See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/337906516

Analysis of Mechanically Stabilised Earth (MSE) Retaining Wall using Finite

Element and AASHTO Methods

Article  in  Journal of Engineering Technology · March 2018

CITATION READS

1 409

5 authors, including:

Anand Hulagabali C. H. Solanki

The National Institute of Engineering, Mysore Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology
18 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   231 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

G. R. Dodagoudar
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
109 PUBLICATIONS   839 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Application of Classes of Constitutive models for Geomechanics Problem View project

Offshore wind turbine View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anand Hulagabali on 02 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

Analysis of Mechanically Stabilised Earth (MSE) Retaining Wall using Finite

Element and AASHTO Methods

A M Hulagabali1, C H Solanki2, G R Dodagoudar3, S S Konnur4, M P Shettar5

1,2
Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat, India
3
Civil Engineering Department, IIT Madras, Chennai, India
4
Civil Engineering Department, BGMIT, Mudhol, India
5
Civil Engineering Department, Wollega University, Nekemte, Ethiopia
1
Correspanding Author

Abstract:. Introduction. For the quick and accurate analysis and design of MSE walls, many methods are
available. Some of the standard methods are as follows: analytical method of analyses which include the BS,
FHWA-NHI, AASHTO recommendations, Limit equilibrium analysis (Bishop’s, Spencer, Janbu etc.), Finite
element (FE) analysis using computer programs like PLAXIS, GEO5, GEOSTASE etc. and finite difference
analysis using computer programs such as FLAC 2D. As per the review of literature, the finite element and
finite difference methods of analysis are more accurate and convenient than the analytical, limit equilibrium
and other methods. Discrepancies in analytical and limit equilibrium methods are due to different underlying
assumptions associated with these methods and different standards of recommendations. Methodology. The
present study is focused on parametric sensitivity analysis of MSE walls using a numerical model, which uses
the finite element method (FEM) to determine the factors of safety of the wall and its comparison with the
analytical methods. The finite element computer program, GEO5 FEM is used to develop the numerical model
and the GEO5 MSE (as per AASHTO) is used for the analytical method. The MSE walls have been analysed
for horizontal and vertical movements with respect to length of the reinforcement. External stability analyses
have also been carried out for the overturning, sliding and bearing capacity, for three different soil types.
Geogrid reinforcements are checked for the factor of safety with respect to pullout resistance and tensile
strength and against the height of the wall for three different backfill soils. The global factors of safety
obtained from the FEM and AASHTO method for three different soils with different lengths of the
reinforcement are compared with each other. Results and Conclusions. The study shows, horizontal and vertical
movements of MSE wall decreases, as the length of the reinforcement increases. Also, from this study it is found that, as
the length of the reinforcement, cohesion and angle of internal friction increases the FOS for internal, external and global
stability increases. From the results of analytical analysis, Factor of safety for pullout resistance and tensile strength
increases as the height of the wall increases. From FEM and AASHTO methods, FEM gives little higher factor of safety
than AASHTO method. This is because of discretization of single structure in to number of nodes, element and regions.
So, it gives more convenient results than other methods. Based on the comparison, it is noted that both the analyses have
provided the acceptable range of safety values and are in good agreement.
Keywords: MSE retaining wall, Reinforcement, Finite element analysis (FEA), Analytical method,
Stability, Wall movement, Factor of safety.
 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

1. Introduction
Reinforced Earth.
Soil is a most widely used construction material, which is strong in compression and very weak in
tension and similarly the steel is widely used as reinforcing material in almost of all civil engineering
infrastructure projects which is very strong in tensile strength. Hence the combination of both these soil
and reinforcement will a very good engineering property than properties of an individual materials. So,
by observing all the above conditions a French engineer Henry Vidal proposed a theory called
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) in the year 1963. Later at the invitation of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA-NH-10-024), reinforced earth structures with their inextensible (steel)
reinforcements were introduced in the United States in 1971 [1]. Basically, reinforced soil section has
two components which are earth/soil and reinforcement with different properties but basic concept is
that the embedded reinforcement in soil provides tensile strength to the soil it is because of higher
stiffness of the reinforcement. The basic mechanism of MSE is, while reinforcement is in the soil
system the friction is formed between them and due to this friction soil movement is hold on the surface
of reinforcement and then the shear stress is developed which produces tension in reinforcement which
leads to confinement to the soil and results in decrease in soil deformation and increase in shear
strength of the soil.

Design of MSE Wall

The design of MSE retaining structure mainly involves the following basic and important
components, which are backfill, retained fill, foundation soil, reinforcing material, facing panels if required.
Some of the recommended properties by AASHTO, FHWA, NCMA and BS are, length of the reinforcement
should be less than or equal to 0.6 to 0.7 times of height of the wall, backfill material should be free draining
and should not contain any organic substances. Generally the backfill used in MSE structure is critical to their
overall performance so to meet the performance requirements, MSE structure backfill is specified by
AASHTO, FHWA, NCMA and BS are as granular material with a 100 mm maximum size and less than 15 %
fines with assumed unit weight of 20 kN/m3 and maximum friction angle is of 340 similarly retained fill with
unit weight of 20 kN/m3 and maximum friction angle of 300 and foundation soil with maximum friction angle
of 300 are preferred [1]. The reinforcements used in design are metallic strips, geogrids, wire grids etc and
facing panels are provided to prevent erosion of soil at the face of the wall which are of different types and
sizes. The design of a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall includes analysis of internal,
external and global stabilities as well as horizontal and vertical wall movements [2]. In these three parameters,
the internal stability of MSE wall by means of pullout resistance and tensile strength of the reinforcement
mainly depends on type of reinforcement, spacing and length of the reinforcement. Similarly, the external
stabilities by means of failure modes such as sliding, overturning, wall bearing and global stability failure.
Hence these both internal and external failure modes are considered as slope failure through sliding surfaces,
and the overall stability of an MSE wall can be determined by using slope stability analysis.

Review on Numerical and Analytical studies

Some of the important previous studies related to numerical and analytical analysis of MSE wall are
discussed here. Adis Skejic et al. (2013) conducted experimental test of MSE wall under applied over burden
load to examine the behavior of MSE wall with inextensible inclusions. Results were in good agreement with
measured values obtained on the test wall using FEM programme PLAXIS. Results were compared with test
wall and observed that the mismatch between measured and predicted horizontal displacements in first phase
 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

of surcharge load application because of inadequate soil constitutive model [3]. Golam Kibria, et al. (2014)
conducted a series of numerical analysis tests on a MSE retaining wall to simulate the horizontal movement
and stability of the MSE wall using FEM programme PLAXIS- 2D. From test results, understood that the
horizontal displacement of wall is decreased and stability is increased with an increase in reinforcement
stiffness, length and friction angle of backfill soil at a fixed wall height [6].

Key Importance of the study

MSE walls are more economical than conventional retaining wall. During earthquakes, these walls are
more sustainable because of their flexibility. In recent years, many MSE wall failure cases have been observed
because of insufficient knowledge about wall design and analysis. So, it is very important to understand the
behavior of MSE wall with respect to various aspects, such as internal and external stability analysis. With
this aim, present study is carried out to analyze the behavior of MSE wall for reinforcement lengths and
backfill soil properties. The wall deformations, factor of safety checks are determined which are very much
essential for wall analysis. Before, planning this kind of structure, one can do systematic analysis based on the
present study.

Impact/Benefit of the study

Analysis of MSE wall using different methods help wall designers, to decide the dimensions and
properties of wall. With proper analysis of wall, one can predict its behavior in advance for different
properties of backfill soil and reinforcements. Failures of MSE walls can be minimized tremendously by this
kind of analyses.

2 Analysis of MSE Wall Using Finite Element and AASHTO Method

2.1 Numerical Modelling Using GEO5 FEM

This section deals with the parametric study of a 4-m height MSE retaining wall. The wall is modelled using
finite element programme GEO FEM for three different types of soils and three different lengths of
reinforcements. Wall geometry and properties of soils as well as details of reinforcements are given in Table 1
and 2. A 4-meter height MSE wall is completely analysed using finite element method. In the finite element
analysis, the MSE wall is discretized into 1678 nodes and 1004 elements (448 regions, 139 beams, 417
interfaces) as shown in Figure 1. The results obtained from FE analysis are vertical and horizontal wall
movements and over all factor of safety of wall.
 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

Figure. 1. Discretized MSE wall (Meshing)

Table 1. Geometry of wall
Sl No Properties Values

1 Height of the wall 4

Modular concrete
2 Type of facing panels
blocks

3 Number of facing panels 20

4 Width of facing panels 0.5

5 Height of facing panels 0.2

6 Offset for facing panels 0.05

7 Height of foundation 0.5

8 Width of foundation 1.5

9 Offset for foundation 0.5

 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

Table 2. Properties of different soil and reinforcement

SI No Properties Soil - 1 Soil - 2 Soil - 3

1 Soil type (for both backfill and foundation soils) Silty - Gravel Clayey-Gravel Clayey-Gravel

2 Unit weight (kN/m3) 20 21 22

3 Cohesion (kPa) 10 12 14

4 Angle of internal friction 300 320 34

5 Angle of friction soil-structure 100 80 100

6 Saturated unit weight (kN/m3) 20 21 22

UDL on UDL on
7 Type surcharge UDL on Surface
Surface Surface

8 Magnitude of surcharge (kN/m2) 40 40 40

9 Type of reinforcement Geogrid Geogrid Geogrid

10 Length of reinforcement (meters) 2.8, 3, 3.5 2.8, 3, 3.5 2.8, 3, 3.5

Results and Summary

In this section, results of completely analysed MSE wall are summarised. A 4-meter height wall is modelled
for three types of soils and with three different lengths of reinforcements. Figure 2 and 3, shows the Finite
Element model of MSE wall subjected to horizontal and vertical movement, for a soil type-1, with length of
reinforcement as 2.8m.

Figure. 2. Horizontal wall movement for soil-1, L= 2.8 m

 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

Figure. 3. Vertical wall movement for soil -1, L= 2.8 m

For type-1 soil maximum horizontal wall movements for reinforcement lengths 2.8, 3, 3.5 meters are 0.416,
0.308, 0.308 meters respectively and vertical wall movements are 0.405, 0.338, 0.338 meters respectively
(shown in Figure. 4) and factor of safety for same soil and reinforcements are 1.57, 1.63, 1.71 respectively.

Figure. 4. Horizontal and Vertical wall movement for soil type-1

 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

and for type-2 soil maximum horizontal wall movements for reinforcement lengths 2.8, 3, 3.5 meters are
0.318, 0.282, 0.075 meters respectively and vertical wall movements are 0.324, 0.308, 0.160 meters
respectively (shown in Figure. 5) and factor of safety for same soil and reinforcements are 1.74, 1.74, 1.86
respectively.

Figure. 5. Horizontal and Vertical wall movement for soil type-2

Similarly, for type-3 soil, maximum horizontal walls movements for reinforcement lengths 2.8, 3, 3.5 meters
are 0.190, 0.136, 0.134 meters respectively and vertical wall movements are 0.262, 0.194, 0.194 meters
respectively (shown in Figure.6) and factor of safety for same soil and reinforcements are 1.85, 1.85, 2.1
respectively. All the results show that, the movement will be decreases as the length of reinforcement
increases with increase in cohesion, angle of internal friction and length of reinforcement. These results were
compared with analytical method.

Figure. 6. Horizontal and Vertical wall movement for soil type-3

 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

2.2 Analytical Analysis Using GEO5 MSE (AASHTO method)

The 4-meter height MSE retaining wall is modelled using AASHTO recommendation programme GEO MSE
for three different types of soils and three different lengths of reinforcements. Internal and external stabilities
are calculated by AASHTO extensible recommendation (Straight slip surface) and wall verification is done by
allowable stress design (shown in Figure. 7).

Figure. 7. MSE Wall Geometry

Results and Summary:

MSE wall is completely analysed using analytical method. The analysis is carried for three different soils with
three different lengths of reinforcements. The results generated from GEO5 MSE (AASHTO method) analysis
are represented. Factor of safety obtained with respect to overturning, sliding and bearing capacity against
length of three different reinforcements for different soils have been analysed. (shown in Figure. 8 a, b, c).

(a) (b)
 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

(c)
Figure. 8. a, b, c. External Stability Checks for Soil 1, 2 and 3

Further, reinforcements were checked for factor of safety with respect to pullout resistance and tensile
strength against height of the wall, for all three different backfill soils (shown in Figure. 9 a, b, c and 10).

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure. 9 a, b, c. FOS Against Pullout Resistance for Soil 1, 2 and 3
 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

Soil-1
Soil-2
100
Soil-3

80

FoS of tensile Strength

60

40

20

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Height of the Wall (m)

Figure. 10. Comparison of Factor of Safeties against tensile strength for three different soils

3. Comparison of Numerical and Analytical Solutions

Factor of safety with respect to global stability obtained from GEO5 FEM are compared with analytical
method results from GEO5 MSE. Compared results are shown Figure. 11.

Figure. 11. Comparison of Global Factor of safeties obtained from FEM and AASHTO
In this part the global stability of numerical method and analytical methods are compared with each other. In
both the cases wall is analyzed for three different types of soils (soil-1, soil-2, soil-3) with three different
lengths of reinforcements (2.8m, 3m, 3.5m) for each soil. While observing all the comparisons it shows that in
almost all conditions the stability of numerical analysis shows little higher results than analytical. This is
because, in finite element analysis, a single structure is discretized into number of nodes, regions and elements
and the displacements and stresses are calculated at each node, region and elements, so the results are more
accurate in numerical analysis.
 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

4 Conclusion
 The present study shows the results of numerical (GEO5 FEM) method and analytical (GEO5 MSE)
method and comparisons between numerical and analytical methods. In which, analyzed values from both
methods are in well acceptable ranges and are in good agreement.
 From the numerical modeling, it is clear that horizontal and vertical movements of MSE wall decreases,
as the length of the reinforcement increases.
 Also, the study shows the effect of soil and reinforcements on stability of mechanically stabilized earth
retaining wall. From this study it is found that, as the length of the reinforcement, cohesion and angle of
internal friction increases the FOS for internal, external and global stability increases.
 From the results of analytical analysis, Factor of safety for pullout resistance and tensile strength increases
as the height of the wall increases.
 From FEM and AASHTO methods, FEM gives little higher factor of safety than AASHTO method. This
is because of discretization of single structure in to number of nodes, element and regions. So, it gives
more convenient results than other methods.
References
[1] Aaron S. Budge, James A Bay, Loren R Anderson (2006), “Calibrating Vertical Deformations in a
Finite Elemental model of an MSE wall”, GeoCongress 2006.

[2] Abdelkader Abdelouhab, Daniel Dias, Nicolas Freitag (2011), “Numerical analysis of the behavior of
mechanically stabilized earth walls reinforced with different types of strips”, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 29, 116-129.

[3] Adis Skejic, Anis Balic, Haris J, Namas, S Selman, Emir Karamehmedovic (2013), “Observation and
numerical modelling of test MSEW with inextensible inclusions and course crushed stone backfill”,
Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineers, Vol.18, Bund.

[4] Antonio Bobet (2002), “Design of MSE walls for fully saturated conditions”, Indot Research, Trb
Subject Code: 62-1 Foundation Soils, Publication No.: FHWA/In/Jtrp-2002/13, SPR-2405.

[5] D.V. Reddy, Frenando Navarrete. (2008), “Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Geogrid MSE
Walls”, From Research to Practice in Geotechnical Engineering Congress 2008.

[6] Golam Kibria, Md. Sahadat Hossain, and Mohammad Sadik Khan, (2014), “Influence of soil
reinforcement on horizontal displacement of MSE wall”, International Journal of Geomechanics ASCE,
14: 130-141.

[7] Jean-Baptiste Payeur, Alain Corfdir, Emmanuel Bourgeois (2015), “Dynamic behavior of a MSEW
under harmonic loading: Experimental characterization and 3D FE model”, Computers and Geotecnics
65, 199-211.

[8] Jie Han and Dov Leshchinsky (2010), “Analysis of back-to-back MSE walls”, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 28, 262-267.

[9] Jie Huang, Robert L Parsons, Jie Han. (2011), “Numerical analysis of a laterally loaded shaft
constructed within an MSE wall”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29, 233-2241.

[10] Koerner (1999), “Designing with geosynthetics-5th addition”, PEARSON publications upper saddle
river, New jersey.
 Journal of Engineering Technology
Vol. 6, Special Issue (Emerging Trends in Engineering Technology) Mar. 2018, PP. 139-150

[11] Omar A. M. Moudabel, Garry H Gregory, Xiaoming Yang, Stephen A Cross, (2014), “A Case Study of
MSE Wall Stability: Comparison of Limit Equilibrium and Numerical Methods”, Ground Improvement
and Geosynthetics GSP 238:464-470 ASCE 2014.

[12] Xue Jian-Feng Chen Jian. (2015), “Reinforcement strength reduction in FEM for mechanically
stabilized earth structures”, Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
2015.

[13] Yan Yu, Ivan P. Damians (2015), “Influence of choice of FLAC and PLAXIS interface models on
reinforced soil-structure interactions”, Computers and Geotechnics 65, 164-174.

[14] Yuhui Hu (2004), “Limited reinforced space in segmental retaining walls”, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 29, 233-2241.

View publication stats