9th International Symposium on Lowland Technology

September 29-October 1, 2014 in Saga, Japan

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS USING FEM 2D AND FEM 3D COMPARED TO OBSERVED

BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED FULL SCALE EMBANKMENT
S. Shrestha1, P. Baral1, D.Bergado2, J.C. Chai3, T. Hino4
ABSTRACT: A full scale test embankment (6 m height) was constructed by Department of Highways, the Bureau of Road
Research and Development in Phitsanulok, Thailand. A surcharge fill of 1.2 m thick without reinforcements was added at the
top of the embankment equivalent to 2 tsm of load. One side of this embankment was reinforced with polymeric
reinforcements consisting polyester (PET), Polypropylene (PP) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) and referred as
reinforced steep slope (RSS), which is at an angle of 70 degrees from horizontal. The other side of the embankment was
reinforced with metallic reinforcements consisting of metallic strips (MS) and steel wire grids (SWG) combined with precast
concrete panel and termed as mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSEW). The comparisons of these reinforcing materials in
terms of stiffness from highest to lowest are metallic strip (MS), steel wire grids (SWG), polypropylene (PP), high density
polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester (PET). The behavior of the test embankment on hard foundation was analyzed and
compared with the simulated results using PLAXIS software. The FEM 2D and the FEM 3D simulations were compared with
the observed data. The results obtained from FEM 3D have good agreement with the field measurements in terms of vertical
and lateral deformations of the embankment. However, there were slight differences when compared with the FEM 2D
simulations due to its limitations.
Keywords: FEM 3D, FEM 2D, metallic reinforcement, polymer reinforcement, hard foundation, test embankment

BACKGROUND
Soil reinforcement, has become a widely used
earthwork construction method that provides technically
attractive and cost-effective grade separations at the ground
surface. The increasing use and acceptance of soil
reinforcement has been triggered by a number of factors
including cost savings, aesthetics, simple and fast
construction techniques, good seismic performance, and the
ability to tolerate large total and differential settlement
without structural distress.
Numerical analysis has been proved as a powerful and
convenient tool for predicting the performance of the MSE
wall (Bergado et al. 2003). Furthermore, many investigators
have demonstrated the use of the finite element method
(FEM) in the analysis of reinforced soil wall (Chai and
Bergado 1993 a;b Bergado and Chai 1995; Tanchaisawat et
al. 2008). This paper deals with modeling of the full-scale
test Mechanically Stabilized Earth wall/embankment by
FEM 2D and FEM 3D as compared to the observed data.
Bergado et al. 2003 suggested FEM under plane strain
condition can be successively utilized to analyze the pullout
1

and direct shear mechanisms as well as the behavior of

hexagonal wire mesh reinforced embankment with silty
sand backfill. Bergado and Teerawattanasuk 2008
compared the reliability of FEM 2D and FEM 3D by
studying two full-scale embankments; steel grid
embankment having longer plan dimensions with length-towidth ratio of 3.0 (long embankment) and hexagonal wire
mesh reinforced embankment having shorter plan
dimensions with length-to-width ratio of 1.0 (short
embankment). The actual behavior of the steel grid
reinforced long embankment corresponded more closely to
the results of the 2D numerical simulations. Furthermore,
the actual behavior of the hexagonal wire mesh reinforced
short embankment corresponded more closely to the results
of the 3D numerical simulations. The geometric effects
were important factors that affected the results of the
numerical simulations. Suksiripattanapong et al., 2012
performed numerical simulation on the bearing
reinforcement earth wall constructed on the hard stratum
using FEM 2D. The behavior of the BRE wall was
simulated satisfactorily and agreed well with the predictions
in terms of changes in foundation settlements, bearing

M. Eng. Graduate, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, [email protected]

Guest Professor, Institute of Lowland and Marine Research (ILMR), Saga University, Saga, Japan
3
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Saga University, Saga, Japan
4
Professor, Institute of Lowland and Marine Research (ILMR), Saga University, Saga, Japan
2

Shrestha, et al.

stresses, lateral earth pressures and tensions in the

reinforcements during and after construction.
A full scale test embankment (6 m height) constructed
in Phitsanulok, Thailand consist of Reinforced Steep Slope
(RSS) and Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall (MSEW)
with high strength polymeric geogrid and metallic
reinforcements. The behavior of this embankment on hard
foundation were re-analyzed with FEM 2D and compared
with the simulated results from previous studies (FEM 3D).
The soil and reinforcement parameters along with the
interface strengths of the MSE embankment/wall were
back-analyzed. The input parameters for metallic and
polymeric reinforcements were obtained from laboratory
testing at AIT. Similarly, the input parameters for the
backfill materials and surcharge were also initially obtained
from the laboratory test and then back calculated until the
suitable parameter was obtained.

MODEL PARAMETERS

DESCRIPTION OF THE MSE EMBANKMENT

Table 1 Soil properties of the backfill soil

In the full scale embankment, reinforced steep slope

(RSS) of 70 degrees from the horizontal with soil bags as
facing was utilized in one side whereas mechanically
stabilized earth wall (MSEW) with concrete panel as facing
was used in another side. Both facing (RSS and MSEW)
were designed up to a height of 6m. A surcharge fill 1.2 m
thick was later added without reinforcement at the top of
the embankment equivalent to 2 tsm load. The length of the
embankment was 18 m and width was 15m. Polyester
(PET), polypropylene (PP) and high density polyethylene
(HDPE) geogrids were polymeric reinforcements in the
reinforced steep slope (RSS) whereas metallic strips (MS)
and steel wire grid (SWG) were metallic reinforcements in
mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSEW) facing of the
embankment.
The vertical spacing between each reinforcement layer
was 0.5 m and the length was 5 m while upper layers of
metallic strip from layer 7 to layer 12 had 5.80 m length.
Different monitoring instruments were installed to monitor
vertical and lateral displacements, total stresses, excess pore
water pressure, groundwater and strains in reinforcing
material. These include inclinometers, settlement plates,
total pressure cells, standpipe piezometers, vibrating wire
strain gauges and fiber optic strain gauges. In addition,
observation wells were installed to monitor the level of
groundwater at the dummy area located more than 10.0 m
from the embankment. The plan and section views of the
embankment are shown in Figs. 1 a, b.

Backfill Materials
The material used as backfill in the embankment
consisted of 50% lateritic soil mixed with 50% silty sand
(by volume) and has moisture content and dry unit weight
as 7% and 22.05 kN/m3, respectively. The friction angle
and cohesion of this backfill material obtained from direct
shear test were 42 degrees and 80 kPa. From triaxial 1 (CU)
test, the effective friction and cohesion were 37 degrees and
20 kPa, respectively. Moreover, from triaxial 2 (CU) test,
the effective friction angle and cohesion were 32.8 degrees
and 0 kPa, respectively. Thus, the effective friction angle
varied from 32.8 degrees to 37 degrees, and effective
cohesion varied from 0 to 20 kPa, as obtained from two
different triaxial (CU) tests.

Property
Atterberg Limit Test
Sieve Analysis Test

Unified Classification
AASHTO
Classification
Compaction Test

California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) Test
Direct Shear Test
Triaxial 1 (CU) Test
Triaxial 2 (CU) Test

Plane strain from

Triaxial 1 (CU) Test
Plane strain from
Triaxial 2 (CU) Test
pH Value
Organic Content
Resistivity

Lateritic Soil Mixed with Sand

(50:50 by volume)
LL = 20.8%, PL=17.3 %,
PI=3.5%.
Sample No.1
Percent Finer=0.94%, Cu=40,
Cc=0.34
Sample No.2
Percent Finer=0.14%,
Cu=42.86, Cc=0.55
Poorly Graded Sand (SP)
A-2-4(0)
Maximum Dry Unit Weight
(d) = 22.05 kN/m3
Optimum Moisture Content
(OMC) = 7.0%
CBR=50.5%
Friction Angle, =42 degrees
Cohesion,C = 80 kPa
Friction Angle, =37 degrees
Cohesion,C = 20 kPa
Friction Angle, =32.8
degrees
Cohesion,C = 0 kPa
ps=38.5 degrees
ps=32.2 degrees
6.16
0.9918%
5088 -cm

Numerical Simulations using FEM 2D and FEM 3D Compared to observed behavior of reinforced full scale embankment

For the plane strain condition the friction angle is converted

by Lad and Lee (1976) formula as =38.5 degrees and 32.2
degrees, respectively. The various properties of backfill
material are tabulated in the Table 1.
Foundation Soils
The soil profile in Phitsanulok Province consisted of
generally hard ground. One borehole was located (BH-1) in
the middle of the embankment. Three additional boreholes
BH-2, BH-3 and BH-4 were drilled adjacent to the
embankment near the RSS facing in order to obtain more
data on the soil profile. The borehole locations and
instrumentations at MSE wall/embankment are shown in
Fig.1a. Fig.1b indicates the cross section of MSE wall. The
soil profiles are from dense to very dense clayey sand to
hard silty clay. The level of the groundwater was found at
2m depth below the ground surface.

Precast concrete Panel Facing

The precast concrete panel was used as wall facing. The
dimensions of the panel are 1.5 m width, 1.5 m height and
0.15 m thick. In this study, the precast concrete panels were
modeled using plate elements.. The properties of concrete
panel facing are tabulated in Table 2.
Table 2 Material properties of concrete panel facing
Parameter
Type of behavior
Normal stiffness
Flexural rigidity
Equivalent thickness
Weight
Poisson's ratio
Model

Name
Material type
EA
EI
d
w

Plate

Value
Elastic
42000000
78500
0.15
3.6
0.15

Unit
kN/m
kN.m2/m
m
kN/m/m
-

Metallic and Polymeric Reinforcement

Fig. 1a Plan and instrumentations of MSE wall/

embankment

The metallic and polymeric reinforcement were

modeled as geogrid material in FEM 2D, specifically
designed to simulate the behavior of thin, flat and discrete
reinforcing strips. The Strip element can yield in
compression and tension. The axial stiffness was obtained
from laboratory tests. The various properties of
reinforcements are tabulated in the Table 3. The
comparison of the reinforcement stiff nesses from highest
to lowest is as follows: metallic strip (MS), steel wire grid
(SWG), polypropylene (PP), high density polyethlene
(HDPE) and polyester (PET).

Table 3 Material properties of reinforcements

Fig. 1b Cross section of MSE wall/embankment indicating

the locations of monitoring instruments

Material
Name
Metallic Strip
(MS)
Steel Wire
Grid (SWG)
Polyester
(PET)
Polypropylen
e (PP)
High Density
Polyethylene
(HDPE)

Model

Tensile
Strength
(kN/m)

Thickness
(mm)

Normal
Stiffness,
EA (kN/m)

Geogrid

277.6

4.00

88000

Geogrid

128.1

6.00

35000

Geogrid

83.6

1.50

925

Geogrid

91.9

1.45

1360

Geogrid

85.8

1.91

1320

Shrestha, et al.

Soil / Reinforcement Interfaces

Interface elements were attached on the grid elements in
order to simulate the frictional interaction between the
geogrid and the backfill soil. The various properties of R
interface parameter from Large-Scale Direct Shear Test
results are tabulated in the Table 4.
Table 4 Interface strengths from large-scale direct shear test
result

Soil to
Soil
Steel
Strip
Steel
Grid
Miragrid
GX80/30
PET
Secugrid
80/80 Q1
PP
TT 090
SAMP
HDPE

Friction
angle,
()
40

Cohesion,
c (kPa)

Rinter

23

1.00

36

23

0.87

40

28

1.00

33

21

0.79

35

25

0.83

33

24

0.77

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS AND STAGED

CONSTRUCTION OF THE EMBANKMENT
The numerical model of the MSE wall/embankment was
performed using FEM 2D (PLAXIS V 8.2, 2009). The
program allowed for plane strain idealizations including
simulation of the construction sequences. The FEM
software used required material properties (Table 5) to be
established and explicitly model the soil, facing panels,
reinforcement layers, and the interfaces. As shown in the
Fig. 2, the mesh is created and the nodal points at the
bottom boundary were fixed in both directions, and those
on the side boundaries were fixed only in the horizontal
direction. The FEM 3D (PLAXIS 3D, 2011) was done by
Baral (2012).The mesh created in FEM 3D is shown in Fig.
3 respectively. The side boundaries were placed at a
distance of two times the width of the embankment, and the
bottom boundary was fixed up to the known soil layer.
Such distances and assumed boundary conditions are
considered to approximately simulate the semi-infinite
extent of the system. The in-situ stresses in the foundation
soil were generated by the Ko procedure. Then, the backfill
which was divided into 13 layers, as in the field was placed

on the foundation soil layer by layer. After the placement of

the compacted fill layer the reinforcement was placed at
interval of 0.5 m vertical spacing per stage until the
completion of full height of the embankment. During this
construction stage drained Mohr Coulomb analysis is used
to simulate the layer by layer construction. After the
completion of the full height of the embankment drained
analysis is used to simulate the consolidation process for
186 days. The constitutive model to simulate the behavior
of the reinforced backfill used was a linear elastic,
perfectly-plastic model with Mohr-Coulombs failure
criterion. This constitutive model was characterized by five
parameters: elastic parameters (E: Young modulus, :
Poissons ratio) and plastic parameters (: friction angle, c:
cohesion, and : dilatancy angle).

Fig. 2 FEM 2D of full scale reinforced test embankment

Fig. 3 FEM 3D of full scale reinforced test embankment

Numerical Simulations using FEM 2D and FEM 3D Compared to observed behavior of reinforced full scale embankment

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

larger than MS, since there is large difference in stiffness

between HDPE and MS.

Lateral Displacements
Comparison of FEM 2D and observed data
The influence parameters to lateral displacements of the
test embankment were investigated. The soil-reinforcement
interaction parameter(Rinter), modulus of elasticity (E),
cohesion (C) were varied to study their influences in lateral
displacements. Table 5 shows the interface parameters
(Rinter) that were used in the analysis. Based on the
simulated results, the total horizontal displacement caused
by foundation settlement was analyzed and compared with
the observed data. The lateral displacements of HDPE on
RSS side, MS on MSEW side obtained from field
measurement by inclinometers were compared with the data
from numerical simulations at 186 days after the end of the
construction. Figs. 4 to 5 show the measured and simulated
lateral deformations at PE and MS reinforcements,
respectively. Inclinometers I3 and I5 were used to measure
the lateral displacement for HDPE and MS section in the
field.
Comparison of FEM 2D (Shrestha, 2013) versus FEM 3D
(Baral, 2012) simulations
HDPE cross-section
According to the FEM 2D analyses, the lateral
displacement of PE geogrid after 186 days was found to be
7 mm. The large lateral displacement was observed at the
bottom-middle height of RSS facing. The predicted results
from FEM 2D slightly over predicted both the field
measured lateral displacement and results from FEM 3D
(Baral, 2012) on the lower half of the embankment height
and under predicts for the upper half of the embankment
(Fig. 4).
MS cross-section
According to the FEM 2D analyses, the lateral
displacement of SWG geogrid after 186 days was found to
be 4 mm. The predicted results from FEM 2D slightly over
predicted both the field measured lateral displacement and
results from FEM 3D (Baral, 2012) (Fig. 5).
The FEM 2D (Shrestha, 2013) yielded the overall behavior
of the test embankment quite closer in the MSEW facing
i.e. MS reinforced side than the RSS facing i.e. HDPE
reinforced side when compared with the observed data.
The results showed that observed and FEM 2D simulated
displacements were under predicted above 4.50 m and over
predicted till 4.50m height of the embankment. These may
be due to the limitations under plane strain conditions.
The lateral displacement of geogrids HDPE after 186 days
were 16mm. The lateral displacement for HDPE was found

Fig. 4 Observed and simulated lateral displacements in

HDPE
Vertical Settlements
Surface and subsurface settlement plates were installed in
the embankment at different heights such as S1 to S15 at
the foundation level - 0m and S31 to S45 at the top level5.5m to measure the vertical settlements. The settlement
prediction on the MSE wall/embankment on hard ground
foundation mostly depended on the uppermost Dense to
Very Dense Clayey Sand layer. Settlements were affected
when the permeability values of the subsoil layer were
varied.
Comparison of FEM 2D and observed data
Surface and subsurface settlement plates were installed
in the embankment at different height to measure the
vertical settlements. Due to the construction of
embankment in the hard ground; the values of vertical
settlements were relatively low. The settlement profile of
the section PE-MS at different levels of the embankment
(0.00m at the base of embankment and 5.50m at the top
height of embankment) are plotted together with the
simulated data in Figs. 6 to 7 ,respectively.

Shrestha, et al.

Comparison of FEM 2D (Shrestha, 2013) versus FEM 3D

(Baral, 2012) simulations
HDPE-MS cross-Section
The maximum settlement at the base of the
embankment (Level 0.00m) ranged from 50 to 70 mm at
186 days after construction. The compression of the
foundation was found to increase slightly towards the
middle, as shown in Fig. 6 for this section. Similarly, the
compression of the embankment (Level 0.00m to Level
5.50m) varied between 20 to 40 mm and is shown in Fig. 7
for this section. The FEM 2D over predicted the vertical
settlement when compared with FEM 3D (Baral, 2012) for
this section. The simulated results from FEM 2D over
predicted vertical settlements in comparison to the
simulated result of FEM 3D (Baral,2012). The over
prediction may be due to the limitation of analyses under
plane strain condition.

Fig. 5 Observed and simulated lateral displacements in MS

Table 5 Material conditions and parameters used in the analysis
sat
(kN/m3
)

unsat
(kN/m
3)

Kx(m/
day)

Ky(m/
day)

E (kPa)

c'
(kPa
)

'ps
()

22.7

21.0

0.8

0.4

0.37

12,000

10

38.5

19.0

17.0

0.001

0.0005

0.35

20,000

15

30

Draine
d

18.0

16.0

0.001

0.0005

0.35

15,000

34

4.005.50

Draine
d

18.0

16.0

0.001

0.0005

0.35

25,000

36

5.5010.00

Undrai
ned

19.0

17.0

0.0001

0.0000
5

0.35

50,000

70

28

Mo
del

Depth(m
)

Conditi
on

Backfill material
Dense to very
dense
clayey sand

MC
MC

0.002.00

Draine
d
Draine
d

Loose
clayey sand

MC

2.004.00

Medium dense
clayey sand

MC

Very stiff to hard

silty clay

MC

Soil Description

11.50Draine
13.00
d
19.0
17.0
0.001
0.0005
13.00Undrai
0.0000
Hard silty clay
MC 21.45
ned
22
20
0.0001 5
Rint(PET)=0.79 , Rint(PP)=0.83 , Rint(HDPE)=0.77 , Rint(SWG)=1.0 , Rint(MS)=0.87
Dense clayey sand

MC

0.35

30,000

33

0.35

80,000

100

26

Numerical Simulations using FEM 2D and FEM 3D Compared to observed behavior of reinforced full scale embankment

Fig. 6 Compression of the foundation at 186 days (Level

0.00m) in HDPE-MS

and vertical settlements in the MSEW faced side was less in

comparison with the RSS faced side from monitored data.
The RSS side has more settlement and displacement as a
result of lower stiffness than MSEW side. The stiffness
was found from highest to lowest as metallic strip (MS),
steel wire grids (SWG), polypropylene (PP), high density
polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester (PET). The results
obtained from 3D finite element method simulation (FEM
3D) have good agreement with the field measurements in
terms of vertical and lateral deformations in the
reinforcements of the embankment. However, there were
slight differences when compared with the FEM 2D
simulations due to its limitations. The discrepancy between
the measured data and the simulated data may be due to
some limitations of the boundary conditions in FEM 2D for
shorter embankments with asymmetric structure and
varying physical properties in short distance apart. FEM 3D
is better for analyzing the behavior of the embankment with
shorter plan dimensions than FEM 2D. The boundary value
problem, the effects of boundary conditions (2D or 3D)
applied in numerical analysis should be considered as
important factors that may affect the numerical results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the Department of
Highway, Thailand for supporting this research.

REFERENCES

Fig. 7 Compression of the foundation at 186 days (Level

5.5m) in HDPE-MS

CONCLUSIONS
The full scale test embankment (6 m height) was
constructed by Department of Highway, the Bureau of
Road Research and Development in Phitsanulok, Thailand
on hard foundation. One side of this embankment was
reinforced with polymeric reinforcements consisting
polyester (PET), Polypropylene (PP) and high density
polyethylene (HDPE) and referred as reinforced steep slope
(RSS), which is at an angle of 70 degrees from horizontal.
The other side of the embankment was reinforced with
metallic reinforcements consisting metallic strips (MS) and
steel wire grids (SWG) combined with precast concrete
panel and termed as mechanically stabilized earth wall
(MSEW). The comparisons of the behavior of both metallic
and polymeric reinforcements were monitored and
observed in terms of stiffness. The lateral displacements

Baral P., 2012. Simulation and Back-analyses of Design

Parameters of MSE wall/embankment on Hard
Foundations using PLAXIS 3D Software. M. Eng.
Thesis No. GE-11-, AIT, Bangkok, Thailand
Bergado, D.T. and Chai J. C. (1995). FE analysis of Grid
reinforced embankment system on soft bangkok clay.
Computers and Geotechnics:17, 447-471.
Bergado, D.T., S. Youwai, C. Teerawattanasuk, P.
Visudmedanukul (2003). The interaction mechanism
and behavior of hexagonal wire mesh reinforce
embankment with silty sand backfill on soft clay.
Computers and Geotechnics 30 :517-534.
Bergado, D.T. and Teerawattanasuk, C. (2008). 2D and 3D
numerical simuations of reinforced embankments on
soft ground. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 20(6):
343-365.
Chai, J.C., Bergado, D.T., 1993a. Performance of
reinforced embankment on Muar clay deposit. Soils and
Foundations 33(4), 117.
Chai, J.C., Bergado, D.T., 1993b. Some techniques for FE
analysis of embankment on soft ground. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 30,710719.

Shrestha, et al.

PLAXIS 2D-Version (8.2), PLAXIS Manual, PLAXIS b.v.,

The Netherlands.
PLAXIS 3D-Version, 2011. PLAXIS Manual, PLAXIS
b.v., The Netherlands.
Suksiripattanapong, C., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Horpibulsuk,
S., Rujikiatkamjorn, C. and Tanhsutthinon, T. (2012).
Numerical analysis of bearing reinforcement earth wall,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 32: l28-37.

Tanchaisawat, T. , Bergado , D.T., Voottipruex, P. (2008)

Numerical simulation and sensitivity analyses of fullscale test embankment with reinforced lightweight
geomaterials on soft Bangkok clay. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 26: 498-511
Shrestha S., 2013. Reanalysis of full scale test embankment
with polymer and metallic reinforcement on hard
ground using FEM-PLAXIS 2D. M. Eng. Thesis No.
GE-13-, AIT, Bangkok, Thailand