Prediction of Field Behavior of Reinforced Soil Wall Using

Advanced Constitutive Model

Chandra S. Desai, F.ASCE,1 and Khaled E. El-Hoseiny2

Abstract: A geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall using full-height concrete wall facing panel was constructed at Tanque Verde
Road site for grade-separated interchanges in Tucson, Ariz. Numerical simulation of this wall was performed using a finite element code
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

called DSC-SST-2D. The program allows for plane strain, plane stress, and axisymmetric idealizations including simulation of construction
sequences. The wall was modeled as a plane strain, two-dimensional problem. Material parameters used in the analysis were obtained
from experimental results from conventional triaxial compression tests for backfill soils and cyclic multidegree-of-freedom shear tests for
interfaces. The soils and interfaces were modeled using the disturbed state concept and hierarchical single surface plasticity models, and
the geogrid reinforcement was simulated by a linear elastic model. The interfaces between the reinforcement layers and soil were modeled
using the thin layer element. The results of the finite element analysis were in good agreement with the measured field behavior of the
wall. Comparison involved vertical and lateral stress transferred to reinforcements and wall face movements. It was found that the use of
the unified constitutive model in a nonlinear finite element method provided satisfactory predictions for the field performance of the
Tensar geogrid reinforced soil wall.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1090-0241共2005兲131:6共729兲
CE Database subject headings: Walls; Soil structure; Geosynthetics; Finite element method; Constitutive models; Soils; Interfaces;
Predictions; Comparative studies.

Introduction In reality, reinforced soil walls represent a composite system

Reinforced soil retaining structures have been widely used be-
cause they offer economic benefits compared to conventional re-
taining systems 共Christopher et al. 1989; Rowe and Ho 1992;
FHWA 1997; Holtz et al. 1997; Bathurst and Hatami 1998;
Hatami et al. 2001兲. In designing reinforced soil structures, there
are two main approaches: limit equilibrium methods and numeri-
cal 共finite兲 element methods. The limit equilibrium-based ap-
proaches include two groups; force equilibrium analysis and
strain compatibility analysis. Numerous simple design methods
based on the consideration of limit equilibrium do not provide
information concerning deformations or stress distributions in ei-
ther the soil or the reinforcement 共Rowe and Ho 1992兲. Also,
boundary conditions as well as stress equilibrium at each point
within the reinforced mass and along the slippage surface are not
involved in the formulation of the conventional limiting equilib-
rium methods 共Leshchinsky 1992兲. Furthermore, as reported by
Wu 共1992兲, limit equilibrium methods underestimate the factor of
safety of two large-scale geosynthetic reinforced soil walls
involving granular and cohesive backfill.
1
Regents’ Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Engineering
Mechanics, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0072.
2
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Minufiya Univ., Minufiya,
Egypt.
Note. Discussion open until November 1, 2005. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on March 7, 2003; approved on August 26, 2004. This
paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 6, June 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/
2005/6-729–739/$25.00.
including the facing, backfill material, reinforcement, and foun-
dation. The performance of the reinforced soil wall will rely on
the interaction between its components and to a large extent, this
interaction will arise from relative motions at the interface be-
tween the soil and reinforcement. Also, relative strains and defor-
mations occur under working conditions. These requirements can
be established by the construction and monitoring of a large num-
ber of full-scale test walls. Unfortunately, the cost of performing
and suitable monitoring of a sufficiently large number of full-
scale walls can be so large that this is often not practical. To
overcome this, finite element analysis has been commonly em-
ployed for improved analysis and parametric studies. For per-
forming a realistic finite element analysis of a reinforced soil
structure, the computer procedure should have the capability of
modeling the construction sequences, structural elements 共i.e.,
bars and beams兲, soil elements, and interface elements that allow
nonlinear behavior and relative motions between the soil and re-
inforcement 共Collin 1986兲.
There are two different finite element techniques used in ana-
lytical modeling of reinforced soil structures: discrete approach
and composite approach. In the discrete approach, the reinforce-
ment system is considered as a heterogeneous body in which the
soil and reinforcing elements are separately represented by differ-
ent material properties. The important advantage of this type of
model is that detailed information is directly obtained about the
behavior of interface between the soil and the reinforcement, and
stress concentration in the soil due to reinforcing members. In
composite finite element analysis, the reinforced soil is character-
ized as a “homogeneous” composite structure with the properties
of the composite material 共Romstad et al. 1976; Herrmann et al.
1984; Wu and Lin 1991兲. Superimposition of the stiffness of the
soil and the reinforcement forms the composite element stiffness.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 729

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.

 There are several shortcomings associated with the composite
approach, e.g., information about the interaction between the soil
and reinforcement such as bond stresses, stress concentration in
the soil due to geometric discontinuities as a result of the presence
of reinforcement, and edge effect due to the local transfer of stress
between the soil and the reinforcement at the boundaries, are
usually not available. Therefore, in a composite finite element
analysis at the edge, the strains and forces in the reinforcements
are predicted to be larger than the actual measured values of the
structure, thus overestimating the effectiveness of the reinforce-
ment 共Romstad et al. 1976兲.
Numerical simulation of reinforced soil structures using finite
element analysis can account for the stress-deformation behavior
and relative motions between soil and reinforcement. The Good-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

man type zero-thickness interface element 共Goodman et al. 1968;

Gens et al. 1989兲 has been used to model the interface problem,
but it may not provide an accurate mechanism of deformation 共Yi
et al. 1995兲. Different researchers have reported numerical prob-
lems when using the zero thickness interface element. Desai et al.
共1984兲 found that the zero-thickness element approach may not
provide realistic modeling of the normal stress in soil–structure
interaction because it is difficult to obtain the appropriate and
high value for the normal stiffness. Furthermore, Day and Potts
共1994兲 reported that both ill conditioning of the stiffness matrix
and high stress gradients cause numerical instability. In this paper,
the thin-layer finite element model with the disturbed state con-
cept 共DSC兲 共Desai et al. 1984; Desai and Ma 1992; Desai 2001兲
have been used for modeling soil-geosynthetic behavior for the
mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall.
One of the important items that influence behavior of a rein-
forced wall is realistic constitutive models for soils and interfaces. Fig. 1. Locations of instruments for wall panel 26-32 共U.S. Dept. of
Such models should account for factors such as elastic, plastic, Transportation 1989兲 共1 ft= 0.305 m兲
and creep strains, microcracking leading to degradation and soft-
ening, and relative motions at interface. A main objective of this
paper is to use unified DSC models for soils and interfaces that ometries are reported by Berg et al. 共1986兲, Fishman et al. 共1991,
account for these factors, and yield improved predictions of the 1993兲, and Fishman and Desai 共1991兲; the latter presents a linear
field behavior. The DSC model used in this study does not include finite element analysis for the wall.
creep. The soil reinforcement used was Tensar’s SR2 structural geo-
grid; it is a uniaxial product that is manufactured from high-
density polyethylene stabilized with about 2.5% carbon black to
provide resistance to attack by ultraviolet light 共Pima County
Description of Wall Dept. of Transportation and Flood Control District 1986; U.S.
Dept. of Transportation 1989兲. It is reported to be resistant to
Between November 1984 and 1985, 43 geogrid-reinforced walls chemical substances normally existing in soils 共Fishman et al.
were constructed at the Tanque Verde Road site for grade- 1991兲. The geogrids have maximum tensile strength of 79 kN/ m
separated interchanges on the Tanque Verde-Wrightstown- 共5,400 lb/ ft兲 and a secant modulus in tension at 2% elongation of
Pantano Road project in Tucson, Ariz. This project represents the 1,094 kN/ m 共75,000 lb/ ft兲. The allowable long-term tensile
first use of geogrid reinforcement in mechanically stabilized earth strength based on creep considerations is reported to be 29 kN/ m
retaining walls in a major transportation-related application in 共1,986 lb/ ft兲 at 10% strain after 120 years. This value was re-
North America 共U.S. Dept. of Transportation 1989兲. In this study, duced by an overall factor of safety equal to 1.5 to compute a
the behavior of wall panel No. 26-32 is simulated using the finite long-term tensile strength equal to 19 kN/ m 共1,324 lb/ ft兲.
element method; this is one of the two-instrumented panels. The
wall system was considered as an alternative to a conventional
cantilevered retaining wall system or a reinforced earth retaining
wall system utilizing steel strips as reinforcement. The Tucson Numerical Modeling
wall height is 4.88 m 共16.0 ft兲. The reinforced soil mass was
faced with 15.24 cm 共6.0 in.兲 thick and 3.05 m 共10.0 ft兲 wide The numerical analysis of the reinforced soil wall was performed
precast reinforced concrete panels. Soil reinforced geogrids were using a finite element code called DSC-SST-2D developed by
mechanically connected to the concrete facing panels at elevation Desai 共1998兲. The program allows for plain strain, plain stress,
shown in Fig. 1, and extended to a length of 3.66 m 共12.0 ft兲. On and axisymmetric idealizations including simulation of construc-
the top of the wall fill, a pavement structure was constructed that tion sequences. Various constitutive models, elastic, elasto–plastic
consisted of 10.16 cm 共4.0 in.兲 base course covered by 24.13 cm 共Von Mises, Drucker–Prager, Mohr–Coulomb, Hoek–Brown,
共9.5 in.兲 of Portland cement concrete. Details of the various ge- Critical State, and Cap兲, hierarchical single surface 共HISS兲,

730 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Coarse and part of fine mesh
viscoelastic, plastic, and disturbance 共softening兲 can be chosen for
the analysis. The wall was modeled as a plane-strain, two-
dimensional problem for the finite element analysis. Since the
tensar reinforcement is continuous normal to the cross section,
共Fig. 1兲, the plane strain idealization is considered to be appropri-
ate. DSC-SST-2D uses the finite element approach and requires
material properties to explicitly model the soil, facing panels,
reinforcement layers, and the interfaces. The program was written
to allow incremental fill placement to be simulated 共i.e., rows of
elements added sequentially as fill placement兲.
Two finite element meshes, coarse and fine, were used. Fig.
2共a兲 shows the coarse mesh with 184 nodes and 167 elements
including 10 wall facing, 18 interface between soil and reinforce-
ment, and 9 bar 共for reinfircement兲 elements. In the coarse mesh,
only three layers of reinforcement were considered. The fine mesh
contained 1,188 nodes, and 1,370 elements including 480 inter-
face, 35 wall facing, and 250 bar elements; it contained 11 layers
as in the field. The properties of reinforcement in the coarse and
fine mesh were assumed to be the same. The fine mesh was con-
sidered to contain a great number of nodes and elements; hence,
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 731
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.
intermediate and finer meshes were not analyzed. The dimensions
for the fine mesh were the same as the coarse mesh; part of the
fine mesh near the reinforcement is shown in Fig. 2共b兲.
It was assumed that the relative motions between the backfill
and reinforcement have significant effect on the behavior. Hence,
interface elements were provided between backfill and reinforce-
ment. It was also assumed that the relative motions between wall
facing and backfill soil in this problem may not have significant
influence; hence, interface elements were not provided. This is
discussed later under Displacements. However, such relative mo-
tions can have influence, and in general, interface elements need
to be provided.
The meshes involved four-node quadrilateral elements for soil,
wall and interfaces, and one-dimensional elements for the rein-
forcement. As shown in Fig. 2共a兲, the nodal points at the bottom
boundary were fixed, and those on the side boundaries were fixed
only in the horizontal direction. The side boundaries were placed
at a distance of 2.5 times the length of the reinforcement, and the
bottom boundary was placed at a distance of 3.125 times the
height of the wall. Such distances and the assumed boundary
conditions are considered to approximately simulate the semi-
infinite extent of the system. These boundary conditions apply to
both coarse and fine meshes.
It was found that the fine mesh provided satisfactory and im-
proved predictions compared to those from the coarse mesh.
Hence, most of the results are presented for the fine mesh; how-
ever, typical comparisons from the coarse mesh are included to
show the improvement from the fine mesh.
Construction Simulation
The in situ stress was introduced in the foundation soil by adopt-
ing coefficient K0 = 0.4. Then the backfill was constructed into 11
layers 关Fig. 2共b兲兴, as was done in the field 共Fig. 1兲. The compacted
soil was included in each layer, and the reinforcement was placed
on a layer before the next layer was installed. The compacted soil
in a given layer was assigned the material parameters according
to the stress state induced after installing the layer. The comple-
tion of the sequences of construction is referred to as “end of
construction.” Then the surcharge load due to the traffic of 20 kPa
was applied uniformly on the top of the mesh, 共Fig. 2兲; this stage
is referred to as “after opening to traffic.” The concrete pavement
was not included in the mesh. However, since it can have an
influence on the behavior of the wall, in general, it is desirable to
include the pavement.
Materials Properties and Models
The properties of the materials used in the analysis were obtained
from experimental results from conventional triaxial compression
tests for soil backfill, and cyclic multidegree-of-freedom
共CYMDOF兲 shear tests for interfaces 共Desai and Rigby 1997兲.
The material models play a major role in any solution methods
such as the finite element analysis. So, it is very important to
adopt suitable material models for soil and interfaces.
Soil and Interface Modeling
The soil 共backfill, foundation, and retained fill兲 and the interfaces
between reinforcement and soil were modeled using the DSC,
which included the HISS plasticity model. Details of the DSC for
 Comparison of Predictions and Field Measurements

Vertical Soil Pressure

It was found that the results using the fine mesh provided im-
proved correlation with the field test data. Hence, most of the
results presented are for the fine mesh; typical results for vertical
stress are included to show the improvements from the fine mesh
compared to the results from the coarse mesh.
Figs. 3共a and b兲 show comparisons between computed vertical
soil stresses from coarse and fine mesh, respectively, at the
elevation= 1.53 m at the end of construction. Similar results after
opening to traffic are shown in Figs. 4共a and b兲. It is evident from
these figures that the results from the fine mesh show much im-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

proved correlation with the field data, compared to those from the
coarse mesh. Hence, from now on the results from the fine mesh
are presented and analyzed.
The measured and predicted vertical soil stress near the wall
face is generally less than the overburden value 共i.e., ␴v = ␥h,
where h = height to elevation= 1.53 m兲. This can be due to the
relative motions between the backfill and reinforcement. It is seen
that the vertical stress distribution along the reinforcement layer is
nonlinear. The vertical pressure increases in the zone away from
the facing panel until reaching a maximum value at a distance of
about 152 cm from the wall face. Thereafter, it shows a decrease.
Also, shown in Fig. 3 are the trapezoidal vertical stress distri-

Fig. 3. Comparisons between field measurements and predictions of

vertical soil stresses at elevation 1.53 m at end of construction

soils and interfaces are given in various publications 共Desai et al.

1984; Desai and Ma 1992; Desai 2001兲. Brief details of the mod-
els are given in the Appendix.
The DSC model offers a number of advantages compared to
other models such as nonlinear elastic 共e.g., hyperbolic兲, classical
plasticity 共e.g., von Mises, Drucker–Prager, and Mohr–Coulomb兲,
advanced plasticity 共e.g., critical and cap兲 and classical damage
共softening兲. For instance, it is capable of accounting for elastic,
plastic, and creep responses, microcracking leading to softening,
and fracture for both soils and interfaces with the same basic
framework. It is found to account for the foregoing factors in a
hierarchical manner, with smaller or the same number of param-
eters compared to other available models 共Desai 2001兲.

Testing and Parameters

A comprehensive series of triaxial tests were performed on the
soils. The shear tests on reinforcement–soil interfaces were per-
formed using the CYMDOF device. Details of the tests, typical
results, parameters, and validations for the DSC/HISS models for
soils and interfaces and for the facing and reinforcement are given Fig. 4. Comparison between field measurements and predictions of
in the Appendix. vertical stress at elevation 1.53 m, after opening to traffic

732 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Comparison of field measurements and predictions for
horizontal soil stress after opening to traffic
butions used in the design calculations. The predicted results from
finite element analysis agree well with the measured values, but
they are not in good agreement with the assumption of a linear
distribution of vertical pressure used for the tie-back wedge
analysis. This design assumption neglects interaction in the rein-
forced wall.
Fig. 6. Comparison between field measurements and predictions for
horizontal soil strains at elevation= 2.44 m
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 733
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.
Lareal Earth Pressure against Facing Panel
The distribution of lateral earth pressure on the wall facing was
measured based on the four pressure cells located at or near the
wall face, about 0.61, 1.22, 2.44, and 3.66 m distance from the
bottom of the wall. The earth pressure against the facing panel
was obtained in the finite element analysis from the horizontal
stress in the soil elements near the facing. This pressure distribu-
tion is useful for evaluating the magnitude of the stresses exerted
on the facing panels and the tension in the geogrid connection.
Fig. 5 shows the typical predicted and measured lateral soil pres-
sure behind the facing panel after opening to traffic, along with
the Rankine analysis. Predicted and measured horizontal soil
stresses agree very well. The design procedure assumes that no
significant lateral earth pressure should be transferred to the rein-
forcement. Except at the bottom of the wall, the low value of the
horizontal soil stress on the wall panel approximately confirms
this assumption.
Soil Strains
The predicted values of horizontal soil strains at elevation 2.44 m
from the finite element analysis are compared with field data in
Figs. 6共a and b兲. Figs. 7共a and b兲 display the predicted and the
measured distributions of vertical soil strains at elevation 1.08 m.
It can be seen that there is very good correlation between pre-
dicted and measured values.
Geogrid Strains
Measured and predicted reinforcement tensile strains at elevations
of 1.37 and 4.42 m are shown in Figs. 8共a and b兲. Agreement
between the measured and predicted values is considered very
Fig. 7. Comparison between field measurements and predictions for
vertical soil strains at elevation= 1.08 m

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Comparison between field measurements and predictions for
geogrid strains
good. The results demonstrate that tensile strains in the geogrids
are less than 0.4% corresponding to 4.4 kN/ m load in the geo-
grid. Comparison of this load to the maximum tensile strength of
the geogrid, which is 79 kN/ m, indicate that the grids are loaded
to about 6.0% of the ultimate strength.
Stress Carried by Geogrid
Fig. 9 shows a comparison between measured and predicted re-
sults at different elevations for horizontal stress in the geogrid
Fig. 9. Comparison of field measurements and predictions for
horizontal stress carried by geogrid near wall face
734 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.
near the wall face. The measurements are obtained from the strain
gages installed on the geogrid. The predicted geogrid stresses
compare well with the measurements.
Displacements
Fig. 10 shows predicted and measured wall movements. The cor-
relation is satisfactory near the lower heights of wall; however, it
is not satisfactory elsewhere. For example, near the top of the
wall the predicted value of about 42 mm is not in good agreement
with the measured value of about 76 mm. The finite element
analysis using the linear elastic model reported the maximum
displacement of about 30 mm 共Fishman and Desai 1991兲. With
the present nonlinear soil and interface models, the maximum
displacement increased to about 42 mm 共Fig. 10兲.
The main reason for the discrepancy is considered to be pos-
sible errors in the measurements. Since displacements of the wall
are important in design, it is desirable to obtain more accurate
measurements. It is believed that since other measurements com-
pare well with the predictions, the displacements from the finite
element prediction can be considered to be reasonable.
The magnitude of the maximum wall displacement ␦max can be
estimated from the following equation 共Christopher et al. 1989兲;
␦max = ␦r ⫻ H/75 共1兲
where ␦r = relative displacement found from the chart based on
L / H ratio; H = wall height; and L = reinforcement length. Accord-
ing to Eq. 共1兲, the ␦max ⬇ 60 mm, which also does not compare
well with the measured value of about 78 mm.
From Fig. 10, it can be seen that the wall rotates about the toe
of the wall. Also, the displacements of the wall and the soil
strains, 共Figs. 6 and 7兲 are not high. The maximum displacement
is about 1.5% with respect to the wall height. It appears from this
behavior that there is no significant relative motion between the
wall and soil for this problem. Hence, interface elements between
the wall and backfill soil were not included.
Fig. 10. Comparison between predicted and measured wall face
movement after opening to traffic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Triaxial test results for soil
Summary and Conclusions
The nonlinear finite element procedure with the unified and real-
istic DSC model is used to predict the field performance of a
Tensar reinforced wall. The DSC model parameters for soil and
interfaces are found based on comprehensive soil tests by using
triaxial testing and interface tests by using the CYMDOF shear
device. The measured behavior of the wall at the end of construc-
tion and after opening to traffic has been compared with the pre-
dictions from the finite element analysis with respect to lateral
stresses on the wall facing, soil strains, geogrid strains, horizontal
and vertical soil stresses, lateral stresses carried by geogrids, and
wall displacements. Overall, the realistic DSC model in nonlinear
finite element procedures provides very good correlations be-
tween measured and predicted results for all quantities, except the
wall displacements; comments regarding possible errors in mea-
surement of displacements are provided.
Acknowledgments
The financial support provided to Dr. K. E. El-Hoseiny by Men-
oufia University, Egypt, is gratefully acknowledged. Dr. A. F.
Youssef provided valuable guidance and support. The research on
the development of the CYMDOF device used herein was sup-
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 735
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.
ported, in part, by the National Science Foundation, Washington,
D.C., Grants Nos. CMS 9115316 and 9732811.
Appendix. Disturbed State Concept Model, Testing,
and Parameters
Disturbed State Concept
In the DSC, it is assumed that a material 共soil or interface兲 ele-
ment at any stage of loading is composed of the relative intact
共RI兲 and fully adjusted 共FA兲 parts. The basic incremental equation
is given by 共Desai 2001兲
d␴a = 共1 − D兲Cid␧i + DCcd␧c + dD(␴c − ␴i) 共2兲
where a, i, and c denote observed, RI, and FA responses, respec-
> i and C
tively; C > c denote constitutive matrices for RI and FA parts,
respectively; ␴> = stress vector; ␧> = strain vector; D denotes distur-
bance; and d denotes increment or rate.
The RI 共C > i兲 behavior can be modeled by using elastic 共linear
or nonlinear兲 and plasticity models. Here, it is simulated by using
the HISS plasticity model in which the yield function for soils is
given by
 F = J̄2D − 共− ␣J̄n1 + ␥J̄21兲共1 − ␤Sr兲−0.5 = 0
where J2D = second invariant of the deviatoric stress tensor; over-
bar denotes nondimensional with respect to pa, the atmospheric
pressure; J1 = first invariant of the stress tensor; Sr
= 共冑27/ 2兲J3D / J2D
−1.5
; J3D = third invariant of deviatoric stress ten-
sor; ␥ and ␤ = ultimate stress parameters; n is related to the state
from compressive to dilative volume change; and ␣ = hardening or
growth function given by
a1
␣=
␰ n1
where ␣1 and ␩1 = growth parameters; and ␰ = plastic strain trajec-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tory or total plastic strains.
For interfaces, the yield function is given by
Fi = ␶2 + ␣i␴nn − ␥␴2n = 0
where ␶ and ␴n = shear and normal stresses, respectively; ␥
= ultimate parameter; and ␰ 关Eq. 共4兲兴 = trajectory of plastic tangen-
tial and normal relative displacements.
The disturbance function is given by
Z interface behavior between the Tensar reinforcement and the
D = Du共1 − e −A␰D
兲 共6兲
where Du, A, and Z = disturbance 共softening parameters兲 and
␰Dtrajectory of deviatoric plastic strains.
Nonassociative Behavior
The behavior of soils and interfaces were found to be frictional
and nonassociative. Hence, modification in the hardening function
␣ to account for the nonassociative response introduced an addi-
tional parameter ␬ 共Desai 2001兲.
Laboratory Tests
Comprehensive series of triaxial, hydrostatic and shear tests were
performed for soils, and CYMDOF shear tests were performed
for interfaces between reinforcement and soil. Brief details and
typical results are presented below.
Soils
The soil 共backfill兲 samples were collected from the site. The soil
was classified as SP poorly graded or gravelly sand. The follow-
ing are the index properties: specific gravity= 2.64; D10 , D30 , D60
= 0.48, 1.00, 1.75 mm; emax = 0.71, emin = 0.37; ␥d max
= 18.84 kN/ m3; ␥d min = 15.35 kN/ mm3; ␥d共field兲 ⬇ 18.0 kN/ m3;
and optimum moisture content= 8.0%.
The soil sample 共71 mm diameter and 142 mm height兲 was
prepared by compacting it in a split model into six layers until the
desired initial density 共⬇18 kN/ m3兲 was obtained. The sample
was installed in the triaxial device and the initial confining stress
was applied. Then the deviatoric stress was applied with the strain
rate of about 0.03% per millimeter.
The triaxial shear tests including loading, unloading, and re-
loading were performed on the samples under different initial
normal stresses, ␴3 = 17.5, 35.0, 52.0, 70.0, 140.0, 210.0, 345.0,
and 420.0 kPa. The maximum confining pressure relates to the
approximate field pressure of about 480 kPa. Typical test results,
hydrostatic and triaxial shear 共␴3 = 35, 210, and 420 kPa兲, are
shown in Figs. 11共a–d兲.
736 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.
共3兲
共4兲
共5兲 Fig. 12. Configurations for interface layer at top and bottom
Interface Tests
The CYMDOF device 共Desai and Rigby 1997兲 was used to test
backfill soil under direct shear testing.
It should be noted that direct shear tests can simulate the in-
terface behavior approximately. The interface behavior is influ-
enced by complex interaction and interlocking of grains around
the grid openings 共Jewell et al. 1984兲. In order to identify the
effect of openings 共apertures兲, two types of tests were performed
using flat geogrid and geogrid with openings.
The diameter of the specimen is 共165 mm 6.5 in.兲. The desired
initial density 共about 18 kN/ m3兲 of the soil was achieved by com-
pacting the specimen in five layers using about 25 blows.
The geogrid sample was prepared by cutting the specimen
共165 mm兲 from a large sheet and attaching it to a steel block. It
was placed on the soil 共dry or bulk with 8% moisture content兲 in
two configurations, 共Fig. 12兲, which were used to study the effect
of the location of the interface in the test device.
A normal stress was applied and then the horizontal shear
displacement or stress was applied with a number of loading,
unloading and reloading cycles. Table 1 shows the interface fric-
tion angles and adhesion for different configurations, 共Fig. 12兲 for
geogrids with openings and flat geogrid. Because of the interlock-
ing effect, the values for geogrids with openings are higher than
those for the flat geogrids. The results for the bulk soil 共with
Table 1. Summary of Interface Tests and Configurations
Interface
friction Adhesion
angle ␦ ca
Interface tested 共degree兲 共kPa兲
Dry soil/geogrida at top 关Fig. 12共a兲兴 38.5 41
Dry soil/geogrid at bottom 关Fig. 12共b兲兴 38.2 40
Bulk soil/geogrid at bottom 关Fig. 12共b兲兴 32.2 58
Bulk soil/geogrid at top 关Fig. 12共a兲兴 33.8 66
Dry soil/flatb geogrid at top 关Fig. 12共a兲兴 26.5 29.5
Bulk soil/flat geogrid at top 关Fig. 12共a兲兴 27.0 37.0
Bulk soil/flat geogrid at bottom 25.2 23.0
关Fig. 12共b兲兴
a
Geogrid implies geogrid with openings.
b
Flat implies geogrid without openings.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Cyclic multidegree-of-freedom shear tests for interface bulk soil/geogrid at top

moisture content of about 8.0%兲 with the geogrid at the top of the
soil were found to be realistic and are used for modeling and
computer analysis.
The shear tests were performed under loading, unloading, and
reloading at various normal stresses: ␴n = 35.0, 70.0, 140.0, 350.0,
and 700.0 kPa. Typical results for normal and shear behavior for
␴n = 70.0, 140.0, and 700.0 kPa are shown in Figs. 13共a–d兲.
Material Parameters and Validations
The DSC/HISS model parameters were obtained by following the
procedures published in various publications 共e.g., Desai 2001兲.
The soil exhibited softening behavior, 关Figs. 11共b–d兲兴; hence, the
disturbance 共softening兲 model was used. The interface did not
exhibit significant softening behavior; hence the HISS plasticity

Table 2. Material Parameters Used in Finite Element Method Analysis of Tucson Wall
Material constant Symbol Soil Interface
Elastic E or Kn f 1 共␴3兲a f 2 共␴n兲b
v or Ks 0.3 f 3 共␴n兲
Plasticity—ultimate ␥ 0.12 2.3
␤ 0.45 0.0
Phase change parameter n 2.56 2.8
Growth parameters a1 3.0E − 05 0.03
␩1 0.98 1.0
Nonassociative constant ␬ 0.2 0.4
Disturbance parameters Du 0.93 —
A 0.37
Z 1.60
Angle of friction and adhesion ␾ / ␦ / ca ␾ = 40° ␦ = 34°
ca = 66 kPa
Unit weight 共field兲 ␥ 18.00 kN/ m3 —
Coefficient of earth pressure at rest K0 0.4 —
a
E = 62⫻ 103 ␴0.28
3 .
b
ks 共shear stiffness兲 = 30⫻ 103 ␴0.28
n ; kn 共normal stiffness兲 = 18⫻ 10 ␴n .
3 0.29

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 737

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Typical comparisons between predicted and observed
responses for soil and interface
model was used. Table 2 shows the parameters for the soil and
interfaces. The elastic modulus E for soils, and shear stiffness ks
and normal stiffness kn were found to be functions of confining
and normal stress, respectively; Table 2 shows the relevant equa-
tions.
Validations
The parameters were used to predict the stress–strain response for
typical tests by using the DSC model 共Eq. 共2兲兲 and parameters
共Table 2兲. Satisfactory correlation between the predictions by
using the DSC model was obtained for a number of tests for the
soil and the interface. Fig. 14共a兲 shows typical comparisons for
the soil with ␴3 = 52.0 kPa. Similar results for the interface at
␴n = 210 kPa are shown in Fig. 14共b兲.
Parameters for Other Materials
The concrete facing with thickness= 152.5 mm was assumed to be
linear elastic with Young’s modulus E = 2.1⫻ 107 kPa and Pois-
son’s ratio ␯ = 0.15. Geogrid reinforcement with thickness
= 1.5 mm was also assumed to be linear elastic with E = 1.5
⫻ 106 kPa. The creep in the geogrid was not included. However,
as stated before, the tensile strength was reduced to 19 kN/ m to
account for creep.
References
Bathurst, R. J., and Hatami, K. 共1998兲. “Seismic response analysis of a
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall,” Geosynthet. Int. 5共1–2兲,
738 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.
127–166.
Berg, R. R., Bonaparte, R., Anderson, R. P., and Chouery, V. E. 共1986兲.
“Design, construction, and performance of two reinforced soil retain-
ing walls.” Proc, 3rd International Conf. on Geotextiles, Vienna, Aus-
tria, Vol. 2, 401–406.
Christopher, B. R., Gill, S. A., Giroud, J. P., Juran, I., Mitchell, J. K.,
Schlosser, F., and Dunnicliff, J. 共1989兲. “Reinforced soil structures.”
Volume II. Summary of Research and System Information, Rep. No.
FHWA-RD-89-043, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Va.,
158.
Collin, J. G. 共1986兲. “Earth wall design.” PhD dissertation, Univ. of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, Calif.
Day, R. A., and Potts, D. M. 共1994兲. “Zero thickness interface elements
numerical stability and application.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geo-
mech., 18, 689–708.
Desai, C. S. 共1998兲. “DSC-SST-2D: Computer code for static, dynamic,
creep and thermal analysis—solid, structure and soil-structure prob-
lems.” User’s manuals, Tucson, Ariz.
Desai, C. S. 共2001兲. Mechanics of materials and interfaces: The disturbed
state concept, CRC, Boca Raton, Fla.
Desai, C. S., and Ma, Y. 共1992兲. “Constitutive modeling of joints and
interfaces by using disturbed state concept.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt.
Meth. Geomech., 16共9兲, 623–653.
Desai, C. S., and Rigby, D. B. 共1997兲. “Cyclic interface and joint shear
device including pore pressure effects.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
123共6兲, 568–579.
Desai, C. S., Zaman, M., Lightner, J. G., and Siriwardane, H. J. 共1984兲.
“Thin-layer element for interfaces and joints.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt.
Meth. Geomech., 18, 19–43.
Federal Highway Administration 共FHWA兲. 共1997兲. “Mechanically stabi-
lized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes, design and construction
guidelines.” Report Demonstration Project 82, Washington, D.C.
Fishman, K. L., and Desai, C. S. 共1991兲. “Response of a geogrid earth
reinforced retaining wall with full height precast concrete facing.”
Proc., Geosynthetics,—91, Atlanta, 691–700.
Fishman, K. L., Desai, C. S., and Berg, R. R. 共1991兲. “Geosynthetic-
reinforced soil wall: 4-year history.” Transportation Research Record.
1330, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 30–39.
Fishman, K. L., Desai, C. S., and Sogge, R. L. 共1993兲. “Field behavior of
instrumented geogrid soil reinforced wall.” J. Geotech. Eng., 119共8兲,
1293–1307.
Gens, A., Carol, I., and Alonso, E. E. 共1989兲. “An interface element
formulation for the analysis of soil-reinforcement interaction.” Com-
put. Geotech. 7, 133–151.
Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L., and Brekke, T. L. 共1968兲. “A model for
the mechanics of jointed rock.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 94共3兲,
637–669.
Hatami, K., Bathurst, R. J., and Di Pietro, P. 共2001兲. “Static response of
reinforced soil retaining walls with nonuniform reinforcement.” Int. J.
Geomech., 1共4兲, 477–506.
Herrmann, L. R., Welch, K. R., and Lim, C. K. 共1984兲. “Composite FEM
analysis for layered systems.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ.
Eng., 110共9兲, 1284–1302.
Holtz, R. D., Christopher, B. R., and Berg, R. R. 共1997兲. Geosynthetic
engineering, BiTech Ltd., Vancouver, Canada.
Jewell, R. A., Milligan, G. W. E., Sarby, R. W., and Dobois, D. 共1984兲.
“Interaction between soil and geogrids.” Proc., Symp. on Polymer
Grid Reinforcement in Civil Engineering, Science and Engineering
Research Council, and Netlon Ltd., London, 11–17.
Leshchinsky, D. 共1992兲. “Discussion: Strain compatibility analysis for
geosynthetics reinforced soil walls.” J. Geotech. Eng., 188共5兲, 816–
819.
Pima County Dept. of Transportation and Flood Control District, 共1986兲.
“Tensar earth-reinforced wall monitoring at Tanque Verde-
Wrightstown-Pantano Roads, Tucson, Arizona.” Desert Earth Engi-
neering Preliminary Rep., Tucson, Ariz.
Romstad, K. M., Herrmann, L. R., and Shen, C. K. 共1976兲. “Integrated
study of reinforced earthII: Behavior and design.” J. Geotech. Eng.
 Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 102共6兲, 577–590.
Rowe, R. K., and Ho, S. K. 共1992兲. “A review of the behavior of rein-
forced soil walls.” Preprint Special and Keynote Lecture, Proc., Inter-
national Symp. on Earth Reinforcement Practice, A. A. Balkema, Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands, 47–76.
United States Department of Transportation. 共1989兲. “Tensar Geogrid Re-
inforced Soil Wall.” Experimental Project 1, Ground Modification
Techniques, FHWA-EP-90-001-005, Washington, D.C.
Wu, J. T. H. 共1992兲. “Predicting performance of the denver walls: Gen-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
eral report.” Geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 3–20.
Wu, J. T. H., and Lin, J. C. 共1991兲. “Analysis and design of geotextile
reinforced earth walls.” Final Rep. to Colorado Dept. of Highways,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Colorado, Denver.
Yi, C. T., Chan, D. H., and Scott, J. D. 共1995兲. “A large slippage finite
element model for geosynthetics interface modeling.” Proc., Geosyn-
thetics’ 95, Nashville, Tenn., Vol. 1, 93–104.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2005 / 739

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2005.131:729-739.