COMPOSITE SOLUTIONS: THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF

MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH STRUCTURES IN AREAS WITH

CHALLENGING GROUND CONDITIONS

Mark K. Morales¹, CE, M.Sc.

Anna G. Bilaro2, MSCE
Emilio M. Morales3, MSCE

¹ PRC Licensed Civil Engineer; (M.Sc. GeoEngineering)

1
President, PGA-Earth Structure Solutions, Inc;
1
Technical Director, Philippine GeoAnalytics Inc.;
1
Technical Director, PGA-Geopier, Inc.;
1
PICE Accredited Geotechnical Specialist
1
Member, PICE Geotechnical Specialty Division
1
Senior Lecturer 1, University of the Philippines – Diliman, Institute of Civil Engineering (ICE);

2
PRC Licensed Civil Engineer; MSCE (Geotechnical Engineering)
2
Faculty, Bicol University, College of Engineering, Legazpi City;
2
Geotechnical Consultant, PGA-Earth Structure Solutions, Inc.

2
PRC Licensed Civil Engineer; MSCE (MSCE Structural and Geotechnical Engineering)
3
President, EM2A Partners and Company, Inc.;
3
President, Philippine GeoAnalytics, Inc.;
3
President, PGA-Geopier, Inc.;
3
PRC Licensed Civil Engineer; MSCE (Geotechnical Engineering) Engineer;
3
PICE Accredited Geotechnical Specialist;

Abstract: Uniaxial extruded HDPE geogrid-reinforced Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls and slopes are gaining
popularity locally as versatile alternatives to rigid gravity walls, and reinforced concrete retaining structures. Advances in
material sciences and technology, field and laboratory performance testing, as well as advanced computational methods have
all contributed to the development and commercial viability of this technology. With the recent push to increase infrastructure
outside of the congested urban centers, more construction works are being constructed in vast, wide open expanses of land.
Inevitably, there will be cases wherein the in-situ soils would not be strong enough to adequately support the additional loads
imposed by MSE structures. Given these, some form of ground improvement on the subsurface soils would be necessary for
such earth structures to have satisfactory short -and- long term performance. This paper contains several case histories of MSE
projects built in such areas where combinations of geotechnical issues exist.

Keywords : MSE Walls, slopes, stabilization, geosynthetic, ground improvement

1

1 INTRODUCTION
The reinforcement of soil has long been practiced in ancient
times. Recent advances in construction technologies and
methodologies have brought about the manifestation of this
ancient soil stabilization technique into its current form, and
new techniques continue to emerge and develop. These
retaining structures play a vital role in stabilizing slopes
(FHWA, 2001). Geosynthetic-reinforced Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls are currently gaining
popularity as versatile alternatives to rigid gravity walls and
reinforced concrete retaining structures in construction
projects where there are soil retention and grade separation
requirements.
walls in which the soil is reinforced by thin, artificial
reinforcing elements (steel, fabric, fibers, etc.) (Budhu,
These structures are normally utilized in retaining walls,
steep fills, bridge abutments, seawalls, dikes, earth
embankments and the like. Although the basic principles
of MSE have been used throughout history, MSE was
developed in its current form in the 1960s and has slowly
evolved into becoming one of the technologies of choice for
retaining structures.

2 WHAT IS A MECHANICALLY STABILIZED

EARTH (MSE) WALL?

2.1 History

The concept of soil reinforcement is really not that new

when you think about it. Ancient civilizations used
indigenous materials such as straw, branches, twigs, and Fig. 1 MSE wall with wrap-around facing (Photo courtesy of
plant fibers to reinforce soil. The added reinforcement E’GRID Geosynthetics)
provides tensile resistance to soil that is fairly weak in
tension but relatively strong in compression and shear.
2.3 MSE Reinforced Soil Concepts
Through soil reinforcement interface bonding, the
reinforcing materials restrain the lateral deformation of the MSE systems are defined by the reinforcement configuration,
surrounding soil, increases its confinement, and reduces its material used, extensibility of the reinforcement material,
tendency for dilation and as a result, increases the stiffness and the type of facing and connections (See Figure 2). It is
thereby also strengthening the soil mass (FHWA, 2001). somewhat analogous to reinforced concrete in that the
mechanical properties of the mass are improved by
In recent years, there has been a steady rise in the use of reinforcement placed parallel to the principal strain direction
these ductile earth structures in the Philippines. This can to compensate for the soil’s lack of tensile resistance
be attributed, in large part, to an increase in the comfort (FHWA, 2001).
of both the local construction and design communities in
the use of these robust yet cost-effective earth structures. MSE construction involves raising the slope or wall with
geogrids sandwiched in-between lifts of properly compacted
In the early days, long steel strips 2” to 5” wide were used as granular material and wrapped around the face to the
reinforcement. These strips are sometimes ribbed, to provide required slope angle. Using this technique produces safe
added frictional resistance. Steel meshes may also be used as earth structures which can be built to integrate into the local
reinforcement. Several types of geosynthetics can be used environment.
including geogrids and geotextiles.
The reinforcing geosynthetics can be made of high-density
polyethylene, polyester and other materials. These materials
may be ribbed and are available in various sizes and
strengths. There are several types of reinforcing materials
available for MSEs, with each type of reinforcing material
having its own set of pros and cons.
Advances in materials sciences technology, field and labo
ratory performance monitoring and modern computational
methods have also contributed greatly into the developme
nt and commercial viability of this once niche industry.

2.2 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls

Typically, these MSE structures are gravity-type retaining Fig. 2 MSE wall main components (Image courtesy of

2
 E’GRID Geosynthetics)
2.4 Design Principles and Considerations
Once it has been determined that an MSE wall is the
appropriate system for an earth retention or slope protection
project, several steps have to be taken to ensure a proper
design.
These are:
a) determination of the wall or slope’s geometry
b) establishment of engineering properties of the in-situ soils
based on site exploration and testing,
c) determination of loads and hydrologic conditions,
d) hazard identification,
e) setting of performance criteria,
f) selection of reinforcement to be used (HDPE, steel, etc.)
g) selection of type facing to be used (vegetated, precast
concrete, polymer gabions, etc.)
internal stability analyses,
h) external stability analyses (bearing capacity, global slope
stability, etc.)
i) detailing (internal and external drainage, connection/s,
below ground reinforcement, etc.)
It is imperative that the designer have a firm grasp on the
project’s specifics (i.e. loads, design height/s, slope
geometry, in-situ soil parameters etc.) and required
performance criteria (i.e. allowable settlement, tolerances for
tilt, compaction requirements, etc.) to come up with a robust
yet cost-effective design.
2.5 Stability Analyses
There are many methods of finding the factor of safety of
slopes under static and dynamic conditions. Typically,
design software programs use limit equilibrium-based
methods of slices. Oftentimes, the problem involves
statically indeterminate bodies and thus, iterative
computation processes are necessary. These are quite tedious
and cumbersome to solve by hand, hence, the use of
computer programs and design software is the preferred
design route. The primary output for all of this being the
factor of safety of the structure under evaluation. The safety
factor is equal to the available resisting moment, Mr, divided
by the actual driving moment, Md (See Equation 1).
(1)
Some common methods for slope stability analysis, under
static loading condition for MSE structures are Janbu’s
method, Ordinary method of slices, and Bishop’s Method of
slices (see Figure 1). In general, in these procedure of slices,
a circular slip surface is assumed considering equilibrium of
moments about the center of the circle for the entire free
body composed of all slices.
Fig. 3 Circular slip surface with overlying soil mass
subdivided into vertical slices. (From Duncan & Wright,
2005)
The equations for the factor of safety calculations by both
Ordinary Method of Slices and Simplified Bishop
procedures are primarily based on the assumptions that the
only driving forces are due to the weight of the soil mass,
and the only resisting forces are those due to the shear
strength of the soil.
Oftentimes, there are additional known driving forces
involved such as slopes that have water adjacent to them or
slopes that support additional surcharge loads due to traffic
and heavy equipment or stockpiled materials.
Variations on the magnitudes of loads acting on slopes do
occur, and these, coupled with variations of the shear
strengths of the in-situ soils with time, result in some
changes in the factors of safety of slopes. It is for this reason
that it is imperative that stability analyses corresponding to
several different loading conditions, with each iteration
reflecting a specific scenario in the life of a slope, be
performed.
When an MSE’s external stability is being assessed, the
structure is treated as a composite homogeneous soil mass
and the factor of safety is evaluated using slip surfaces
outside the stabilized soil mass. This stability evaluates the
factor of safety against overturning, bearing capacity and
global stability.
The internal stability of such structures should not be taken
for granted. There are methods that can adequately model
the internal stability of these walls and check for potential
slip surfaces within the reinforced soil mass. There are also
methods that help determine the factor of safety against
tensile overstress of the geosynthetic, reinforcement pullout
capacity and internal sliding.
3 GROUND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES
3
With the recent push to increase infrastructure spending in
undeveloped areas throughout the Philippine archipelago,
more and more construction works of considerable size and
scale are being constructed in vast expanses of land. It is
inevitable that in some of these projects, some portions of
the MSE works would fall in areas with challenging
geotechnical and topographical conditions. There will be
cases wherein the in-situ soils, in their natural state, would
not be strong enough to adequately support the additional
loads imposed by these MSE structures. There will also be
cases wherein the heavy loads imposed by these earth
structures would trigger settlement well beyond the
tolerances of these ductile structures. There have also been
cases where these MSE structures are underlain by
liquefiable ground. It is in these instances that some form of
ground improvement on the subsurface soils would be
necessary for such earth structures to have satisfactory short-
term and long-term performance.
4 CASE STUDIES
This paper contains several case histories of MSE projects
built in such areas where a combination of two or more
engineering issues (slope stability, erosion, bearing capacity,
liquefaction, excessive settlement, topographic constraints,
etc.) exist. The design analyses and construction of these
composite systems will likewise be discussed.
4.1 Case Study 1- Design and Build of Slope Protection
Works in Metro Manila
The first sample case presented herein is a design and build
project for a private development in Metro Manila requiring
a 1.5km long earth retaining structure and 200+m of two-
sided creek bank protection.
Issues and Challenges
The biggest challenge for this project is the difficulty in
working in the project site due to space constraints, weak
and unstable soils, plus the need to accomplish the work
within a tight time frame. During the construction phase, the
monsoon season was fast approaching, and creek protection
works along the creek had to be completed at least up
somewhere slightly above the mean flood level so that
construction works could be undertaken continuously.
Additionally, during the start of the excavation works, it was
found out that the soils along the creek had both liquefiable
and highly compressible layers.
Design Solution
The perimeter wall was protected by an MSE Wall using
E’Grid 50R HDPE uniaxial geogrids and polymer gabions
using E’Grid 3030 PP biaxial geogrids. The facing of the
wall was vegetated to render the wall more aesthetically
pleasing.
The creek bank was protected by a 2.0m high polymer
gabion mattress (106m both sides) using 3030 E’Grid biaxial
geogrids, and a 1.0 m high wrap-around wall using E’Grid
50R HDPE uniaxial geogrids. A geotextile separator was
incorporated in the design to prevent washing out of soils
from the structure.
Post Construction Observations
After Geopier ground improvement measures (Impact Piers
and GP3) were installed, the pace of the construction was
significantly faster as the base of the MSE was stabilized
significantly and heavy machineries were able to enter to
proceed with earth moving works. Due to the alternating
construction sequence and the combination of geosynthetic
systems used, there were barely any signs of excessive
settlement or tilting on the wall face even years after its
construction.
4.2 Case Study 2 – Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE)
Wall for an Industrial Facility
This sample case is a seaward land reclamation project for
an industrial plant facility with heavily loaded process
structures. The industrial plant facility is located within a
petrochemical complex in Batangas. The site is sitting in a
hilly terrain fronting Batangas Bay to the West. Areas are
predominantly filled up as the general area was reclaimed
from the sea. The resulting maximum average reclaimed fill
height is approximately 19.0 meters.
Issues and Challenges
Owing to the peculiar location of the project site, and the
reclamation activities to be conducted, flooding, scouring,
slope instability, settlement and seismic issues were
identified as problems that need to be addressed. The soil
investigation conducted shows that the subsurface soils
(approximately 1.0 to 11.0-meter depth) were generally
relatively poor to medium in density. The relatively poor
underlying soils would have been both highly compressible
and subject to large deformations during shaking from a
large earthquake event. The deformations would be beyond
tolerable limits. The proposed embankment needs to be
supported on either piles or improved ground. Also, there
was a sand layer near the riverbed that was potentially
liquefiable.
Design Solution
After evaluating the results of the analyses, a complex slope
with an E’Grid Polymer Gabion-faced bottom tier MSE and
a Green-Faced E’Grid RSS using 65R, 90R and 130R
E’Grid uniaxial geogrids was designed. The complex slope
has a total height of 19.0 m (6.0 m E’Grid Polymer Gabion
Wall + 13.0 m Vegetated Wall). Impact Piers were installed
as ground improvement measures to increase the shear
strength of foundation soils, minimize differential settlement
and reduce the risk of possible large seismically induced
deformations.
4.3 Case Study 3 – Geogrid-Reinforced Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) Wall with ESS-Shield Precast
Panel Facing supported by Rammed Aggregate Piers
4
 This sample case project features a geosynthetic-
reinforced MSE Wall with pre-cast concrete panel
facing elements supported by Geopier Impact piers for
a toll road in Metro Manila.
Historically, the backfill of pre-cast concrete panel-
faced MSE walls have been typically reinforced by
metal strips. Metal strips have at times been observed
to eventually corrode (even when coated with a thin
rust protection material). This corrosion is especially
worrisome if it happens at the point of connection
between the facing element and the soil reinforcement
strip.
Recent advances in materials and manufacturing
technology have made it possible to reinforce MSE
fills with HDPE geogrids. Geogrids are ideal for this
particular application as these will not corrode nor
degrade due to the chemical attack of the concrete and
the backfill material. Geogrids also provide a larger
amount of soil coverage within the reinforced zone.
Issues and Challenges
During the construction of the MSE wall, it was found out
that there were pockets of weak, compressible material that
could cause potential excessive settlement of the structure. If
left untreated, these weak soils could also potentially cause
slope instability.
After conducting confirmatory borings to verify the initial
observations from the foundation excavation works, it was
deemed that the subsurface soils for that particular part of
the project was in fact weak as initially suspected. Using the
updated soil parameters, the designer’s stability analyses
yielded unsatisfactory factors of safety for both static and
seismic conditions making ground improvement necessary.
Design Solution
It was determined that the use of Geopier Impact Piers
would be a cost-effective ground improvement measure to
reinforce the in-situ weak soils underlying the proposed pre-
cas concrete panel-faced MSE wall.
Impact Piers were once again utilized to increase the shear
strength of the weak foundation soils and minimize potential
differential settlements.
5 CONCLUSION
Compared to traditional and conventional solutions in earth
retaining structures, MSE walls offer a remarkable
advantage when it comes to economic and technical aspects.
With the assistance of research and development from the
geosynthetic industry, construction in challenging sites
becomes possible. In cases where weak subsurface soils are
present at the project site, the versatility of these ductile
structures allow them to be used with cost-effective ground
improvement measures.
In summary:
• The modern application of soil reinforcement began
as early as the 1960s.
• MSE walls and slopes have slowly started to gain
ground locally as the system of choice for earth
retention projects due to their relative lower costs
and inherent ductility.
• MSE walls come in different shapes and sizes, with
different reinforcements and facing elements.
• Proper compaction of properly selected backfill
soils though very important is often overlooked.
• Detailing is key for long-term stability.
• MSE walls can be used in a myriad of situations,
under varying geotechnical and topographic
conditions. If designed properly (and with the help
of ground improvement measures), these can still
be built in areas underlain by soft soils or steep
slopes.
• Analyze and evaluate more than one mode of
failure when assessing the internal and external
stability of reinforced walls and slopes.
• The use of Geopier Rammed Aggregate Piers as
ground improvement measures for MSE walls and
slopes underlain by compressible or liquefiable
ground proved to be effective in several instances.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to acknowledge with gratitude the
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers for this opportunity to
contribute to the local geotechnical engineering field and to
share knowledge to fellow Filipino civil engineers. Also,
thanks go out to members of the PGATECH Group of
Companies, E’GRID Geogrids, and Geopier Foundation
Company (USA) for sharing their resources and providing
key technical information used in this paper.
REFERENCES
Budhu, Muni. 2011. Soil Mechanics and Foundation, 3 rd
Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA.
Bilaro, Anna, May 2013. Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls. PICE Regional Technical Conference, Legazpi City,
Albay.
Das,Braja M. 1994. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering,
3rd Edition. PWS Publishing Company20 Park Plaza,
Boston, Massachusetts 02116.
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH),
Standard Specifications for Highways Bridges and
Airports.
Morales, M.K., Abdullah, R.E., and Morales, E.M., 2018,
Performance of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
Supported on Rammed Aggregate Piers for a Full-Scale
Trial Embankment, 11ICG Conference, Seoul, So. Korea.
Duncan, JM and Wright, S. 2005. Soil Strength and Slope
Stability. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New
Jersey.
5
FHWA, 2009. Design and construction of Mechanically
Stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes – Volume
I. Federal Highway Administration Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-10-243, US Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C., USA, 332p.
FHWA, March 2001. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction
Guidelines. Federal Highway Administration Publication
No. FHWA-NHI-00-043, US Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C., USA.
Morales, Mark. 2018. Lectures and Presentations for MS
Program. Institute of Civil Engineering, University of the
Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.
MSEW and ReSSA Software copyrighted by © Adama
Engineering Inc.
National Structural Code of the Philippines, 2015 Volume I
– Buildings, Towers and other Vertical Structures.
NCMA, 2009. Design manual for segmental retaining walls,
3rd Edition, National Concrete Masonry Association
(NCMA), Virginia, USA.
Product Presentations of PGA-Earth Structure Solutions, Inc
Rajagopal, Karpurapu, April 2017. Use of Geosynthetics for
construction in soft clays. IGS Educate the Educators
Presentation Seminar, Philippines.
Yoo, Chungsik. April 2017. Advanced Topic on
Geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. IGS Educate the
Educators Presentation Seminar, Philippines.