.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

40
 Figure 13. Vertical displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level changes
and different geogrid layer lengths.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

41
 Figure 14. Horizontal displacement at the embankment base due to both groundwater level
changes and different geogrid layer lengths.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

42
 Figure 15. Vertical displacement at the embankment base due to both groundwater level changes
and different geogrid layer lengths.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

43
 Figure 16. Horizontal displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level
changes and different geogrid layer number.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

44
 Figure 17. Vertical displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level changes
and different geogrid layer number.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

45
 Figure 18. Horizontal displacement at the embankment base due to both groundwater level
changes and different geogrid layer number.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

46
 Figure 19. Vertical displacement at the embankment base due to both groundwater level changes
and different geogrid layer number.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

47
 Figure 20. Horizontal displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level
changes and different geogrid tensile strength.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

48
 Figure 21. Vertical displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level changes
and different geogrid tensile strength.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

49
 Figure 22. Horizontal displacement at the embankment base due to both groundwater level
changes and different geogrid tensile strength.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

50
 Figure 23. Vertical displacement at the embankment base due to both groundwater level changes
and different geogrid tensile strength.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

51
 Figure 24. Horizontal displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level
changes and different embankment loadings.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

52
 Figure 25. Vertical displacement of the embankment top due to both groundwater level changes
and different embankment loadings.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

53
 Figure 26. Horizontal displacement at the embankment base due to both groundwater level
changes and different embankment loadings.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

54
 Figure 27. Vertical displacement at the embankment base due to both groundwater level changes
and different embankment loadings.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

55
 Figure 28. Safety factor of the embankment as a function of the groundwater level for different
embankment slopes.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

56
 Figure 29. Safety factor of the embankment as a function of the groundwater level for different
geogrid layer lengths.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

57
 Figure 30. Safety factor of the embankment as a function of the groundwater level for different
geogrid layer numbers.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

58
 Figure 31. Safety factor of the embankment as a function of the groundwater level for different
tensile strengths of geogrid.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

59
 Figure 32. Safety factor of the embankment as a function of the groundwater level for different
embankment loadings.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

60
 Figure 33. Displacements and safety factors of reinforced and unreinforced embankments.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

61
 Figure 34. Safety factors of reinforced and unreinforced embankments during different steps of
numerical modeling.
Downloaded by [UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE LIBRARIES] at 18:11 11 October 2017

62