IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE)

e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 12, Issue 5 Ver. III (Sep. - Oct. 2015), PP 75-80
www.iosrjournals.org

Stability analysis of reinforced earth wall for the approach road

of a R.O.B along National Highway: A case study
Srinivas Pinnika 1 V.K.Chakravarthi2
1

PG student , Department of civil Engineering, GMR Institute of Technology ,Rajam, Srikakulam, A.P, India
Associate Professor , Department of civil Engineering, GMR Institute of Technology ,Rajam, Srikakulam, A.P,
India

Abstract: Soft ground usually possesses low shear strengths and high compressibility. Reinforced earth (RE)
wall is constructed on this soft ground have a tendency to fail. In literature stability of this reinforced earth wall
is improved by providing geo-grid reinforcement. In the present paper stability analysis of a highway
embankment is presented. The proposed highway embankment is provided along the approach on either side of
bridge. The maximum height of embankment is 7m and its stability is a concern. In the preset study modeling
and stability analysis of the embankment at typical sections is computed using slope/W using Morgenstern price
method. Results of lab tests on subgrade and stability results are presented. It is observed that, the stability is
improved using geosynthetics provided near slope face and at base. Parametric study is carried out by varying
tensile capacity of geo-grid, number of layers and their influence on stability is quantified and presented.
Keywords: soft subgrade, reinforced earth wall, geo-grid reinforcement, factor of safety.

I.

Introduction

Reinforced Soil concept described the mechanisms by which reinforcement could improve the
performance of embankments on soft soil. (Jewell 1987) The behaviour and design of geosynthetic-reinforced
embankments over soft soil have attracted considerable attention in both practice and the literature. Among
geosynthetics, grid type geosynthetics reinforcements were found to be more effective than the sheet type
reinforcement. For unreinforced embankment (Low 1989) presented the solutions for critical slip circle,
minimum factor of safety for a given limiting tangent. By modifying (low 1989) equations Kaniraj and Abdullah
(1993) presented the simple solutions for effect of berm and full height dry tension crack on stability of
embankment is done by analytical approach. Kaniraj and Abdullah (1992b, 1994) presented the solutions for
critical slip circle, minimum factor of safety and maximum reinforcement capacity required for a given limiting
tangent. Several techniques have been developed for the safe and cost-effective construction of
embankments over soft soil deposits. Geosynthetic basal reinforcement is simple technique for easy
construction and suitable type with less cost of construction. Reinforcement may be placed at foundation level
(basal layer) to prevent shear failure both in the embankment fill and in the foundation soil. Reinforcement in
the form of geogrid, geocell, geotextiles etc, can be placed in the embankments at designed spacing to improve
the strength of the embankments.

II.

Details Of Study Area And Problem Statement

The study area of proposed rail over bridge (ROB) is located at Bendigate near Palasa, Srikakulam
district; A.P is shown in Fig.1. In the present study the subgrade soil is weak to bear the load coming in to the
subgrade for construction RE wall as approach of ROB. to sustain the load coming on to the subgrade So
improvement is suggested and stability analysis is carried out in slope/w for critical sections on either side i.e.,
H=6.8m towards Visakhapatnam side is shown in Fig.2 and H=5m towards Palasa side is shown in Fig.3.
2.1 Data collection and details of experimental study
a) Soil sample collection
Soil sample is collected from the site of construction proposed rail over at Bendigate near Palasa,
Srikakulam district; A.P is shown in Fig.4, is the subgrade soil and the RE wall fill soil also collected.
b) Tests conducted on soil sample
Tests for index and engineering properties namely gradation, consistency limits, compaction
charecterstics and shear strength parameters and CBR are performed on subgrade soil and embankment fill.
Results are presented in the subsequent headings.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12537580

www.iosrjournals.org

75 | Page

Stability analysis of reinforced earth wall for the approach road of a R.O.B along National Highway:
A case study

Fig. 1 Project site marking image

Fig. 2.Cross section towards Palasa

Fig.3.Cross section towards Visakhapatnam

Fig.4.The author is collecting soil sample

2.2 Stability Analysis for RE wall

Stability analysis is carriedout using slope/W software. The method is based on Morgenstern price
theory. The crtical slip circle is identified from global stability and factor of safety is computed. The slip circles
are generated for various input parameters namely., geodrid tensile capacity and number of layers.Analysis is
done for critical slip circle with minimum factor of safety by adjusting slip surface grid is shown in Fig.1216 and Table 7-8.

III.

Results And Discussions

3.1 Presentation of results on subgrade and embankment fill soil

The results are presented from Table 1- 2 and Fig. 5-11

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12537580

www.iosrjournals.org

76 | Page

Stability analysis of reinforced earth wall for the approach road of a R.O.B along National Highway:
A case study
Table 1 Test results of subgrade soil
Parameters
Liquid limit
Plastic limit
Plasticity index
USCS Soil classification
Optimum moisture content
Maximum dry density
Cohesion (c)
Angle of internal friction ()
CBR unsoaked
CBR soaked

% Finer

100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

Results
56.5%
28.63%
27.87%
CH
24.25%
14.95 KN/m3
19.6kPa
6.6 degrees
4.83%
2.18%

0.01

0.1

Partcal Size (mm)

1

10

Fig. 9 Grain size distribution curve for embankment fill soil

Table 2 Test results of embankment filling soil

Parameters
Soil classification
Optimum moisture content
Maximum dry density
Cohesion(c)
Angle of internal friction ()

Results
SW
10.73%
20.9 KN/m3
9.1 kPa
24.200

3.2 Modelling and stability analysis

Table 3 Geometry and Properties for RE wall @5m cross-section
Properties
Ground
Fill

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12537580

Layer-1
Layer-2

Hg(m)
1.2
10
5.0

(kN/m3)
14.95
20.9
20.9

www.iosrjournals.org

C kPa
19.6
9.1
9.1

(0)
6.6
24.20
24.20

77 | Page

Stability analysis of reinforced earth wall for the approach road of a R.O.B along National Highway:
A case study

Table 4 Reinforcement properties for RE wall @5m

Parameters
Type
No. of layers
Location

Results
Geogrid
3
In the filled layer below embankment at depth
0.3, 0.6, 0.9m respectively
16.4m
300kN/m
2/3

Length Lr
Tensile capacity Tult
Interface friction

Table 5 Geometry and Properties for RE wall @7m cross-section

Properties
Ground

Layer-1
Layer-2

Fill

(kN/m3)
14.95
20.9
20.9

Hg(m)
1.6
10
6.8

C (kN/m2)
19.6
9.1
9.1

(0)
6.6
24.20
24.20

Table 6 Reinforcement properties for RE wall @7m

Parameters
Type
No. of layers
Location

Range
Geogrid
2 to 4
In the filled layer below embankment at depth
0.4, 1.2m respectively
In the filled layer below embankment at depth
0.3, 0.8, 1.3m respectively
In the filled layer below embankment at depth
0.35, 0.65, 0.95, 1.25m respectively
16m

Location
Location
Length Lr
Tensile capacity Tult
Interface friction

300 - 500kN/m
2/3

Presentation of results of slope stability

The modeled RE wall, global stability analysis and slip circles are presented in Fig.12-15. The results
are presented in Table.7. The slip circles indicated a factor of safety 1.672, 1.315, 1.329 which is satisfying
the norms. Also the contribution of geosynthetic at base is significant. From the results is observed optimum
number of layers are three.
24.0

61

55

22.8

1.672

21.6
56

20.4

57

19
17

18.0

15.6

height

14.4
13.2
12.0
1

11
31
33
35
6

139
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
7

14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30

1037
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
538

38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54

16
15
14
13

12
32
34
36
5

9.6

2
61

58

12
11
101

6
68
70
5

14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36

38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
2 54
56
58
60

379
39
62
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
10

64

63

11
69
71
12

2
67

8
7

7.2

6.0

4.8

3.6
2.4

height(m)

16.8

8.4

138
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
357

18

19.2

10.8

1.171

20

3
59

60

1
4
0
0

3
1

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12537580

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

width(m)

width

Fig .12 Modelling of reinforced earth wall

Palasa and slip circle

66

1.2
4
0.0
0.0 1.2 2.4 3.6 4.8 6.0 7.2 8.4 9.6 10.8 12.0 13.2 14.4 15.6 16.8 18.0 19.2 20.4 21.6 22.8 24.0 25.2 26.4

65

Fig .13 Modelling of reinforced earth wall towards

towards Visakhapatnam and slip circle

www.iosrjournals.org

78 | Page

Stability analysis of reinforced earth wall for the approach road of a R.O.B along National Highway:
A case study
61
61

1.322

1.315

62

19
18
17
16
15
14

height(m)

13
12
11
1
10

686
70
725

138
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29

14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30

31
33
357

32
34
36

38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
2 54
56
58
60

20

63
9
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
10

19
17
16
15
14
13
11
69
71
73
12

64

8
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
7

18

height(m)

20

62

67

12
11
1
10

6
68
70
72
74
5

14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36

38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
2 54
56
58
60

63
9
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
10

11
69
71
73
75
12

64

67

8
7

4
3

65

66

65

1
4
3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1
04
0

66

3
1

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

width(m)

width(m)

Fig .14 Modelling of reinforced earth wall towards

Visakhapatnam and slip circle

Fig .15 Modelling of reinforced earth wall towards

Visakhapatnam and slip circle

Table 7 Presentation of Fs of slope stability for reinforced earth wall

He

No. of layers

5m
7m
7m
7m

T=300 kN/m
1.672
0.846
1.098
1.329

3
2
3
4

1.7

unreinforced

1.4

n=4

1.2

Factor of safety
T=400kN/m
1.008
1.315
1.329

T=500kN/m
1.174
1.315
1.329

reinforced

Fs

1.5
Fs

1.3

1.1
0.9

0.8
5

Height (m) 7

300

400

500

600

tensile capacity (kN/m)

Fig.16 Variation of Fs with H: effect of reinforcement
Fig.17 Variation of Fs with Tult: effect
of reinforcement no. of layers of for (H=7m)
Variation of Fs with H is shown in Fig-16, as the height of RE wall increases factor of safety decreases
from 1.672 to 1.184 in reinforced case and in unreinforced case it is dropped from 1.138 to 0.984. The results
indicated the need for provision of reinforcement. From the slip circle rupture failure is noticed for the bottom
layers.
Variation of Fs with reinforcement is shown in Fig.17, as the reinforcement capacity increases Fs
increases. marginally but in case of no. of layers 4 the increase of reinforcement also there is no change in Fs. In
case of 3 layers the increase of Fs is more compared to other layers.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12537580

www.iosrjournals.org

79 | Page

Stability analysis of reinforced earth wall for the approach road of a R.O.B along National Highway:
A case study
1.4

T=500
1.2

Fs

400
300

0.8
2

no. of layers
Fig.18 Variation of Fs with no. of layers: effect of reinforcement for (H=7m)
Variation of Fs with no. of layers is shown in Fig.18, as the no. of layers increase Fs increases.

IV.

Conclusions

The modeled RE wall and analysis will help in understanding failures before construction is taken up.
The contribution of reinforcement in improving stability is significant. There is an improvement of 1.2 to 1.5 in
Fs with reinforcement. Higher tensile capacities are recommended for Higher Fs requirement.
Since loading from RE wall self weight is dominant for 7m high, as expected Fs is low when compared
with 5m high RE wall. Providing higher grade reinforcement may solve stability problems for high RE walls.
By observing the results of Fs with no. of layers 4 layers 300kN/m is very small increase in Fs compared to 3
layers 400kN/m so the optimum no. of layers provided is three.

References
[1].
[2].
[3].
[4].
[5].

Jewell, R.A, Reinforced soil walls analysis and behaviour. In: Jarret, P.M., McGown, A. (Eds.), The Application of Polymeric
Reinforcement in Soil Retaining Structures. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987, pp. 365408.
Kaniraj, S.R. & Abdullah, H, Stability analysis of reinforced embankments on soft soils Geotech. Engng Div; ASCE.
1 1 8 ( 1 2 ) (1992a), 1994-9.
Kaniraj, S . R . & Abdullah, H., Rotational stability of unreinforced and reinforced embankments on soft soils. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 13, (1994)707-726.
Kaniraj, S.R. & Abdullah, H., Rotational stability of narrow crested reinforced embankments on soft soils Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 12, (1993),599-614.
Low, B.K., Stability analysis of embankments on soft ground. 1. Geotech. Engng. Div.ASCE, 115 (2), (1989). 211-27.

DOI: 10.9790/1684-12537580

www.iosrjournals.org

80 | Page