Finite Element Analysis of Reinforce Earth Walls

Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No.
3, September (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

87
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED EARTH
WALLS

.

Heba D. Salim
Civil Engineer
Al- Mustansiriya University
Baghdad, Iraq.

Abstract
Reinforced earth has been applied for different types of load supporting and retaining
structures in more confidence throughout the world.
In this study, the finite element method is implemented and used to analyze reinforced
earth walls. The computer program SIGMA/W is used in the analysis of plane strain
problems. Eight node isoparametric elements are used to model the soil while structural
elements having nodes that match with the surrounding elements, are used to model the
reinforcement material.
A parametric study is carried out to investigatethe effect of different parameters on the
general behaviour of reinforced earth walls. These parameters include: the height of the
wall (H), length of reinforcement (L) and external loads (static and cyclic). Three different
heights were tried (3, 5, 7) m and three value of load (q) were used (5, 20, 50) kN/m.
It was found that the wall with small height (3 m) tends to translate and overturn about
its foundation to the out, while the walls with greater heights ( 5 m), translate to the out,
and the horizontal displacement increases with depth. It was also found that for all cases,
the maximum horizontal displacement is about (0.005 m) for each 1 m height of the wall.
It was also concluded that the distribution of lateral earth pressure in reinforced
embankments is always non-linear for all heights and under different loads applied at
different positions. For the wall of small height (3m), the maximum value of lateral
pressure is at the base of the wall as in Coulomb's theory, while at greater heights (5 and 7)
m, the maximum value takes place at about (0.1H) from the base of the wall.

Asst. Prof. Mohammed Y. Fattah
Building and Construction Eng.
Dept./University of Technology
Baghdad, Iraq
Dr. Mustafa A. Yousif
Civil Eng. Dept./College of Eng.,
Al- Mustansiriya University
Baghdad, Iraq
Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No. 3, September (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

88
a
,si . ,as _ 2,c 2t, _.3 2.mi , :..i J.:i _ 2a..m _i,. _ y..:i ii _=s.. .
2,.mi g., _=s.. , 2=..:i 2,,ii _ii _,.m _ :mi .si 2,h c,h 2.ii .e _ SIGMA/W _.. _,.m _
i _sa.xi g,..: . 2,mi 2,i _ :a. c _i 2,..xi .si c.=s.. =.,, 2,i _,t=. si 2,.Z .si c.=s.. ,
y,...i : _,t=. . 2=..:i 2,,ii _i. ,si r,..i _.c J9s :c .t. _c g=.. J9s 2.i c,,, . .e _=.. ,
9s:i J . ii _a.i ; H , y,...i _,h , ; L , 2,,mi _Yi , . _e i. Jca.i 2.9. c,, I , ; 3 , 5 , 7 , ,,I 9. , ,
_==. ; q , _e ; 5 , 20 , 50 , _.,,.,.,: , 2 .
_a.xi _,.I ii _ ,, I , ; 3 , , =.,, _mi _i , =.cI _,> _i,i , _..xi _i _, Jca.xi Ji _ii
_.cYi ; 5 , , ]=si 2,,.i 2>ixi ,i.. , ._mi _i _... . _,i 2,,.i 2>ixi _,:. Jxmi ,, _ =. , ,, =:
, ; 0.005 , , _: ; 1 , ii _a.i _ , . _ _.i _,ii asi ,,. _ _i , _,.i , =: =.i _,:, 2=..:i i.i
2a..m Ii, _ 2.. , 2a..m _ .t. cm , Jca.xi ,= , _> . _a., i. , ; 3 , as _,i 2=,i _ ,, ,
:Yi Jca.9 =.,, ,,: 2,a. _ =: :ci .c . _.i ii ; 5 , 7 , i 2=,i _,:. ., , _a.i .c _, ; 0.1
H , ii :cI _ .

1. Introduction

Reinforced earth in its modern phase, can be defined as a construction material,
composed of a soil fill limited to cohesionless free drainage materials, that is strong in
compression but weak in tension, and the reinforcing element which is relatively high tensile
strength material, placed at stipulated spacings, which supply the mass with the necessary
tension. Lastly, the facing element is usually non-structural element, acting as an outer
membrane to prevent the soil from sloughing (Change and Forsyth, 1977). The soil and
reinforcing element will interact by means of frictional resistance, and this results into stable
mass, that behaves monolithically and can be used as earth retention and load supporting
structure. The simplicity of the construction of reinforced earth was the reason of its rapid
spread and application with increasing confidence throughout the wourld (Mckittrick and
Darbin, 1979), the last decade has seen the rapid development in reinforced earth and its use
in civil engineering. Reinforced earth is really an attractive and economical answer to many
earth retention problems, associated with highway construction, such as retaining walls,
bridge abutments, platform supporting structures, foundation slabs, under water quay and sea
walls, dams sedimentation basins and tunnel linings...etc.
The best benefits of reinforced earth may be summarized, as follows:
1. A significant saving in cost can be achieved, compared with a conventional structure,
especially when pile foundation would otherwise be required.
2. The construction of reinforced earth structures can possibly take any desired shape,
and can be stopped at any stage in both horizontal and vertical directions.

89
3. More favourable distribution of load and differential settlements can bring about as a
result of flexibility of reinforced earth (Barclay, 1972).
4. It is quick and easy to construct, as well as repair and destroy.
The soil used in mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) structures is most often a granular
material referred to as Select Granular Backfill with a maximum of 15% fines and a
maximum size of four inches (100 mm), (Brabant, 2001).
Extensible geosynthetic reinforcements come in many different forms. The major types
include uniaxial and biaxial,, geogrids and woven and non-woven geotextiles. Extensile
reinforcements, by definition stretch, very often to the extent that the strain in the
reinforcement is greater than or equal to the soil mass, thus there is considerable, lateral
movement when extensible soil reinforcement are used, (Das et al., 2004).
Burke et al., (2004) conducted numerical simulation by using finite element procedure
on a full-scale model of geosynthetic reinforced soil structure. It was 2.8 m high and
constructed on a 20 cm thick soil foundation. It was subjected to Kobe earthquake motions
that were scaled to an acceleration amplitude of 0.4 g. In the analysis, the block facing and at
the boundaries were modelled as linear elastic materials. The geosynthetic reinforcement was
modelled using a bounding surface model of power hardening functions, and the backfill and
foundation soil were modelled using a generalized plasticity model. The analysis was
conducted under two-dimensional plane strain conditions using a modified version of Diana-
Swandyne-II software. The analysis results were very close to the experimental results,
although the displacement of bottom blocks at the end of shaking seems to give a higher value
than the experimental results, and it was concluded that the largest settlement in the analysis
occurs behined the reinforced zone.

2. REINFORCED EARTH WALLS - PARAMETRIC STUDY

In this paper, some parameters are varied through their reasonable ranges in order to
establish their importance and effect on the horizontal displacement and lateral pressure of
reinforced earth walls. The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of height of the wall
(H), length of reinforcement (L) and external loads on both the horizontal displacement and
lateral earth pressure and to find the suitable distance to subject these loads from the wall.

3. Description of the Numerical Model
In order to investigate the effect of height of wall, length of reinforcement and external loads,
the problem is analyzed numerically using the finite element computer program (SIGMA/W).
The geometry of the model and the properties of the materials used are described in the next
paragraphs.


90

4. Features and Capabilities of the Finite Element Program Used

GEO-SLOPE provides several geotechnical and geo-environmental engineering software
products. One of these products is SIGMA/W that is used in this work.
SIGMA/W is a general finite element software product for stress and deformation analyses
of geotechnical engineering structures. The followings are some typical cases that can be
analyzed using SIGMA/W.
Deformation Analysis
The most common application of SIGMA/W is to compute deformations caused by
earthworks such as foundations, embankments, excavations and tunnels.
Embankment / Excavation Construction
In this program, finite elements can be added or removed from the finite element mesh to
simulate the construction of fill placement or excavation. Elements to be activated or
deactivated can be identified at various stages, making it possible to simulate the process over
time.
Excess Pore-Water Pressures
The effect of excess pore-water pressures generated during fill placement or foundation
construction is often a major consideration in slope stability during construction. SIGMA/W
can be used to estimate these types of pore-water pressures.
Constitutive Relations
SIGMA/W is formulated for several elastic and elasto-plastic constitutive soil models. All
models may be applied to two-dimensional plane strain and ax symmetric problems. The
supported constitutive models are: Linear-elastic, Anisotropic Linear-Elastic, Nonlinear
Elastic (hyperbolic), Elastic-Plastic (Mohr-Coulomb or Tresca), Strain Softening, Slip-
Surface, Cam-Clay and Modified Cam-Clay. Effective stress parameters for analyses of
drained soils can be used, or total stress parameters for undrained soils, can be used.
The isoparametric quadrilateral and triangular finite elements are not the only type of
elements that the program has supported, an infinite element and structural elements can also
be used. The elements can be added or removed in stages in order to simulate the construction
and excavation of embankment, (SIGMA/W, Version 5, 2002).

Model Geometry
The geometry of the model problem is shown in Figure (1), while the typical finite
element mesh utilized to discretize the model of reinforced earth wall is shown in Figure (2).
The mesh consists of two-dimensional 8-noded isoparametric quadrilateral plane strain
elements. The reinforcement material is modelled using structural elements having nodes that
match with the surrounding elements.
The depth of the soil foundation (Hc) is kept equal to (6 m) and the level of water table
is kept at the surface of the soil foundation. Due to symmetry, only one half of the problem is
modelled, (Salim, 2007).

91
10 m 20 m
6

m
H
L
Sv = 0.25 m, Sh = 1 m
Sand
Clay
Geogrid Layers
X
q kN/m2
3 m
The right edge and the center line of the mesh are prevented from horizontal movement
by means of horizontal rollers, while the bottom edge is prevented from both horizontal and
vertical movements.

Material Properties

The modified Cam clay model is used to describe the behaviour of the soil foundation
(clay), and the hyperbolic model is used to describe the behaviour of the soil behind the wall
(sand), while the reinforcement material is assumed to behave elastically which has elastic
modulus (E) = 4000000 kPa and thickness = 4 mm, (Giannelis, 1996).
The material properties required for the constitutive relationship of the foundation soil and
granular soil of the wall are given in Table (1).
The properties of the cohesive soil of the foundation are adopted from the work of Kamal,
et al., (2005), while the properties of the wall granular material are adopted from the work of
Ketchart and Wu (2001).

Figure (1): Model Geometry of Reinforced Earth Wall.

Reinforcement
Layers
Sand

92

F
i
g
u
r
e

(
2
)
:

T
y
p
i
c
a
l

F
i
n
i
t
e

E
l
e
m
e
n
t

M
e
s
h

o
f

R
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d

E
a
r
t
h

W
a
l
l
.

C
.
L
.


93
Table (1): Material Properties for the Foundation Soil and Soil of the Earth
Wall.
Material Properties of Sand
(from Ketchart and Wu, 2001)
Material Properties of Clay
(from Kamal et al., 2005)
Soil Property Value Soil Property Value
(kN/m)
3

16.8 0.25
(degree) 40 0.05
c (kN/m
2
)
0 e
S C
2.44
E (kPa) 60000 M
S C
0.9
K 350
(kN/m
3
)
15.5
N 0.5 k
h
(m/day) 1.72810
4

0.35 k
V
(m/day) 1.72810
4

R
f
0.7 _ _

where:
= Slope of the normal consolidation line,
= Slope of the swelling line,
e
S C
= Specific volume when p is equal to 1.0,
M
S C
= Slope of the critical state line,
k
h
= Horizontal coefficient of permeability,
k
V
= Vertical coefficient of permeability.

5. Results and Discussion
Effect of the Height of the Wall (H)

In this study, three different heights of the wall are used, (3, 5, 7) m. Figure (3) shows
the relationship between the displacement ratio (S/H) (horizontal displacement over the height
of the wall) and the elevation of the wall. In these figures, the length of reinforcement is
considered to be equal to height of the wall. It can be noticed from this figure that the
maximum value of S/H is (0.564 %) at the height of 7 m, and it can be said that the maximum
horizontal displacement is approximately (0.005) m for each 1 meter from the wall. The
maximum values of S/H for (5 and 7) m height take place at the toe of the wall, while at 3 m
height, it is noticed that the maximum displacement occurs at the top of the wall. This means
that the wall with small height (3 m) tends to translate and overturn about its foundation to the
right, while the walls with greater heights translate to the right and the displacement increases
linearly with depth due to the increase of the active earth pressure. Table (2) gives the
maximum value of S/H for each height.

94
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
S/H %
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m
H=5 m
H=7 m

Figure (3): Effect of Wall Height on the Horizontal Displacement.

Table (2): Maximum Horizontal Displacement for Different Heights of the Wall.
Wall Height (m) Max. Value of S/H %
3
5
7
0.505
0.429
0.564

Figure (4) shows the relationship between the lateral stress ratio (LSR) (lateral earth
pressure (Pa)/H) and the elevation of the wall. It can be noticed that the distribution of the
lateral pressure is non-linear for all heights, the pressure increases with depth. The maximum
lateral earth pressure for walls with (H >3m) does not take place at the base of the wall, as
indicated by Rankine and Coulomb theories, but at an elevation of about (0.1H). This
conclusion agrees with that found by Salman (2006) for cantilever retaining walls.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m
H=5 m
H=7 m

Figure (4): Effect of Wall Height on the Distripution of Pressure behined the
Wall.


95
Effect of the Length of the Reinforcement Strips (L)
To study the effect of length of the strips (L) on horizontal displacement and lateral
earth pressure of the wall, three values of length are used, as below:
L = H cot (45+
2
) = 0.47H at = 40
O
.
L = 0.8 H
L = H
According to the classical theories of soil mechanics, the failure plane is assumed to be
inclined at ( = 45+/2) to the horizontal (Terzaghi, Peck and Mesri, 1996), therefore the
distance between the wall and the intersection of the slip surface with the ground is equal to
(Distance = H cot (45+/2)). At =40
O
, Distance = 0.47H, as taken in this section.
The effect of strip length on S/H and LSR can be observed in Figures (5) to (10). It is
noticed that S/H decreases as the length of the strip is increased and the best function of the
wall can be obtained when L=H. These results are similar to those obtained by Smith and Pole
(1980) (Length of reinforcing elements 0.8H). It can be noticed that increasing the length of
reinforcement bar from (L=0.47H to L=H), decreases the value of the maximum lateral
displacement for each height in the order of about 18% at the base of the wall because the
reinforcement will carry greater values of the pressure. Figures (8) to (10) show the
relationship between the LSR and the extension of reinforcement. It is noticed that the length
of strip has limited effect on the values of lateral stresses.

0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
S/H %
6
7
8
9
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m
L=0.47H
L=0.8H
L=H

Figure (5): Effect of Reinforcement Bar Length on Distribution of
Displacement along the Wall, (H = 3 m).

96
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
S/H %
6
7
8
9
10
11
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=5 m
L=0.47H
L=0.8H
L=H

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
S/H %
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=7 m
L=0.47H
L=0.8H
L=H

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
LSR
6
7
8
9
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m
L=0.47H
L=0.8H
L=H

Figure (8): Effect of Reinforcement Bar Length on Distribution of Lateral
Stress behind the Wall, (H = 3 m).

97
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=5 m
L=0.47H
L=0.8H
L=H

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=7 m
L=0.47H
L=0.8H
L=H


Effect of External Loads
a. Distributed Load (q)
In order to study the effect of static load, three different values of load (5, 20, and 50)
kN/m
2
are distributed over 3 m and applied at different distances from the wall (X) which is
chosen as below, the length of reinforcement (L) is chosen as equal to 0.8H.
X=0
X=H/3
X=H/2
X=H


98
I. The Effect of (q) on the Lateral Displacement
All the figures in this section draw the relationship between S/H and the elevation of
wall for four values of (X) and for each load applied.
Figures (11) to (13) show the relationships for the wall of 3 m height. It can be noticed
from these figures that S/H at top of the wall decreases as the load is applied far away from
the wall. When the load is applied directly behind the wall (X=0), the wall tends to rotate
about a point. This rotation decreases as the location of the load from the wall (X) increases.
The rotation of the wall is found to be about a point located approximately at mid height of
the wall. The rotation increases due to the increase of the moment about the base because the
arm of the force increases as the load is applied far away from the wall.
The same behaviour is noticed for all values of the load (q), but as the load decreases the
wall rotation increases. Figures (14) to (16) show the relationship for the wall of 5 m height.
In this case, the behaviour differs from that of (3 m) height wall. When the applied load is
small (q=5 kN/m
2
), the wall also rotates, but towards the backfill behined it. The rotation
increases as the distance of the load (X) decreases. The point of rotation is also located at the
wall's mid height.
When the applied load is increased to (q=20 and 50 kN/m
2
), the wall rotation tends to
be outward the wall, and this rotation decreases as (X) increases.
Figures (17) to (19) show the relationship for the wall of 7 m height. When q=5 kN/m
2
, as
shown in Figure (17), it can be noticed that the behaviour is similar to that of Figure (14), but
without overturning for any value of (X), and with simple difference between the values of
S/H, the wall rotates about a point located at a point 3.5m from the base of wall (i.e. at H/2).
When the load is equal to 20 kN/m
2
as in Figure (18), S/H increases as (X) increases
with clear difference between the values of S/H, and the wall rotates about a point located at
height 3.5 m from the base of the wall (i.e. H/2).
When a load of 50 kN/m
2
is applied behind the wall, as shown in Figure (19), it can be
seen that the load at distance X=H gives the maximum value of S/H at the toe of the wall
whereas when the load is applied at other distances (X=0, H/3, H/2), S/H increases as the
distance increases and the wall tends to change its failure form at a point which is located at
3.5 m from the base of the wall. Table (3) gives the maximum values of S/H at each load
applied with different heights of the wall, and it can be noticed that the maximum effect of the
load on (S/H) occurs when a load of 50 kN/m
2
is applied at (X=0) from the wall (3 m) height.
The minimum effect occurs when a load of 5 kN/m
2
is at a distance (X=H) from the wall
(5 m) height. In the next figures, the positive sign for horizontal displacement means
movement to the right (out of the wall).


99
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
S/H %
6
7
8
9
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m, q=5 kN/m
X=0
X=H/3
X=H/2
X=H
2

Figure (11): Effect of External Load Applied at Different Distances from the
Wall on Distribution of Displacement, (H=3 m, q=5 kN/m
2
).

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
S/H %
6
7
8
9
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m, q=20 kN/m
X=0
X=H/3
X=H/2
X=H
2

2
).

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
S/H %
6
7
8
9
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m, q=50 kN/m
X=0
X=H/2
X=H
X=H/3
2

2
).

100
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
S/H %
6
7
8
9
10
11
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=5 m,q 5kN/m
X=0
X=H/3
X=H/2
X=H
2

2
).
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
S/H %
6
7
8
9
10
11
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=5 m, q=20 kN/m
X=0
X=H/3
X=H/2
X=H
2

2
).
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
S/H %
6
7
8
9
10
11
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=5 m, q=50 kN/m
X=0
X=H/3
X=H/2
X=H
2

2
).

101
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
S/H %
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=7 m, q=5 kN/m
X=0
X=H/3
X=H/2
X=H
2

Wall on Distribution of Displacement, (H=7m, q=5 kN/m
2
).
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
S/H %
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=7 m, q=20kN/m
X=0
X=H/3
X=H/2
X=H
2

2
).
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
S/H %
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=7 m, q=50 kN/m
X=0
X=H/2
X=H
X=H/3
2

2
).

102

Table (3): Values of the Maximum Displacement under Different Loads Applied
at Different Positions.
Height of wall (m) Load
(q) kN/m
2

S
/
H

%

3 5 7
1.93 at X=0 0.428 at X=H 0.574 at X=H 5
1.158 at X=0 0.551 at X=0 0.604 at X=H 20
2.19 at X=0 1.112 at X=0 0.671 at X=H 50

II. The Effect of (q) on the Lateral Pressure
The figures in this section draw the relationship between LSR and the elevation of the
wall. Figures (20) to (23) show the distribution of the lateral stress ratio along the wall height
under external surcharge loads applied at different positions from the wall back when
(H=3m). Figures (24) to (27) and Figures (28) to (31) show the distribution of stresses when
the heights of the wall are 5 m and 7 m, respectively.
It can be noticed that the distribution of the lateral earth pressure in reinforced
embankments is always non-linear for all heights and under different loads applied at different
positions.
The maximum value of LSR for small walls (H=3m) decreases as the load is applied at
larger distance (X). When the load (q) is applied at (X=0) for the wall of (H=3m), it is found
that when (q=20 kN/m
2
), the maximum LSR is obtained and even greater than the case when
(q=50 kN/m
2
), as shown in Figure (20). This can be understood when the wall rotation
argued in the previous section is studied which affects considerably the values of LSR.
For the case of (H=5 m), and the load located at (X=H/3), the greater surcharge load
(q=50 kN/m
2
) reveals the minimum LSR, as shown in Figure (25), for the same reason
discussed above.
When the height of the wall becomes (H=7 m), the effect of the external load value or its
position becomes unimportant. This is because the lateral pressure caused by the backfill soil
is greater than that caused by the surcharge.
Table (4) summarizes the maximum values of LSR with the value of (X) for walls of
different heights, and it is noticed from this table the critical value is (2.38) at X=0 and q=20
kN/m
2
for 3 m height, minimum value is (1.42) at X=H/3 and q=5 kN/m
2
for 3m height.


103
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
LSR
6
7
8
9
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m, X=0
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2

Figure (20): Effect of the Surcharge Load on Distribution of Lateral Pressure
behind the Wall, (H = 3 m, X = 0).

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
LSR
6
7
8
9
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m, X=H/3
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2

behind the Wall, (H = 3 m, X = H/3).
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
LSR
6
7
8
9
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m, X=H/2
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2


104
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
LSR
6
7
8
9
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=3 m, X=H
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2

behind the Wall, (H = 3 m, X = H).
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=5 m, X=0
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=5 m, X=H/3
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2


105
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=5 m, X=H/2
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
LSR
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=5 m, X=H
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=7 m, X=0
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2


106
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=7 m, X=H/3
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=7 m, X=H/2
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
LSR
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
H=7 m, X=H
q=5 kN/m
q=20 kN/m
q=50 kN/m
2
2
2



107
Table (4): Maximum Values of the Lateral Pressure under Different Loads
Applied at Different Locations.
The Elevation of Wall (m) The Load q
(kN/m
2
)

L
S
R

3 5 7
1.42 at X=H/3 1.9 at X=H/2 1.8 at all X 5
2.38 at X=0 1.75 at X=0 1.82 at all X 20
1.8 at X=H/2 1.9 at X=0 1.9 at all X 50

6. CONCLUSIONS
Through this study, the effect of several parameters is studied. The following
conclusions may be drawn:
1. The wall with small height (3 m) tends to translate and overturn about its foundation to
the out, while the walls with greater heights ( 5 m), translate to the out and the
horizontal displacement increases with depth. It was found that for all cases, the
maximum horizontal displacement is about (0.005 m) for each 1 m height of the wall.
2. The increase in the length of reinforcement bar from (L = 0.47H to L = H) has the
same effect on the maximum lateral displacement for all heights of the wall, and a
decrease in the maximum value of the horizontal displacement ratio (S/H) of the order
of about 18% is noticed for three cases when (L) is increased from (0.47 H to H).
3. The distribution of lateral earth pressure in reinforced embankments is always non-
linear for all heights and under different loads applied at different positions. For the
wall of small height (3 m), the maximum value of lateral pressure is at the base of the
wall as in Coulomb's theory, while at greater heights (5 and 7) m, the maximum value
takes place at about (0.1H) from the base of the wall.
4. When the height of the wall is small (3 m), and when the wall is subjected to applied
loads, the horizontal displacement at the top of the wall decreases as the load is
applied far away from the wall. When the load is applied directly behined the wall, the
wall tends to rotate about a point located approximately at mid-height of the wall.
When the height of the wall is large ( 5 m), the rotation of the wall depends on the
magnitude of the applied load and the point of rotation is also located at the wall's
mid-height. When the wall is high (7 m), the largest effect of the external load is when
the load is applied at a distance (X=H).

7. REFERENCES

1. Barclay, M., (1972); "Reinforced Earth: Back to the Grass Roots", New Civil
Engineer, Vol. 9.

108
2. Brabant, K., (2001);"Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls for Support of
Highway Bridges", Advanced Foundation Engineering UMASS Lowell-Course
No. 14.533.
3. Burke, C., Ling, H. I. and Lin, H., (2004); "Seismic Response Analysis of a
Full-Scale Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall", 17
th
ASCE Engineering
Mechanics Conference, June 13-16, 2004, University of Delaware, Newark,
DE.
4. Change, J. C. and Forsyth, R. A., (1977); "Design and Field Behaviour of
Reinforced Earth Wall", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
Proc. ASCE, Vol. 103, No. GT 7, p.p. 677-692.
5. Das, B. M., Omar, M. T., and Shin, E. C., (2004); "Development on the
Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundation on Geogrid-Reinforced Soil",
International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, University of Al-
Sharjah, Key Not Lucture, p.p.20-48.
6. Giannelis, E. P., (1996); "Materials by Design", Report Submitted to
Department of Materials Science and Engineering in Cornell University.
7. Kamal, A. A. A., Lane, P. A., and Heshmati, A. A. R., (2005); "Parametric
Study of Reinforced and Unreinforced Embankment on Soft Soil", 13
th

ACME Conference, University of Sheffield March, 21-25.
8. Ketchart, K. and Wu, J. T. H., (2001); "Performance Test for Geosynthetic
Reinforced Soil Including Effect of Preloading", Report Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
9. Mckittrick, D. P. and Darbin, M., (1979); "World- Wide Development and Use
of Reinforced Earth Structures", Ground Engineering, Vol. 12, No.2, p.p. 15-
21.
10. Salim, H. D., (2007); "Finite Element Method for Reinforced Earth
Technology", M.Sc. thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Al-Mustansiriya
University, Baghdad.
11. Salman, F. A., (2006); "Behavior of a Wall-Soil System Using the Finite
Element Method ", Ph. D. Thesis, University of Baghdad.
12. SIGMA/W, Version 5, 2002, for Finite Element Stress and Deformation
Analysis, User's Guide, Geo-Slope International Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
13. Smith, G. N. and Pole, E. L., (1980); "Elements of Foundation Design", ISBN
0-246-11429-0.
14. Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G., (1996); "Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice", Third edition, Jone Wiley and Sons.

Finite Element Analysis of Reinforce Earth Walls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finite Element Analysis of Reinforce Earth Walls

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finite Element Analysis of Reinforce Earth Walls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Engineering and Development, Vol. 13, No.

3, September (2009) ISSN 1813-7822

You might also like