Random field modeling of reinforced retaining

walls
Goudappa Dodagoudar*, Sajna Sayed and K. Rajagopal
Conventional finite element method (FEM) relies on deterministic values to represent structural and
load parameters and it does not have the capability of considering random parameters in response
evaluation of the structures. In the context of stochastic computational mechanics, uncertainty
modeling using random finite element method (RFEM) has by far received the major attention in
recent years. The objective of the paper is to develop a computer program for stochastic analysis of
reinforced retaining walls considering serviceability limit-state. The paper presents the formulation of
the RFEM for random field modeling of the reinforced retaining walls. The developed program is
validated using 1D bar and 2D plane-stress problems that involve random material properties. The
random field is simulated by Cholesky decomposition of the covariance matrix. The Monte Carlo
simulation (MCS) technique has been used in the finite element solution of the deformation response
variability of the reinforced soil retaining wall. Results of the random finite element analysis are useful
for serviceability limit-state design of the reinforced retaining walls.
Keywords: Spatial variability, Finite element method, Monte Carlo simulation, Reinforced wall

Notation Nf number of failures

P uniform load
A cross-sectional area p(x) linear body force
a0 mean value of the material property Pf probability of failure
a(x) material property at any point x qo uniform surcharge
b correlation length parameter Q plastic potential
c cohesion of soil Ra(j) autocovariance function
Caa autocovariance function sx, sy, sz principal value of the deviatoric part of stress
COV(E) coefficient of variation of elastic modulus
Ui displacement at any node n for ith realization
COV(Es) coefficient of variation of elastic modulus of
Uan allowable displacement at any node n
soil
Un displacement at any node n
COV(Pf) coefficient of variation of probability of
Uy displacement in vertical direction
failure
Var(a1) variance of a (x)
d correlation length parameter
Z vector of uncorrelated Gaussian random
E(x) elastic modulus of material property at any
variables with zero mean value and standard
point
deviation equal to one.
E[U] expected value of displacements U
a (x) zero mean homogenous process at any point x
F Mohr–Coulomb yield function
g(x) performance function j distance separating two points with coordi-
J1, J2, J3 first, second, and third stress invariants nates x and xzj
l length sx, sy, sz stresses in x-, y-, and z-directions, respectively
L lower triangular matrix generated by sxy stress in xy plane
Cholesky decomposition sa standard deviation of zero mean homogenous
N number of finite elements process
Ns number of simulations s [U] standard deviation of displacement
sd(x) standard deviation of displacement at any
point x
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 036, d interaction angle
India dtarget target coefficient of variation of probability
*Corresponding author, email goudar@iitm.ac.in of failure

ß 2014 W. S. Maney & Son Ltd

Received 10 March 2014; accepted 10 March 2014 International Journal of
DOI 10.1179/1939787914Y.0000000055 Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 000 NO 000 1
Dodagoudar et al. Random field modeling
mE mean value of elastic modulus
md(x) mean value of displacement at any point x
wr friction angle of reinforced fill
wb friction angle of backfill
cr unit weight of reinforced fill
cb unit weight of backfill
y dilation angle
H Lode angle
Introduction
Probability theory provides a rational and efficient means
of characterizing uncertainty which is prevalent in
computational stochastic mechanics. In recent years, the
rapid development of probabilistic methods in the field of
structural design has overshadowed considerably the
fundamental role of limit-state design as it takes into
account various uncertainties. Need for professional
judgment and experience in the selection of potential limit
states is greater in foundation design than in structural
design because geologic materials are among the most
variable of all engineering materials. Conventional finite
element method (FEM) used in various fields of engineer-
ing for stress and deformation analysis without accounting
for uncertainties is not a rational approach. Random finite
element method (RFEM) or stochastic finite element
method (SFEM), which combines probability theory with
deterministic FEM procedures, is becoming robust enough
to allow engineers to estimate the risk of structural
systems. In geotechnical engineering, Bathurst et al.
(2008) applied reliability theory in the determination of
load and resistance factors in the load and resistance
factor design (LRFD) of reinforced soil walls and Fenton
et al. (2005) used RFEM for settlement analysis of shallow
foundation resting on spatially variable soils.
Applications of stochastic finite element analysis appear
to have been initiated in the early 1970s (Astill et al., 1972;
Der Kiureghian and Ke, 1988; Vanmarcke and Grigoriu,
1983; Mahadevan and Haldar, 1991). The SFEM using
first-order and second-order perturbation methods has
been implemented by Handa and Anderson (1981),
Shinozuka and Yamazaki (1988), and Chakraborty and
Dey (1995) for stochastic response analysis of various
structural systems. Another methodology is known as the
Neumann expansion method which has been found to be
efficient when coupled with the Monte Carlo simulation
(MCS) technique (Chakraborty and Dey, 1995; Shinozuka
and Dasgupta, 1988; Yamazaki et al., 1988; Ren and
Elishakoff, 1998; Kaminski, 2007). In geotechnical engi-
neering, although applications such as those described by
Thurner and Schweiger (2000) combined the deterministic
FEM with reliability methods, they do not take advantage
of the FEM’s power to model spatial variation. Baecher
and Ingra (1981) and Righetti and Harrop-Williams
(1988) implemented the SFEM to incorporate spatial
variation of random parameters for stress and settlement
analyses of foundations. Ishii and Suzuki (1987) and Gui
et al. (2000) used the SFEM for slope stability analysis.
Fenton and Griffiths, and their co-workers (Griffiths and
Fenton, 2004; Fenton and Griffiths, 2005; Jaksa et al.,
2005) have carried out random finite element analyses
2 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL
using local average subdivision method to study the
stochastic response behavior of various geotechnical
structures.
Based on the review of literature, it is noted that a very few
studies have been attempted to study the probabilistic
response of reinforced soil retaining walls (Yuan et al.,
2003; Chalermyanont and Benson, 2004; Chun et al., 2004;
Sayed et al., 2008) and stochastic response of conventional
retaining walls (Fenton et al., 2005). Moreover, no sys-
tematic study has been attempted in the literature on the
influence of spatial variability in soil properties on the overall
response of the reinforced soil retaining walls. The previous
studies on probabilistic response analysis of reinforced soil
retaining walls (Yuan et al., 2003; Chalermyanont and
Benson, 2004; Chun et al., 2004; Sayed et al., 2008) have not
been taken into account the effect of spatial variation of soil
properties. However, the conventional reliability analysis
using explicit limit-state functions tends to over-represent its
variability (Mahadevan and Haldar, 1991). It is to be noted
that sampling at all locations to obtain the material pro-
perty values is usually impractical and uneconomical, and
measurement and testing errors tend to dilute the value of the
information. Therefore, the tasks of prediction, analysis,
and decision-making must usually proceed on the basis
of incomplete information about the medium, and this
fact renders its modeling as a random field meaningful
(Vanmarcke et al., 1986).
A brief description of the theoretical background of the
RFEM using MCS is given in the first part of the paper.
Illustrative examples including one- and two-dimensional
(1D and 2D) structural problems are presented to
demonstrate the validation of the developed computer
program for stochastic finite element analysis. Final part
of the paper presents a numerical example of random finite
element analysis of reinforced soil retaining wall consider-
ing deformation of the wall as a response quantity. It is
noted that the results of the random finite element analysis
are useful for serviceability limit-state design of the
reinforced soil retaining walls under the conditions of
random material properties.
Random finite element method
Traditional deterministic analysis, such as the FEM, uses a
single design point, considering it as sufficient to represent
the response. This simulation of a single design point is
inadequate and unrealistic when characterizing systems
under varying loads and material properties. These
uncertainties fluctuate over space and time domains, and
the responses of the structure are accordingly affected by
these parameters. The mathematical model of the varia-
bility, parameterized by the correlation between different
locations, can be characterized by means of a random
field.
Material properties are treated as random field that do
not vary randomly in space; rather such variation is gradual
and follows a pattern that can be quantified using spatial
correlation structures, where properties are treated as
random variables. The spatial correlation structure is often
expressed in terms of covariance function. If the variability
of the random field is entirely random, the covariance
000 NO 000

function will decay asymptotically to zero. A convenient
measure of the variability of a random field is the
correlation length, also sometimes referred to as the scale
of fluctuation, which is the distance within which points of a
random field are significantly correlated. To curve fit the
covariance functions obtained from analysis of field data,
spatial correlation models such as spherical, exponential,
and Gaussian are used. These models help to determine the
spatial correlation between field data at any separation
distance and in different directions. The RFEM takes
account of spatial correlation, which is the tendency for
properties of soil elements ‘‘close together’’ to be correlated
while soil elements ‘‘far apart’’ are uncorrelated.
The stochastic analysis can be carried out using MCS by
generating random fields. For this purpose, the problem
domain is divided into appropriate number of finite
elements and the material property value for each element
will be the summation of the values at the Gauss points.
So if there are n Gauss points, then there are n property
values associated with each zero mean homogeneous
random field. This assessment is accomplished by calculat-
ing an autocovariance matrix whose value depends on the
characteristics of spatial correlation between the material
properties. This process is repeated several times and
finally the mean and variance of nodal displacements are
evaluated.
Monte Carlo simulation method
Monte Carlo simulation is known as a simple random
sampling method or statistical trial method that makes
realizations based on randomly generated sampling sets
for uncertain variables. Application of the MCS method
to probabilistic structural mechanics problems has been
attempted by several researchers (Vanmarcke et al., 1986;
Takada, 1991; Fenton and Griffiths, 2008; Shinozuka and
Yamazaki, 1988). A simulation in RFEM proceeds by the
following steps (Fenton and Griffiths, 2008):
1. From the raw data, histogram, statistical estimators,
and goodness-of-fit tests, a distribution with which to
model the problem is decided upon. Parameters such
as the mean, variance, and correlation length are
determined to characterize the randomness.
2. A random field following the distribution decided
upon in the previous step is defined.
3. A realization of the random field is generated using a
random field generator.
4. The response of the system to the random input
generated in the previous step is evaluated.
5. The above algorithm is repeated from step 3 for as
many times as are feasible, recording the responses.
The MCS method has the advantage that it is adaptable to
all types of problems and the results can be obtained to
desired accuracy. However, for problems with many
random variables or small failure probabilities this proce-
dure is usually too expensive, since a large number
of solutions are needed to obtain reliable results. The
perturbation method is also known as the Taylor series
expansion method and, generally, its effectiveness is
restricted in that the random fluctuations must be small,
i.e. the coefficient of variation should be less than 0?2 (Choi
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Dodagoudar et al. Random field modeling
et al., 2007). Determining the covariance matrix among all
elements of the fluctuation part of the stiffness matrix
requires extremely high computational effort in the case of
Neumann expansion method (Matthies et al., 1997). The
spectral SFEM has been applied to linear problems, and it
is not applicable to general non-linear problems yet (Sudret
and Der Kiureghian, 2000). However, as far as accuracy is
considered all the methods are equally good. In this study,
the MCS method is used for carrying out random finite
element analysis of 1D and 2D problems of the computa-
tional stochastic mechanics.
Random field discretization
In most random finite element applications, it is necessary
to represent a continuous-parameter random field in terms
of a vector of random variables. This process is known
as discretization of the random field. A random field
discretization method is characterized by its efficiency, i.e.
its ability to accurately represent the random field with as
few random variables as possible. The discretization
methods can be divided into three groups, namely point
discretization, average discretization, and series expansion
methods. The integration point method coming under
point discretization method mentioned by Matthies et al.
(1997) referring to Brenner and Bucher (1995) is used
in the present study. Assuming that every integration
appearing in the finite element resolution scheme is
obtained from integrand evaluation at each Gauss points
of each element; the authors’ discretized the random
field by associating a single random variable to each of
these Gauss points. This gives accurate results for short
correlation length. However, the total number of random
variables involved increases dramatically with the size of
the problem.
One- and two-dimensional problems
A stochastic field is defined by the expected value and
variance of the random variable and by the autocorrela-
tion function. The spatial variation of some property such
as the Young’s modulus can be written as
aðxÞ~a0 ½1zaðxÞ (1)
where a0 is the mean value of the property, a (x) is zero
mean homogenous process, and x indicates the position
vector of a point on the domain where the problem is
defined. The a (x) has a zero mean value and its
autocovariance function is given by
Ra ðjÞ~E ½aðxÞ, aðxzjÞ~Caa (2)
where E[] represents the expected value and j is the
distance separating two points with coordinates x and
xzj. The autocovariance function is used to represent the
1D stochastic field, given as
Ra ðjÞ~s2a exp½{ðjjj=bl Þ (3)
where b is the autocorrelation length parameter, l is the
length of finite element mesh, and sa is the standard
deviation of the fluctuation [a (x)] of the random variable.
The following autocovariance function is used for the 2D
stochastic field
2014 VOL 000 NO 000 3
Dodagoudar et al. Random field modeling

  
jj j jj j
Ra ðjÞ~E ½aðxÞ aðxzjÞ~s2a exp { 1 z 2 (4)
b1 l b2 l
where x5(x1, x2) and xzj5(x1zj1, x2zj2) are the
coordinates of two points, b1 and b2 are the autocorrela-
tion length parameters, l is the length of the finite element
mesh, and sa is the standard deviation of the fluctuation [a
(x)] of the random variable. Vector a can be generated by
a~LZ (5)
where L is a lower triangular matrix generated by
Cholesky decomposition of covariance matrix Caa given
by
0 1
Varða1 Þ . . . CVða1 ,an Þ 1 Bar subjected to linear body force distribution: a
B .. .. C Geometry and loads b Mesh discretization
Caa ~B
@ . P .
C
A (6)
CVða1 , an Þ    Varðan Þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð1{Pf ÞPf =Ns
COVðPf Þ~ (11)
in which Var(a1) is the variance of a (x), CV(a1,a2) is the Pf
covariance of a (x), and Z is a vector of uncorrelated
Gaussian random variables with zero mean value and
The COV(Pf) is used as a criterion to decide when to stop
standard deviation equal to one. A randomly generated
the simulations. Typically a tolerable or target COV(Pf)
number r in the interval [0, 1], with a uniform distribution,
[dtarget] is specified and the simulations are terminated when
can be considered as input and Z can be computed by the
COV(Pf),dtarget. Usually the dtarget lies between 0?01 and
Box–Muller transformation to get normal deviates. Once 0?05 for most of the structural mechanics problems.
the stochastic field is defined, the direct MCS method uses The MCS with samples ranging from 1000–5000 have
the same formulation of the deterministic finite element been used to generate the uncertainty in the response variable
technique. For each simulated sample, it is necessary to 2 the displacement. The random variation of material
assemble the global stiffness matrix. The expected value of properties such as elastic modulus of soil is implemented by
displacement U at a particular node is given by developing new subroutines in FORTRAN. These subrou-
X
Ns tines incorporate the random field simulation using integra-
E ½U %-
U~ Ui =Ns (7) tion point method. Later these subroutines are incorporated
i~1 in the finite element program ‘‘GEOFEM’’ which was
where Ns is the number of simulations and Ui represents developed by Rajagopal (1998). Example problems reported
in the literature have been used to validate the developed
the displacement at any node for each simulation. The
program. As an example application, results of the random
standard deviation of displacement is given by
finite element analysis of the reinforced soil retaining wall are
N 
Ps  2 presented in the paper.
Ui {-
U
s½U ~ i~1 (8) Validation examples: results and
Ns {1
where U
- is the mean of the displacement at a particular discussion
node. Given the values of the input variables, the MCS The methodology proposed using the MCS method is
method can easily evaluate performance function g(x) for applied to perform the random finite element analysis of
each run and then compute the probability of failure by
performing several simulations. The performance function
may be written as
g(x)~Uan {Un (9)
where Uan is the allowable displacement at any node n and
Un is the calculated displacement at the node n. The
probability of failure (Pf) is given by
Pf ~P½gðxÞv0~Nf =Ns  (10)
where Nf is the number of simulations with g(x),0 (i.e.
number of failures) and Ns is the total number of
simulations. The accuracy of equation (10) can be
estimated by evaluating the coefficient of variation of
probability of failure [COV(Pf)] as 2 Histogram of the generated elastic modulus values

4 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 000 NO 000


3 Mean value of displacement at different points along the bar
two validation examples and one numerical example of the
reinforced soil retaining wall.
Example 1: One-dimensional bar
A 1D bar example problem given in Rahman and Rao
(2001) is considered for the validation of the developed
random finite element program. Authors presented a
stochastic meshless method for solving boundary-value
problems in linear elasticity that involves random material
properties. The material property was modeled as a
homogeneous random field and meshless formulation is
used to predict the stochastic structural response.
The bar AB of length, l51 units, is subjected to a linear
body force distribution, p(x)5x, in x-direction as shown in
Fig. 1a. The point A of the bar is fixed and the point B is
free. The bar has a constant cross-sectional area, A51
units. The modulus of elasticity
E ðxÞ~mE ½1zaðxÞ (12)
is random with mean, mE51 units and a (x) is a
homogeneous Gaussian random field with mean zero
4 Standard deviation of displacement at different points along the bar
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Dodagoudar et al. Random field modeling
and autocovariance function given by equation (3). A
mesh discretization involving 16 uniformly spaced nodes is
shown in Fig. 1b.
The random finite element methodology developed in
this study is applied to determine the axial displacement of
the bar. Figure 2 shows the histogram of simulated elastic
modulus values. It follows normal distribution with mean
value (m)51 and standard deviation (s)50?1. Figures 3
and 4 show the mean md(x) and standard deviation sd(x)
respectively, of the axial displacement as a function of x. It
can be seen from the figures that the results obtained using
GEOFEM program are in good agreement with those
obtained by Rahman and Rao (2001). Figure 5 shows the
variation of probability of failure with sample size and it
supports the fact that the fluctuation in the value of
probability of failure reduces as the sample size increases
thereby enhancing confidence in the results.
Example 2: Two-dimensional problem
Shinozuka and Yamazaki (1988) considered a 2D plane-
stress problem (Fig. 6) with elastic modulus as random
2014 VOL 000 NO 000 5
Dodagoudar et al. Random field modeling
5 Variation of probability of failure with number of simulations
field. Mean and variance of displacement are obtained by
MCS method. Rahman and Rao (2001) considered a
square plate under tension and reported the values of
mean and standard deviation of displacement at certain
nodes. These two example problems are also used to
validate the random finite element program and the results
are agreeing reasonably well.
The finite element model shown in Fig. 6 consists of 100
plane-stress, square finite elements (N) with 121 nodes.
Nodal displacements in the vertical direction (loading
direction) are constrained along the lower edge and nodal
displacements in both directions are constrained at the
lower left corner nodes. A uniformly distributed load is
applied along the upper edge. The Poisson’s ratio chosen
was 0?3. The spatial variation of modulus of elasticity was
represented using equation (1) and the autocovariance
6 Finite element model with 100 elements: 2D problem
6 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL
7 Variation of mean value of displacement with COV(E) at
node 121
function adopted was
h i
Ra ðjÞ~s2a exp {ðjjj=d Þ2 (13)
in which sa is the standard deviation, d is the correlation
distance of the random field, and j5[jx jy]T is the
separation vector between two points x and xzj; y and
yzj. Midpoint discretization is used in Shinozuka and
Yamazaki (1988) and Rahman and Rao (2001). Three
values of sa, i.e. 0?1, 0?2, and 0?3, and d52?0 are used in
the analysis (Shinozuka and Yamazaki, 1988). The results
of the analysis (Figs. 7 and 8) are shown at locations
where significant output values are expected, displacement
Uy of node 121. It is noted from the figures that the results
000 NO 000
 Dodagoudar et al. Random field modeling

8 Variation of standard deviation of displacement with

COV(E) at node 121

10 Definition sketch of the reinforced retaining wall

Rahman and Rao (2001) used the meshless method, in

that the background mesh was chosen such that its nodes
coincide with the meshless nodes.
The results of the MCS using 5000 samples along with
the results of the meshless method are given in Table 1.
The table provides the mean and standard deviation of
displacement at different nodes. A good agreement is
obtained between the published results and the results
obtained from the developed program.

Stochastic analysis of reinforced retaining

9 A square plate subjected to uniformly distributed tension
obtained from the developed random finite element
program are matching reasonably well with those given
by Shinozuka and Yamazaki (1988).
The plate example considered (Fig. 9) has dimension,
l51 units and is subjected to a uniformly distributed load
of magnitude p51 units. The square domain of the plate
was discretized by equally spaced 49 nodes and the
Poisson’s ratio was chosen as 0?3. In this case also, the
variation of modulus of elasticity has been represented
using equation (1). Equation (4) is used to represent its
autocovariance. Standard deviation (sa) is 0?12 units and
correlation length parameters are b151 and b252.
wall
A reinforced soil retaining wall of height 6 m has been
considered for the random finite element analysis. The
properties of the reinforced soil, foundation soil, and the
backfill soil for design purposes are assumed as c50,
w530u, and c516 kN m23. The surface of the backfill is
assumed to be horizontal and carries a permanent uniform
surcharge of 20 kPa. The soil at the site is assumed to be
compacted in layers of 250 mm thickness. The long term
allowable design strength of the reinforcement layers is
assumed to be 30 kN m21 and interaction angle (d) is 23u
(Fig. 10). Seven layers of reinforcement are obtained from
the conventional analysis spaced in multiples of compac-
tion layer thickness (FHWA, 2001). Elastic modulus of the
soil is considered as a 2D random field and is assumed to
follow normal distribution.

Table 1 Mean and variance of displacements at different nodes

Rahman and Rao (2001) GEOFEM

Location Response (5000 simulations) Mean Variance Mean Variance

C u1 0.1479 8.4761024 0.148 9.2261024

u2 0.5062 3.95161023 0.507 4.1461023
D u1 0.1578 5.90861023 0.158 6.5761023
u2 1.003 1.3861022 1.01 1.4861022
E u2 0.9948 1.04361022 0.997 1.04761022

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 000 NO 000 7

Dodagoudar et al. Random field modeling

11 Details of the finite element mesh for reinforced retaining wall

Finite element analysis J1 pffiffiffiffiffi 1


The GEOFEM program offers a wide choice of element F ~ sin wz J2 cos h{ pffiffiffi sin h sin w {c cos w (14)
3 3
types for system modeling such as interface element, bar
element, etc. The program is capable of modeling systems
J1 pffiffiffiffiffi 1

that undergo large deformations and large strains. For the Q~ sin yz J2 cos h{ pffiffiffi sin h sin y (15)
iterative analysis of non-linear problems, full Newton– 3 3
Raphson and modified Newton–Raphson options are where
available. Several material models are available for 1 
simulating the behavior of soil such as linear elastic, J1 ~ sx zsy zsz (16a)
3
non-linear elastic, hyperbolic, and Mohr–Coulomb. The
finite element mesh used for the numerical simulation of pffiffiffiffiffi 1 2 12
J2 ~ sx zs2y zs2z zs2xy (16b)
the reinforced soil retaining wall is shown in Fig. 11 and 2
the deformed mesh is depicted in Fig. 12.
The finite element mesh used for the reinforced soil J3 ~sx sy sz {sz s2xy (16c)
retaining wall consists of 2200 nodes, 178 interface
elements, 576 eight-noded quadrilateral elements, 11 nodal sx ~sx {J1 ; sy ~sy {J1 ; sz ~sz {J1 (16d)
link elements, and 77 bar elements. Both the soil and panel
elements are modeled using eight-noded quadrilateral 2 3
elements. The facing panel material is assumed to be pffiffiffi
1 6 3 3 J3 7
linear elastic. The soil forming the backfill as well as the h~ sin{1 6
4 { 2  3 5
7 (16e)
infill is simulated by elastoplastic Mohr–Coulomb model. 3 2
J2
The Mohr–Coulomb yield function F and the plastic
potential Q are defined in terms of internal friction angle
w, the angle of dilatancy y, and the cohesion c as given in Non-associated type flow rule results if the two angles w
equations (14) and (15): and y are not equal to each other. The elastic constitutive

12 Plot of the deformed mesh for reinforced retaining wall

8 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 000 NO 000

 Dodagoudar et al. Random field modeling

13 Variation of mean displacement along the height of 14 Variation of standard deviation of displacement along
retaining wall the height of retaining wall

matrix (D) is first formulated based on the current tangent
modulus value and Poisson’s ratio. During the plastic
flow, correction is applied to this matrix to obtain the
elastoplastic constitutive matrix (Dep).
The reinforcement is modeled using three-noded bar
elements, which are compatible with the eight-noded
quadrilateral elements used for modeling the soil. The
interfaces between the soil and the panel wall are modeled
using six-noded joint elements. The finite element analysis
is carried out in two stages. In the first stage, the self-
weight of the soil is applied. The wall panels are restrained
in the lateral direction using external props simulated
using nodal link elements. In the second stage, the uniform
surcharge pressure is applied in increments of 0?2 kPa per
load step. The maximum number of iterations per load
step is limited to 25. The properties of the elements used in
the finite element analysis are given in Tables 2–4.
Results
In the 2D random finite element analysis, the backfill and
reinforced soil properties are considered as random fields.
The coefficient of variation of Young’s modulus of the soil
Table 2 Properties of continuum elements
has been quoted as having a range from 2 to 42% with a
recommended value of 30% (Lee et al., 1983). In this study,
the coefficient of variation of elastic modulus [COV(Es)] of
the soil is varied from 10 to 40% and accordingly the
displacement of the wall is obtained (Figs. 13 and 14). It is
seen that the standard deviation of displacement increases
compared to the mean value with the increasing value of the
COV(Es). This is partly due to the fact that the standard
deviation results only from deviatoric component of the
sample. A similar observation was also made by Shinozuka
and Yamazaki (1988). Given the probability distribution of
the limiting tolerable displacement for the reinforced
retaining wall, the tolerable displacement for deterministic
design can be obtained, for example, by dividing the mean
limiting displacement by safety factor. Wahls (1994)
reported a value of factor of safety equal to 1?5. For the
example problem analyzed in this study, the tolerable
lateral displacement at the top of the wall is 22?5 mm. For
design purposes, reliability charts can be prepared involving
allowable wall displacement as a criterion, based on which
the type of reinforcement required for the reinforced
retaining wall can be selected when the soil and reinforce-
ment properties are treated as random fields in the
deformation analysis of the wall.

Property Panel elements Soil elements

Table 4 Properties of bar elements
Elastic modulus/kN m22 2.16107 25 000
Poisson’s ratio 0.1 0.3 Property Reinforcement elements
Cohesion/kN m22 – 0.0
Unit weight/kN m23 24.0 16.0 Elastic modulus/kN m ) 22
500.0
Friction angle/u – 30.0 Tensile strength/kN m21) 30.0

Table 3 Properties of interface elements

Property Soil/reinforcement interface Panel/soil interface

Initial tangential stiffness/kN m21 1.06107 1.06107

Initial normal stiffness/kN m21 1.06107 1.06107
Residual tangential stiffness/kN m21 1.06107 2.56102
Residual normal stiffness/kN m21 1.06107 1.06107
Cohesive strength/kN m22 0.0 0.0
Interface friction angle/u 30.0 23.0

International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 000 NO 000 9

Dodagoudar et al. Random field modeling
Conclusion
The main objective of this study was to investigate the
influence of spatial variability of soil properties in the
serviceability limit-state design of reinforced soil retaining
walls. The RFEM using MCS is used for evaluating the
effect of spatially varying material properties on the
displacement of the reinforced retaining wall. The non-
linear finite element program, GEOFEM, has produced
the results which are agreeing well with those reported in
the literature for the validation examples. In the stochastic
analysis of reinforced retaining wall, elastic modulus of the
soil is considered as random field and the overall
displacement response is evaluated. Based on the results
of predicted mean value and standard deviation of the
displacement, it is noted that the sample covariance
functions used in the study are acceptable measures of
second-moment structure when the correlation length
involved in the stochastic process is small relative to the
sampling domain. A crucial advantage of the RFEM is
that it allows the failure mechanism to ‘‘seek out’’ the
critical path through the soil. It is to be noted that the
stochastic approach help to develop initial guidance for
the safe design of reinforced retaining walls and identify
where further inspections and investigations could
increase the safety of the structure.
References
Astill, J., Nosseir, C. J. and Shinozuka, M. 1972. Impact loading on
structures with random properties, J. Struct. Mech., 1, (1), 63–77.
Baecher, G. B. and Ingra, T. S. 1981. Stochastic FEM in settlement
predictions, J. Geotech. Eng., 107, (4), 449–465.
Bathurst, R. J., Allen, T. M. and Nowak, A. S. 2008. Calibration concepts
for load and resistance factor design of reinforced soil walls, Can.
Geotech. J., 45, (10), 1377–1392.
Brenner, C. and Bucher, C. 1995. A contribution to the stochastic finite
element-based reliability assessment of non linear structures under
dynamic loading, Prob. Eng. Mech., 10, (4), 265–273.
Chakraborty, S. and Dey, S. S. 1995. Stochastic finite element method for
spatial distribution of material properties and external loading,
Comput. Struct., 55, (1), 41–45.
Chalermyanont, T. and Benson, C. H. 2004. Reliability-based design for
internal stability of mechanically stabilized earth walls, J. Geotech.
Geoenv. Eng., 130, 163–173.
Choi, S.-K., Grandhi, R. V. and Canfield, R. A. 2007. Reliability-based
structural design, London, Springer-Verlag.
Chun, B. S., Kim, K. M. and Min, D. K. (2004). A study on reliability
analysis for reinforced earth retaining walls. Proc. 3rd Asian
Geotech. Conf. on ‘Geosynthetics’, Korea, 248–254. Seoul,
Millpress Science Publishers.
Der Kiureghian, A. and Ke, J. 1988. The stochastic finite element method
in structural reliability, Prob. Eng. Mech., 3, (2), 83–91.
Fenton, G. A. and Griffiths, D. V. 2005. Three-dimensional probabilistic
foundation settlement, J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng., 131, (2), 232–239.
Fenton, G. A., Griffiths, D. V. and Cavers, W. 2005. Resistance factors
for settlement design, Can. Geotech. J., 42, (5), 1422–1436.
Fenton, G. A., Griffiths, D. V. and Williams, M. B. 2005. Reliability of
traditional retaining wall design, Géotechnique, 55, (1), 55–62.
Fenton, G. A. and Griffiths, D. V. 2008. Risk assessment in geotechnical
engineering, New York, NJ, John Wiley and Sons.
FHWA. 2001. Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil
slopes design and construction guidelines, Washington, DC,
10 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 2014 VOL 000
National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, US
Department of Transportation.
Griffiths, D. V. and Fenton, G. A. 2004. Probabilistic slope stability by
finite elements, J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng., 130, (5), 507–518.
Gui, S., Zhang, R., Turner, J. P. and Xue, X. 2000. Probabilistic slope
stability analysis with stochastic soil hydraulic conductivity, J.
Geotech. Geoenv. Eng., 126, (1), 1–9.
Handa, K. and Anderson, K. 1981. Application of finite element methods
in the statistical analysis of structures, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on
‘Structural Safety and Reliability’, Trondheim, Norway, 4092417,
Tapir Publishers.
Ishii, K. and Suzuki, M. 1987. Stochastic finite element method for slope
stability analysis, Struct. Saf., 4, 111–129.
Jaksa, M. B., Goldsworthy, J. S., Fenton, G. A., Kaggwa, W. S.,
Griffiths, D. V., Kuo, Y. L. and Poulos, H. G. 2005. Towards
reliable and effective site investigations, Géotechnique, 55, (2), 109–
121.
Kaminski, M. 2007. Generalized perturbation-based stochastic finite
element method in elastostatics, Comput. Struct., 85, (10), 586–594.
Lee, I. K., White, W. and Ingles, O. G. 1983. Geotechnical engineering,
London, Pitman.
Mahadevan, S. and Haldar, A. 1991. Practical random field discretization
in stochastic finite element analysis, Struct. Saf., 9, 283–304.
Matthies, G., Brenner, C., Bucher, C. and Guedes Soares, C. 1997.
Uncertainties in probabilistic numerical analysis of structures and
solids-stochastic finite elements, Struct. Saf., 19, (3), 283–336.
Rahman, S. and Rao, B. N. 2001. A perturbation method for stochastic
meshless analysis in elastostatics, Int. J. Num. Methods Eng., 50,
1969–1991.
Rajagopal, K. 1998. User’s manual for geotechnical finite element
modelling – GEOFEM, Chennai, India, Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras.
Ren, Y. J. and Elishakoff, I. 1998. New results in finite element method
for stochastic structures, Comput. Struct., 67, 125–135.
Righetti, G. and Harrop-Williams, K. 1988. Finite element analysis of
random soil media, J. Geotech. Eng., 114, (1), 59–75.
Sayed, S., Dodagoudar, G. R. and Rajagopal, K. 2008. Reliability
analysis of reinforced soil walls under static and seismic forces,
Geosynth. Int., 15, (4), 246–257.
Shinozuka, M. and Dasgupta, G. 1988. Neumann expansion for
stochastic finite element analysis, J. Eng. Mech., 114, (8), 1335–
1354.
Shinozuka, M. and Yamazaki, F. 1988. Stochastic finite element analysis:
an introduction, in Stochastic structural dynamics, (eds S. T.
Ariaratnam, G. Schueller and I. Elishakoff), 243–290, New York,
Elsevier Applied Science.
Sudret, B. and Der Kiureghian, A. 2000. Stochastic finite element
methods and reliability: a state-of-the-art report, Berkeley,
University of California.
Takada, T. 1991. Galerkin method to analyze systems with stochastic
flexural rigidity, Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on ‘Comp. Mech.’, 5112522,
London, Elsevier Applied Science.
Thurner, R. and Schweiger, H. F. 2000. Reliability analysis for
geotechnical problems via finite elements-a practical application.
Proc. GeoEng 2000 and Int. Conf. on ‘Geotech. Geol. Eng.’,
Melbourne, Australia, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vanmarcke, E. and Grigoriu, M. 1983. Stochastic finite element analysis
of simple beams, J. Eng. Mech., 109, (5), 1203–1214.
Vanmarcke, E., Shinozuka, M., Nakagiri, S., Schueller, G. I. and
Grigoriu, M. 1986. Random fields and stochastic finite elements,
Struct. Saf., 3, 143–166.
Wahls, H. E. 1994. Tolerable deformations, Geotechnical special
publication, Vol. 40, 161121628, New York, ASCE.
Yamazaki, F., Shinozuka, M. and Dasgupta, G. 1988. Neumann
expansion for stochastic finite element analysis, J. Eng. Mech.,
114, (8), 1335–1354.
Yuan, J. X., Yang, Y., Tham, L. G., Lee, P. K. K. and Tsai, Y. 2003. New
approach to limit equilibrium and reliability analysis of soil nailed
walls, Int. J. Geomech., 3, 145–151.
NO 000