Proceedings of the 4th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics 271

June 17 - 20, 2008 Shanghai, China

USING FLAC3D NUMERICAL SIMULATION METHOD TO CHOOSE THE

REINFORCED LENGTH OF THE SOIL RETAINING WALL

J.W. Su1 and Y.M. Shu2

ABSTRACT: A finite difference software (FLAC 3D) was used to carry on numerical simulation of reinforced soil
retaining wall which had observed engineering data. Then the results were compared with those which were derived
from limited balance method. The results showed that the finite difference software FLAC 3D could simulated very well.
In this paper, a reinforced soil retaining wall which was 60 meters high was set up to study the effect the reinforced
length had on soil retaining wall. The simulation and analysis showed that with the increase of reinforced length, the
side displacements of the panel and the pulling stress in reinforced layers decreased gradually. The maximum pulling
stress focused on the lower half of the reinforced soil retaining wall. With the increase of the reinforced length, the
probable destroyed cross because of the shearing moved away from the panel. Taking the allowing anti-pulling intensity
as the main condition, we chose the optimal reinforced length.

KEYWORDS: reinforced soil retaining wall, working behavior, reinforced length, FLAC 3D numerical simulation

INTRODUCTION
Because of its economy and safe and the convenience
in construction, the reinforced geogrid retaining wall was
widely used in reinforced soil engineering such as super
highway, railway engineering and slope treatment in
urban areas. Many researchers tried to study the working
behavior and mechanism of the reinforced soil retaining
wall using numerical analysis methods such as finite
element. Karpurapu and Bathurst carried on the finite
element analysis for soil retaining wall which had rigid
foundation under it. For PWRI experimental wall in
Japan, Huabei Liu studied the effect that various
parameters had on the working behavior of the
reinforced geogrid retaining wall through the use of
finite element analysis of elasticity and plasticity. The
results showed comparatively good similarity with the
experimental results. However, finite element method
had some deficiencies in the calculation of reinforced
soil retaining wall. For example, several stress and strain
relationships of soil body, reinforced body, the interaction
between them and the corresponding parameters couldnt
be fixed precisely. For the deficiencies in finite element
method, Qianqian Chang carried on the numerical
simulation of a reinforced soil retaining wall which had
the observed data using the FLAC 3D finite difference
software. This testified that the utilization of FLAC 3D in
simulation could reflect the working mechanism of the
soil retaining wall more effectively. Then she studied the
effect that the space between reinforced steels had on the
working behavior of the soil retaining wall. This paper
simulated the side displacements of the panel and pulling
stress in the reinforced layers under four different
conditions (The reinforced length are 2.0 m, 2.5 m, 3.0 m
and 4.0 m, separately.) through the utilization of
numerical simulation method of FLAC3D. Then the
effects of them on the working behavior of the soil
retaining wall were analyzed. Through the study of the
laws above, the appropriate reinforced length was fixed
and this will give guidance to the design of the
engineering construction.
NUMERICAL SIMULATION ANALYSIS USING
FLAC3D
The model used in simulation analysis was the
separated calculation model which took consideration of
the interaction between geogrid and soil body. It was
constituted by soil body element, geogrid element, panel
element and interface element. In the process of
calculation, life and death element was used to take
consideration of the gradual filling of soil body and
gradual infliction of load. Geogrid element was
embedded inside the FLAC 3D finite difference software,
so great glide of strains could be simulated through the
movement of the differencing point in the grid. There are

1
Graduated Student, Dongfang Electric Coporation, CHINA.Email:snmsnmmaster@sina.com
2
Professor, College of Hydroelectric Engineering, Hohai University, CHINA. Email: yimingshu2004@yahoo.com.cn
272
nine parameters in the geogrid element to change its
characteristics in material and mechanics.
Numerical Simulation of RMC Reinforced
Retaining Wall
In order to test the rationality and validity of the
calculating model, a testing wall (short for RMC
reinforced soil retaining wall) which was filled by
Royal Military College of Canada was first simulated.
The wall was 6 m in length, 2.4 m in width and 3.0 m in
height. The panel of the wall was composed of four
layers of concrete clods which was 0.75 m high and the
bottom of the panel was connected to the base under it.
The bidirectional geogrid which made of macro-
molecular polymer were used for reinforcement. There
are four layers of geogrid, the space between layers was
0.75m and the reinforced length in every layer was 3 m.
The filling materials were close-grained grit soil. Besides,
about 300 electrical elements such as devices for
measuring displacement, sedimentation, strains, soil
pressure were buried inside the soil retaining wall to
observe its working behavior.
Side displacements of the panel
The side displacements of the panel calculated in this
paper were those which occurred after the construction
calculate and then compared with the observed pulling
strains. The five representative reinforced layers were
0.65 m, 1.65 m, 3.65 m, 5.65 m, 7.65 m high, separately.
Soil The calculated and observed pulling strains were shown
in Fig. 2. From the figure, we can concluded that the
calculated tendency of pulling strains were basically
consistent with the observed ones. Both of them showed
the same distributed tendency of the pulling strain in
reinforced layers: the pulling strain increased gradually
towards the direction of the panel, and then smoothly
transited to the location of the panel. This distributed
tendency was basically consistent with those in the
assumed active and passive areas in limited balance
analysis. Moreover, the differences between the
calculated and observed maximum pulling strain in
every layer were not so big.
FDOFXODWHGYDOXHV
+ P
 REVHUYHGYDOXHV
6WUDLQ
 

      
of the soil retaining wall, but the observed ones were +RUL]RQWDOGLVWDQFHDZD\IURPWKHSDQHOP
those which occurred before the obvious deformation of
the soil retaining wall. The calculated and observed side + 
FDOFXODWHGYDOXHV

displacements of the whole panel were shown in Fig. 1. 

REVHUYHGYDOXHV

From the figure, we can concluded that the calculated

tendency of the side deformation of the panel were

comparatively consistent with the observed ones.
6WUDLQ


 FDOFXODWHGYDOXHV
+HLJKWRIWKHZDOOP

REVHUYHGYDOXHV 

      
+RUL]RQWDOGLVWDQFHDZD\IURPWKHSDQHOP

 +  FDOFXODWHGYDOXHV
 REVHUYHGYDOXHV


      
6LGHGLVSODFHPP
6WUDLQ

Fig. 1 The calculated and observed side displacements of

the whole panel along the height of the wall 

The distribution of the pulling strains in reinforced

layers 
      
The amount of reinforced layers of the soil retaining
+RUL]RQWDOGLVWDQFHDZD\IURPWKHSDQHOP
wall was very big, so we only chose five layers to
 273

greater than 80 kN/m and yield extending rate was less

than 10%. The foundation was made of uniform close-
+  FDOFXODWHGYDOXHV grained soil. Fig. 3 showed the model of the reinforced
REVHUYHGYDOXHV soil retaining wall. Four different conditions were chosen
(The reinforced length are 2.0 m,2.5 m,3.0 m and 4.0 m,
 separately.) to carry on numerical simulation. The
6WUDLQ

parameters were analyzed and settled following the

references, and were shown in Table 1.


      

+RUL]RQWDOGLVWDQFHDZD\IURPWKHSDQHOP

Fig. 2 Copmarison of the calculated and observed

pulling strains in the reinforced layers

Analysis Model and Its Parameter Choosing

Based on the numerical simulation above, we set up a

reinforced soil retaining wall which was 6.0 m in height.
Its panel was composed of tow concrete block which
was 0.25 m high and eleven concrete blocks which was
0.5 m high, with uniform grit filled in it. The geogrid was
Fig. 3 Sketch map of the reinforced retaining
unilateral and made of fifteen layers of macromolecular wall model
polymer which was 5mm thick. Its yield tension was

Table 1 List of parameters of groundsill and filling element

Elastic Interior Dilstion Cohesion Bulk Shear Density

Poisson
parameters moduli frictional angle moduli moduli
ratio KPa kg/m3
(MPa) angle() () (MPa) (MPa)
Foundation Sand 25.01 0.3 30 0 1800
Filling Uniform
50.3 0.3 35 7 0 1900
materials grit

Table 2 List of parameters of other elements

Tang-
Elastic Interior Dilstion Normal Density
Element Poisson ential Cohesion
moduli frictional angle rigidity
type ratio rigidity (kPa/m) kg/m3
(MPa) angle() () (kPa/m)
(kPa/m)
Geogrid 200 0.4 30 2103 0

Inter A 20 0 2103 220106 0

face
B 30 0 2103 1.12106 0

Panel 25.25103 0.17 45 0 2000

A-Interface of the panel and the filling materials

B-Interface of the filling materials and the foundation
274

RESULT ANALYSIS wall was 1, 2, , to 12 in turn). From the figure, it can

be seen that maximum pulling stresses in every
Effect of Reinforced Length on Side Displacements of reinforced layer were all occurred in the first layer of the
the Panel nether part of the wall. Moreover, the maximum pulling
stress of the soil retaining wall decreased from 2.36 MPa
The simulated tendency of ratio of side displace- to 1.78 MPa with the increase of reinforced length and
ments and height along height of the wall was shown in the difference of stress between layers also decreased
Fg. 4. From the figure, we can see: First, the location of gradually inside the soil retaining wall. Thus, we can
maximum side displacements of the panel was in the conclude that the change of reinforced length changed
sub-central part, about in 2.4 m from the bottom of the the distribution of stress of the soil body and steel bar.
wall. The side displacements in the bottom and top of the From the results derived from experiment using four
panel were a little small. This phenomenon due to the reinforced length, it can be seen that the bigger the
comparatively great active soil pressure focused near the reinforced length, the more favorable the retaining wall.
central of the wall. And this could lead to the However, the longer the steel bar, the smaller the
comparatively great displacements outward the panel to maximum pulling stress of the steel bar. The intensity of
balance the moment produced by soil pressure. This the steel bar cant be sufficiently exerted. So there are
conclusion was consistent with those derived from Xiwu must be a optimal length.
Yang who carried on acentric modeling test and
concluded that reinforcing steel bar between H/3 and H/2 
in the sub-central of the side slope was the most
0D[LPXPWHQVLRQ 0SD
/ P
 / P
economical and reasonable scheme. Moreover, in the  / P
practical engineering, the phenomenon of tympanites 
/ P
tends to occur near the central of the wall. The 
conclusion was also consistent with this. Second, the 
side displacements decreased with the increase of the 
reinforced length. The reason was that lateral restriction 
imposed on the soil body decreased because of the 
decrease of reinforced length. This led to the occurrence 
of outward displacements of soil body in the function of       
active soil pressure.
6HULDOQXPEHURIWKHUHLQIRUFHGOD\HUV
 / P Fig. 5 The maximum pulling stresses in every reinforced
+HLJKWRIWKHZDOOP

/ P layer of reinforced soil retaining wall

 / P
/ P

Map of Plastic State


 Fig. 6 is the map of plastic state. From Figs. 6Dd,

plastic area moves away the panel with the increase of

reinforced length on the whole. The reason was that
 reinforced area could be seen as a whole after the
     reinforcement. That is to say, this area couldnt be
6LGHGLVSODFHPHQWVP destroyed so long as the anti-pulling intensity of the steel
Fig. 4 The calculated and observed side displacements
of the whole panel along the height of the wall
Effect of Reinforced Length on Pulling Stress in the
Reinforced Layers
The maximum pulling stresses in every reinforced
layer of reinforced soil retaining wall were shown in Fig. 5
(Note: The number N from the bottom to the top of the
bar didnt be reached. If destroyed, it will only occur
outside the reinforced area, so plastic area moved away
the panel. However, this tendency wasnt obvious when
reinforced length exceeded 3 m. This phenomenon
reflected two aspects: First, the characteristic of soil
body as a whole would be enhanced by reinforcement.
The increase of reinforced length extended the rein-
forced area in the wall, so most reinforced area was
ensured in the stable state. From the limited balance
theory, the anti-sliding stability, anti-overturning stability,
anti-sliding of the whole in the deep layer and bearing

capacity of the foundation would be enhanced with the
increase of the reinforced length. Thus, reinforcement
could change the distribution of the stress of the soil body
and improve the stability of the reinforced body. Second,
(a)
(b)
275
it also illuminated that the maximum reinforced length
was not the better for soil retaining wall. The intensity of
the steel bar couldnt be sufficiently exerted when exceeding
certain length and the effect on the soil retaining wall was
not obvious, too.
CHOOEING THE REINFORCED LENGTH
Fixing the Optimal Reinforced Length Primarily
The equation to fix the allowing anti-pulling intensity
of the geogrid could be gained according to the
references. That was
1 (1)
Ta  Tu( )
F ld q F c r q F c d q F b d
In the Eq. (1) above, the yield tension Tu was great
than 80 kN/m in this paper. The mechanical destroy
factor Fld, the peristaltic change factor Fcr, the chemical
destroy factor Fcd and the biological destroy factor Fbd
were all considered, in the end we could educe that the
allowing anti-pulling intensity of the geogrid Ta equaled
to 12.9 kN/m. From four conditions above, it can be seen
that the anti-pulling intensity of the geogrid was 2.36
MPa when the reinforced length was 2.0 m. That was
11.8 kN/m after conversion and this value accorded with
the intensity need of geogrid. So the optimal reinforced
length was chosen to be 2.0 m in this paper.
Judgment of the Relative State between the Geogrid and
Soil
Using the optimal reinforced length chosen above,
we simulated the relative state between the geogrid and
soil to test its rationality.
The law of shear intensity in the interface used
Coulomb Law in FLAC3D and the equation was as
follows:
(c) U max  c  Tn tan G (2)

In the Eq. 2 above, max stands for the maximum shearing

strength, c stands for the cohesion, n stands for the
normal strength and stands for the fricative angle.
When shearing strength in the interface was less than
the shearing intensity, the condition in the interface was
elastic cohesion. Once exceed the shearing intensity, the
condition was sliding in rigid frication, that was to say,
the shearing destroy was the ideal elastic and plastic
ones. In FLAC3D, the coupled stress of the geogrid
indirectly reflected the relative displacements between
(d) the geogrid and soil. The larger the coupled stress, the
Fig. 6 Map of plastic state larger the displacements between them.
276
The coupled stresses of the geogrid were shown in
Fig. 7 when the reinforced length was 2.0 m. From the
figure, it can be seen that the maximum coupled stress
was 0.1456 MPa. It was 0.728 kN/m after transition and
less than the shearing intensity in the interface (1.35096
kN/m). This phenomenon illustrated that there were not
relative frication slide between the geogrid and soil and
they were all in the condition of elastic cohesion, that
was to say, the steel bar were not be pulled out. So the
optimal reinforced length chosen above satisfied the
need of anti-pulling out and 2.0 m was the rational value.
Fig. 7 Coupled stresses of the geogrid (Mpa)
CONCLUSIONS AND EXPECTATIONS
(1) The reinforced length of the reinforced soil
retaining wall had comparatively great effect on the side
displacements of the panel. The side displacements
decreased gradually with the increase of the reinforced
length.
(2) The maximum pulling stresses focused on the
lower half of the reinforced soil retaining wall and
decreased with the increase of the reinforced length.
(3) Reinforcing the soil retaining wall with steel bar
could change the distribution of stress. The plastic area
of the soil retaining wall moved away the panel with the
increase of the reinforced length. This tendency was
obvious when the reinforced length was less than 3 m,
but the tendency was very small when the reinforced
length was great than 3 m.
(4) The optimal reinforced length was fixed
according to the allowing anti-pulling intensity of the
geogrid. This value will give reference to the practical
engineering.
(5) Multiple conditions should be studied in the
future to enrich the design thoughts of the soil retaining
wall and give more reference to the design and con-
struction of the soil retaining wall.
REFERENCES
Bathurst RJ, Hatami K (1998) Seismic Response
Analysis of a Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil
Retaining Wall. Geo-synthetic International 5(12):
127-166
Bathurst RJ, Hatami K (1999) Earthquake Response
Analysis of Reinforced-Soil Walls Using FLAC,
FLAC and Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics,
Detournay, C. and HartR, Eds., Proceedings of the
International FLAC Symposium on Numerical
Modeling in Geomechanics. Minneapolis, MN
Chang QQ, Shu YM, Huang S (2007) Effect of bar
spacing on performance of reinforced soil retaining
walls. Journal of Hohai University (Natural Sciences)
35(5):557-562
Complied committee of Engineering applied handbook
of geosynthesized metrical (2000) Engineering
applied handbook of geosynthesized metrical.
Chinese Architecture Press, Beijing
Liu HB, Ling HI (2004) Elasto-plastic finite element
study for parameters of geogrid-reinforced soil
retaining wall. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 26(5): 668-673
Itasca Consulting Group Inc. (2002) Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions Users Guide.
Version 2.1. Itasca Consulting Group Inc., USA
Karpurpu R, Bathurst RJ (1995) Behaviour of
geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls using the
finite element method. Computers and Geotechnics
17: 279299
Qian JH, Yin ZZ (1996) Theory and calculation of
geoengineering. Chinese Hydroelectrical Press,
Beijing: 401-451
Rowe RK, Skinner GD (2001) Numerical Analysis of
Geosynthetic Reinforced Retaining Wall Constructed
on a Layered Soil Foundation. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 19: 387-412
Yang X, Yi ZJ (2002) Study on reasonable distribution
of reinforcement for reinforced slope. China Civil
Engineering Journal 35(4): 60-64