Baral et al.

Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20

DOI 10.1186/s40703-016-0035-6

ORIGINAL RESEARCH Open Access

The use of polymeric and metallic

geogrid on a full‑scale MSE wall/embankment
on hard foundation: a comparison of field data
with simulation
Pankaj Baral1*, Dennes T. Bergado1 and Sowarapan Duangkhae2

*Correspondence:
baral.pankaj@gmail.com Abstract 
1
School of Engineering A full-scale reinforced earth embankment was designed and constructed by the
and Technology, Asian
Institute of Technology, Department of Highways of Thailand on a hard foundation in Phitsanulok Province,
P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Thailand. Two types of reinforcement were used in the embankment. One side was
Pathumthani 10120, Thailand reinforced with polymeric reinforcement consisting of polyester (PET), polypropylene
Full list of author information
is available at the end of the (PP) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and referred to as a reinforced steep slope
article (RSS), with an angle of 70° from horizontal. On the other side, the embankment was
reinforced with metallic reinforcement consisting of metallic strips (MS) and steel wire
grids (SWG) combined with vertical segmental concrete facing and referred to as a
mechanically stabilised earth wall (MSEW). The behaviour of the reinforced soil slope
and the mechanically stabilised earth wall on a hard foundation were observed and
compared with predictions from the PLAXIS 3D software. The lateral displacements
and settlements were very small in the case of the MSEW with inextensible reinforce-
ment. The corresponding lateral and vertical deformations in the RSS were much larger
due to its extensible reinforcing materials. The stiffnesses of the reinforcing materials
decrease in the following order: MS, SWG, PP, HDPE and PET. The results obtained from
three-dimensional (3D) finite element method simulations (using PLAXIS 3D) were in
good agreement with the field measurements in terms of vertical and lateral deforma-
tions and strains in the reinforcement.
Keywords:  Metallic reinforcement, Polymer reinforcement, Hard foundation, Test
embankment

Background
In past years, many researchers studied the behaviour of several reinforced earth struc-
tures (i.e., mechanically stabilised earth wall/embankment) on Bangkok soft soil. Most of
them were constructed in the premises of AIT campus. The fully instrumented steel grid
reinforced embankment was constructed in the campus of Asian Institute of Technology
in March 1989. The backfill of this reinforced embankment were clayey sand, lateritic
and weathered clay whereas the reinforcement used was steel grid. Shivashankar [32]
observed the behaviour of a welded wire wall with poor quality, cohesive-friction back-
fills on soft Bangkok clay.

© The Author(s) 2016. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 2 of 29

Later on, In May, 1993, another embankment was constructed in AIT campus with
polymer grid reinforcement as a reinforcing material. The reinforcement used in this
embankment was Tenax TT 201 geogrid SAMP, which is uniaxial oriented polymer
grid reinforcement [4]. Furthermore, Long [24] studied about the behaviour of a geo-
textile reinforced embankment on soft ground. This study was focussed on the inter-
action parameter between soil and geotextile reinforcement, the localized mobilization
of geotextile reinforcement force related with slip failure, the performance behaviour of
geotextile reinforced embankment on soft ground and the closed-form solution for rota-
tional stability analysis of reinforced embankment. Similarly, Voottipruex [40] studied
the behaviour of full scale embankment built in AIT campus which was reinforced with
hexagonal wire mesh up to 6 m with 10° inclined of gabion facing. The facing consisted
of large rectangular wire baskets wired all together and was filled with rock and height
of each basket was 1 m. Two types of reinforcements, galvanized coated and PVC coated
with unequal aperture size, were used in the two different sections along the length of
the wall. Furthermore, Lai et al. [23] performed the full scale MSE embankment laid on
fully instrumented Deep Mixing Method (DMM) improved ground. The behaviour of
the full scale test embankment showed that deep mixing improvement method reduced
the settlement of reinforced soil test embankment by 70%, which was an effective find-
ing. Tanchaisawat [37] performed the study about the interaction between geogrid and
tire chips-sand mixture, performances of full scale geogrid reinforced test embankment
and numerical simulation of this full scale test embankment. The results revealed that
the aperture sizes of geogrid affected most for the direct shear resistance of geogrids. He
concluded that larger aperture size may lead to higher direct shear resistance.
The behaviour of a mechanically stabilised earth wall was studied by numerical simula-
tion, laboratory testing and full-scale physical modelling. Many researchers have studied
the behaviour of reinforced embankments, and most of them assumed plane strain con-
ditions in doing so [5, 9, 10, 13–16, 18, 21, 31, 43]. The behaviour of reinforced embank-
ments has also been investigated using three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis
[7, 8, 12, 34]. Smith and Su [34] reported that 3D finite element analysis can be used to
model a reinforced soil embankment under service loading and at collapse. Briaud and
Lim [12] utilised three-dimensional nonlinear finite element analysis to study the factors
that influence the behaviour of tieback walls. Auvinet and Gonzalez [7] recommended
that 3D analysis be considered under the following conditions:

a. In the case of short slopes for which boundary conditions cannot be ignored.
b. When the soil properties vary significantly along the longitudinal direction of the
slope or embankment.
c. When the slope is subjected to concentrated loading.
d. When the potential failure is irregular.

Bergado and Teerawattanasuk [8] compared the effect of embankment geometry with
two-dimensional (2D) and 3D simulations and concluded that 3D analysis must be con-
ducted for short embankments to obtain good agreement with measured field data. Moreo-
ver, it was confirmed that geometric effects should be considered important factors that can
affect the results of the numerical simulation. Huang et al. [19] has investigated different soil
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 3 of 29

constitutive models and their influences on the results. The paper confirmed that the modi-
fied Duncan–Chang model is a suitable constitutive model and that the parameters used
in that model can be determined from conventional triaxial testing. However, the interface
parameters used in their study were kept constant from the top to the base of the wall. Two-
and three-dimensional numerical studies based on the finite element method (FEM) [3, 33]
were used to analyse the deformation and influence of several parameters of reinforced soil
walls of different types. Abdelouhab et al. [1] and Bourgeois et al. [11] investigated the influ-
ence of different types of synthetic strip reinforcement on the behaviour of a mechanically
stabilised earth wall and identified the synthetic strip parameters that led to high horizontal
displacements of the facing wall in the numerical simulation.
Moreover, Cisneros [17], Abiera [2], Mir [25], Kabiling [20], Modmoltin [26], Wong-
sawanon [41], Srikongsri [35], Visudmedanukul [39], Asanprakit [6], Kongkikul [22],
Supawiwat [36], Youwai [42], Rittirong [30], Prempramote [29], Tin [38] and Nualkiang
[27] studied and analysed the behaviour of various reinforced earth embankment and its
components during their research in AIT.
A full-scale test embankment was constructed in Phitsanulok Province, Thailand on
hard ground using five different types of reinforcing materials (polymeric on one side
and metallic on the other side). The reinforced steep slope (RSS) was reinforced with
polymeric material with soil bags as the facing material, and the mechanically stabilised
earth (MSE) wall was reinforced with metallic reinforcement with precast concrete pan-
els as the facing material. This embankment was fully instrumented with piezometers,
settlement plates, inclinometers, total pressure cells and strain gauges and subjected to
careful field monitoring to obtain high-quality data. The aim of this study was to com-
pare the behaviour of polymeric- and metallic-reinforced embankments on hard founda-
tion with 3D numerical simulations conducted using PLAXIS 3D. Particular attention
was given to the lateral displacements, vertical settlements, total vertical pressures and
tensile forces in the reinforcement.

Description of the embankment

A 6-m-high reinforced earth embankment was constructed and designed by the Depart-
ment of Highways (DOHs) of Thailand near Highway No. 11 in Phitsanulok Province
in central Thailand. The test embankment was 18 m long and 15 m wide at the top. On
one side, the reinforced steep slope (RSS) was constructed with a face sloping 70° from
the horizontal and consisting of soil bags. On the other side, the mechanically stabi-
lised earth wall (MSEW) was installed with vertical concrete panels as the facing. Three
types of polymeric geogrids reinforcement were installed in the reinforced steep slope
(RSS) facing, and two types of metallic reinforcement were installed in the mechani-
cally stabilised earth wall (MSEW) facing. The three types of polymeric geogrid rein-
forcement were polyester (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene
(PP). The two types of metallic reinforcement were steel wire grids (SWG) and metal-
lic strips (MS). The vertical spacing was 0.5 m and the length of the reinforcement was
5 m. The monitoring instruments installed to check the vertical and horizontal displace-
ments, stresses, excess pore water pressures, depth to the groundwater table and strains
in the reinforcing material included inclinometers, settlement plates, total pressure cells,
standpipe piezometers, vibrating-wire strain gauges and fibre optic strain gauges. In
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 4 of 29

addition, two observation wells were installed to measure the fluctuation in the depth
to the groundwater table. The plan and cross section of the MSE wall/embankment with
the location monitoring instruments are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.

Construction of full scale MSE wall

Full scale MSE wall was constructed with full instrumentation program as outlined in
“Description of the embankment” section. Preliminary design based on proposed wall
geometry was carried out prior the execution of the construction work. Geogrid, steel

Fig. 1  Plan of MSE wall/embankment

Fig. 2  Cross section of MSE wall/embankment indicating the location of the monitoring instrument
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 5 of 29

grid and steel strip as the reinforcement for the MSE wall was prepared in the desired
length prior the installation work.

Preliminary design of MSE wall/embankment

Preliminary design of the MSE wall was carried out based on the external and internal
stability analysis of the geometry of the wall. Limit equilibrium method of analysis was
adopted for the preliminary design by assuming the interaction of the reinforcement with
the backfill material based on the laboratory test data carried out in AIT. Silty sand mixed
with lateritic soil (1:1 by volume) sourced from Phitsanulok is used as backfill material.
The wall height assumed for the preliminary design is 6 m with vertical facing. Verti-
cal spacing of 5 (five) type of reinforcement adopted is 0.50  m and horizontal spacing
for only steel strip is 0.50 m center to center of the 0.05 m wide strip of reinforcement.
Precast concrete facing panel of 1.50 m height, 1.50 m width and 0.15 m thickness and
with surface area of 2.25 sq m is used for the construction of the wall. Concrete strength
of facing panel was 30 MPa.
The internal stability, tension in the reinforcement behind the failure surface was
checked against the lateral internal earth pressures. The lateral earth pressure coefficient
was assumed to be uniform throughout the height of the wall at the value corresponding
to the at rest condition (Ko). The effects of compaction were ignored in this prelimi-
nary design. The total pullout resistance inclusive of the friction over the reinforcement
behind the failure surface was checked to be greater than the driving forces due to the
internal lateral earth pressure. Also, the maximum tension force in each layer of rein-
forcement at the peak pullout resistance was checked not to exceed its yield point.
The external stability was examined using the conventional Bishop’s method of slope
stability analysis. A conservative estimate of minimum factor of safety is assessed to be
around 1.5. The soil strength was assumed to be fully mobilized along the potential fail-
ure surface. Factor of safety was defined as the maximum reinforcement force available
divided by the force required for stability to give a factor of safety of unity.

Construction method
Site clearing and levelling works were carried out for the marking of the position of the pro-
posed MSE wall/embankment. First course of pre-cast concrete facing panels were placed
into position using lifting equipment. During the installation of the precast concrete fac-
ing panel, vertical and horizontal alignment of each panel was inspected using a spirit level.
Adjustment of the verticality of the facing panel was carried out with the help of securing
wooden wedges in between the facing panel. Clamp made of timber and steel rod complete
with fastener was used to secure the positioning of each facing panel from movement.
Geogrid reinforcement form delivered in roll form (approximately 100  m per roll)
from the factory. It was cut by length of 7.0 m each and optical fiber with sensors was
installed at designated locations of the selected geogrid reinforcement at the site.
Steel grid and steel strip with 5.0  m length was installed and connected to concrete
panel facing. Vibrating wire strain gauges were fixed to steel reinforcement at designated
locations at the site.
The first course of backfill material (silty sand) was spread at the rear of the precast
concrete facing panel. Compaction of backfill material to 95% proctor density of the
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 6 of 29

backfill material was carried out by a vibratory compactor. A small vibratory compactor
was utilized to carry out the compaction work at narrow area with interference of the
instruments installed. After the completion of the compaction work, (1) the first layer
of steel grid reinforcement was installed into position and attached to the precast con-
crete facing panel by lap joint mechanism (Fig. 3). The lap joint mechanism was secured
by inserting a 10 mm diameter deformed steel bar across the lap fold mesh. Steel grid
was installed horizontally along the wall. The effective length of the reinforcements was
5.0 m after deducting for the connection. (2) The first layer of steel strip reinforcement
was installed into position and attached to the precast concrete facing panel by using a
12 mm diameter galvanized bolt (Fig. 4). (3) The first layer of geogrid reinforcement was
installed into position and turns up geogrid reinforcement at the face of the slope and
returns the reinforcement a minimum of 1 m into the embankment below the next rein-
forcement layer (Fig. 5). This embankment was required soil bag with grass seed at the
face to retain backfill materials (Fig. 6).
Subsequent course of backfill material measuring of 0.50 m thick were spread over the
plan surface area covering the embankment. Similar compaction work was carried out
before the next course of precast concrete facing panel was installed. The procedure as
mentioned above was repeated until the full height of 6.0 m was achieved.

Fig. 3  The connection between concrete facing and steel grid reinforcement
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 7 of 29

Fig. 4  The connection between concrete facing and steel strip reinforcement

Fig. 5  The wrap face construction of geogrid reinforcement

During the construction of the embankment, field density test at various selected
places were carried out using sand cone replacement method to ensure compaction was
carried out to minimum of 95% standard proctor density.

Model parameters
Foundation soils
The soil profile in Phitsanulok province generally consists of hard ground. One bore-
hole (BH-1) was located in the middle of the embankment. Three additional boreholes
were bored adjacent to the embankment near the RSS facing to obtain more data on the
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 8 of 29

Fig. 6  The soil bag facing to retain backfill material

soil profile for the 3D model of the embankment foundation. These additional boreholes
were designated as BH-2, BH-3 and BH-4. The borehole locations are shown in Fig. 1.
Figure  7 indicate the soil profiles corresponding to BH-1–4, respectively. The depth
of the groundwater was 2 m below the ground surface. From Fig. 7, an abrupt change
in soil profile was noticed which affects the settlement profile and deformation of the
embankment too.

Backfill material
The backfill materials used in this embankment consisted of 50% lateritic soil mixed with
50% silty sand (by volume). The backfill material was classified as poorly graded sand
(SP). It had an optimum moisture content of 7.8%, a maximum dry unit weight 19.62 kN/
m3. A friction angle of 42° and cohesion of 80 kPa were measured in a direct shear test.
Effective friction angles of 32.8° and 37° and effective cohesions of 0 and 20  kPa were
measured in two different consolidated undrained (CU) triaxial tests. The properties of
the backfill material are tabulated in Table 1.

Reinforcement
Two types of reinforcement, namely polymeric and metallic reinforcement, were used in
the reinforced embankment. The polymeric reinforcement types used were high-density
polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP) and polyester (PET). The metallic reinforce-
ment consisted of metallic strips (MS) and steel wire grids (SWG). The properties of the
reinforcement are tabulated in Table 2. The reinforcing materials used in the embank-
ment are shown in Fig. 8. The MSEW facing with metallic reinforcement and the RSS
facing with polymeric reinforcement are shown in Fig. 9.

Precast concrete panel

The vertical facing used in the MSEW portion of the embankment consisted of segmen-
tal precast concrete blocks 1.5  m by 1.5  m in size. The model parameters used in the
numerical analysis for the precast concrete panels are summarised in Table 3. Interface
element was placed in between soil element and concrete panel during simulation.
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 9 of 29

Fig. 7  Soil profile SPT value (considering BH 1–4)

Interface shear strength and large scale direct shear test

The interaction between the backfill soil and the reinforcing materials, namely, the
metallic strips (MS), steel wire grids (SWG), polyester (PET), polypropylene (PP) and
high-density polyethylene (HDPE), was assessed by conducting large-scale direct shear
tests. The interface coefficients, Rinter, of the different types of reinforcing materials and
the backfill soil shear strength are tabulated in Table 4. The large-scale direct shear tests
were conducted under different normal stresses (i.e., 30, 60 and 90  kPa) and revealed
that the maximum interface shear stresses between the steel wire grids and soil were
highest, followed by the interface shear stresses between soil and soil, between metallic
strips and soil, and between the three types of geogrids and soil. The details regarding
apparatus and procedure of large scale direct shear test are described as below:
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 10 of 29

Table 1  Properties of backfill material

Atterberg limit test LL = 20.8%, PL = 17.3%, PI = 3.5%

Sieve analysis test Sample no. 1

Percent finer (#200 sieve) = 0.94%, Cu = 40, Cc = 0.34
Sample no. 2
Percent finer (#200 sieve) = 0.14%, Cu = 42.86, Cc = 0.55
Unified classification Poorly graded sand (SP)
AASHTO classification A-2-4(0)
Compaction test Maximum dry density (γd, max) = 19.62 kN/m3
Optimum water content (OMC) = 7.8%
California bearing ratio (CBR) test CBR = 50.5%
Direct shear test Friction angle = 42°
Cohesion = 80 kPa
Triaxial test (CU test)
 Test no. 1 Friction angle = 32.8°
Cohesion = 0 kPa
 Test no. 2 Friction angle = 37°
Cohesion = 20 kPa

Table 2  Properties of reinforcing materials

Material name Tensile strength Thickness (mm) Normal stiffness, Model Type
(kN/m) EA (kN/m)

Metallic strip (MS) 277.6 4.00 88,000 Geogrid –

Steel wire grid 128.1 6.00 35,000 Geogrid –
(SWG)
Polyester (PET) 83.6 1.50 925 Geogrid Miragrid GX80/30
Polypropylene (PP) 91.9 1.45 1360 Geogrid Secugrid 80/80 Q1
High-density poly- 85.8 1.91 1320 Geogrid TT 090 SAMP
ethylene (HDPE)

Fig. 8  Reinforcing materials

Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 11 of 29

Fig. 9  Photograph showing vertical face and sloping face showing metallic and polymeric reinforcements
respectively

Table 3  Properties of concrete panel facing

Parameter Name Value Unit

Type of behaviour Material type Elastic

Normal stiffness EA 42,000,000 kN/m
Flexural rigidity EI 78,500 kN/m2/m
Equivalent thickness d 0.15 m
Weight w 3.6 kN/m/m
Poisson’s ratio υ 0.15 –
Model Plate

Table 4  Interface coefficient (Rinter) and soil shear strength used in PLAXIS 3D

Soil to Friction angle Cohesion (kPa) Rinter

Soil 40 23 1.00
Steel strip 36 23 0.87
Steel wire grid 40 28 1.00
Miragrid GX80/30 PET 33 21 0.79
Secugrid 80/80 Q1 PP 35 25 0.83
TT 090 SAMP HDPE 33 24 0.77

Apparatus
The large-scale direct shear apparatus were adapted from the pullout machine which is
shown in Fig. 10. The lower half of the shear box was adapted from the empty pullout box
with two 1.24-m-long steel channels placed along the both sides of the shear box. The
cross-sectional dimensions of the steel channels were 9.5 mm × 76.2 mm  × 152 mm.
For the upper half of the shear box was composed of 9.5-mm-thick steel plate with an
inside dimensions of 0.93 m × 0.58 m × 0.56 m, having roller bearings resting on the
two bottom steel channels. Four steel bars with a diameter of 12.7 mm were welded in
front of the upper box slightly above the predetermined shear surface. This allowed the
upper shear box to be pulled by the same hydraulic jack used in the pullout machine.
The top cover comprised of two 6.3-mm-thick steel plates with a pressurized air bag
installed between them. The air bag was used for applying the normal pressures. Two
steel angle beams were connected to the upper shear box that could run along its
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 12 of 29

Fig. 10  Large-scale direct shear test apparatus a Longitudinal section and, b Cross section

horizontal direction by means of roller bearings. H-sectioned steel is also installed and
connected to the top of the machine in order to form the reaction frame of the applied
normal pressures.

Procedure
The predetermined amount of distilled water was added to the lateritic soil and silty
sand 50:50 by volume. The water content was the same as the optimum moisture content
obtained from the Modified Proctor compaction tests with the modified mold. The soil
mixture put into the lower half of shear box and compacted until its surface was lev-
eled to the height of box. This surface was the shear plane of the large-scale direct shear
apparatus. The upper shear box with its roller bearings was next placed immediately
above the lower sample, resting on the steel channels. The position of the upper shear
box was fixed by using four C-shaped clamps. These clamps, with two steel angles placed
across the top of the upper shear box, fastened the upper shear box to the sides of the
lower shear box. This could prevent the rising of the upper shear box during compaction
of another two succeeding layers of fill material, which was put into the box. The method
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 13 of 29

is used for controlling the density and the optimum moisture content. The flexible steel
plate is laid on the top of compacted fill material, and then followed by the air bag and
the top cover installation in order.

Numerical simulations
PLAXIS 3D Version [28] was utilised for the 3D FEM numerical simulations of the
embankment. To minimise the effects of test embankment boundaries, the PLAXIS 3D
discretisation was formulated and the boundary conditions were specified at distances of
two times the length and width of the reinforced embankment in the x and y directions,
respectively, as well as at a distance of four times the height of the reinforced embank-
ment in the z direction. To carry out the finite element analysis of the embankment
using PLAXIS 3D, a finite element mesh was created (Fig. 11), and the material proper-
ties of the embankment components were established (Table  5). The generation of an
appropriate finite element mesh and the generation of properties and boundary condi-
tions on an element level were automatically performed by the PLAXIS mesh generator
based on the input of the geometry model. The 10 noded tetrahedron elements model
in PLAXIS 3D consisted 101,325 elements and 148,547 nodes. In addition, the average
size of the element was found to be 1.646 m. Soil properties as determined from tests
on samples from four boreholes were used as the main inputs for the foundation soils
in the FEM model. The water level was specified at 2 m below the ground surface. The
polymeric and metallic reinforcements were characterised as geogrids, with their cor-
responding properties, whereas the precast concrete panels were characterised as plate
elements. A surcharge equivalent to 1.2-m-thick fill was added at the top of the embank-
ment 113 days after the start of construction. The simulation modelling was allowed to
run for 186 days (125 days for construction and 61 days for consolidation analysis).

Staged construction
The staged construction for modelling the mechanically stabilised earth wall was
divided into 16 stages with an equivalent period of 186 days. The embankment construc-
tion period with layers of compacted backfill lasted for 125  days and was followed by

Fig. 11  3D discretisation model of MSE wall/embankment

Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 14 of 29

Table 5  Material conditions and parameters used in PLAXIS 3D

Soil description Model Condition γsat (kN/m3) γunsat (kN/m3) υ E (kPa) c′ (kPa) Ф′ (°)

Backfill M-C Drained 22.7 21 0.3 20,000 10 37

Loose clayey sand M-C Drained 19 17 0.3 18,000 1 33
Medium dense clayey M-C Drained 18 16 0.3 37,500 5 34
sand
Stiff to very stiff clay M-C Undrained A 17 15 0.35 40,000 50 24
Very stiff clay M-C Undrained A 17 15 0.35 50,000 80 26
Hard clay M-C Undrained A 17.5 15.5 0.35 80,000 100 28
Undrained A uses the effective parameters for stiffness and strength in PLAXIS 3D

consolidation for 61 days. The staged construction and consolidation stages were mod-
elled by placing the backfill material, along with the corresponding reinforcement, at
incremental depths of 0.5 m per stage, until the embankment reached its full height, fol-
lowed by 0.25 m of cover. The embankment was then loaded with a surcharge equivalent
to a 1.2-m-thick fill 113  days after the start of its construction, and consolidation was
allowed to proceed for 61 days. The individual stages and their durations are tabulated in
Table 6. The loading time curve is plotted in Fig. 12.

Results
Lateral deformations
The lateral deformation of each type of polymeric reinforcement (i.e., PET, PP and
HDPE) on the RSS side and each type of metallic reinforcement (i.e., MS and SWG) on
the MSEW side obtained from field measurements using inclinometers is compared with
the numerical simulation results at 186 days after the end of the construction. Inclinom-
eters I1, I2, I3, I4, and I5 refer to the inclinometers installed in the PET, PP, PE, SWG
and MS, respectively. Figures 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 show the measured and simulated lateral
deformations of the PET, PP, PE, SWG and MS reinforcement, respectively. Large lateral

Table 6  Construction sequence of full-scale test reinforced embankment

Phase Duration (days)

Initial 0
Phase 1 10
Phase 2 12
Phase 3 12
Phase 4 12
Phase 5 12
Phase 6 11
Phase 7 7
Phase 8 7
Phase 9 7
Phase 10 7
Phase 11 7
Phase 12 8
Cover 25 cm 1
Surcharge (1.2 m fill) 12
Consolidation 61
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 15 of 29

Fig. 12  Construction details of MSE wall/embankment

B+
A+ I1 INCLINOMETER NO. 01
PET SWG
MSEW
RSS

PP
MS
PE

Net Lateral Displacement : A-axis (mm.)

50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
Elev (m.)

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0

16-Nov-10 (Base Reading Setup, +6.000 m Layer 13)

21-Jan-2011 (Monitoring no. 11, Surcharge 100%)
Inclinometer1_PET_FEM

Fig. 13  Inclinometer readings at the facing of the polyester (PET) geogrid reinforcement

displacements at the top of the PP, PET, and HDPE geogrid reinforcement at 186 days
were noted after the 1.2-m-thick surcharge was added, which can be observed in the
field too, as a tilt of the inclinometer on the top of the RSS facing (see Fig. 18). The larg-
est displacement occurred in the middle of the RSS facing with the PP geogrid reinforce-
ment. In the MSEW facing, the lateral displacement for SWG was slightly larger than for
MS because its stiffness is lower than MS. In general, the simulation results agreed well
with the field observations and polymeric reinforcements were successfully simulated
than metallic reinforcements in terms of lateral deformation.
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 16 of 29

PET
INCLINOMETER NO. 02

RSS
B+ SWG
A+ I2

MSEW
PP
MS
PE
Net Lateral Displacement : A-axis (mm.)
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

Elev (m.)
0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0
16-Nov-10 (Base Reading Setup, +6.000 m Layer 13)
21-Jan-11 (Monitoring no.11, Surcharge 100%)
Inclinometer2_PP_FEM

Fig. 14  Inclinometer readings at the facing of the polypropylene (PP) geogrid reinforcement

PET INCLINOMETER NO. 03

SWG
MSEW

PP
RSS

B+
A+ I3 MS
PE
Net Lateral Displacement : A-axis (mm.)
50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50
8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
Elev (m.)

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0
16-Nov-10 (Base Reading Setup, +6.000 m Layer 13)
21-Jan-11 (Monitoring no.11, Surcharge 100%)
Inclinometer I3_HDPE_FEM

Fig. 15  Inclinometer readings at the facing of the high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid reinforcement
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 17 of 29

PET I4 A+
B+
INCLINOMETER NO. 04
PP

MSEW
SWG

RSS
MS
PE Net Lateral Displacement : A-axis (mm.)
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
8.0

6.0

4.0

Elev (m.) 2.0

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0
16-Nov-10 (Base Reading Setup,+6.00m, Layer13)
21-Jan -11 (Monitoring No. 11, Surcharge 100%)
Inclinometer 4_SWG_FEM

Fig. 16  Inclinometer readings at the facing of the steel wire grid (SWG) reinforcement

Vertical deformations
Surface and subsurface settlement plates were installed in the embankment at differ-
ent locations to measure vertical settlements. The maximum settlement at the base of
the embankment (Level 0.00 m) ranged from 60 to 80 mm 186 days after construction.
The compression of the foundation was found to increase slightly towards the facing, as
shown in Figs. 19a, 20a and 21a for the PET-SWG, PP-MS and PE-MS sections, respec-
tively. Similarly, the compression of the embankment (Level 0.00 m to Level 5.50 m) var-
ied between 20 and 40 mm, as shown in Figs. 19b, 20b and 21b for the PET-SWG, PP-MS
and PE-MS sections, respectively. Due to the hard ground foundation, the magnitudes
of the vertical settlements were relatively low. The settlement profile of the PET-SWG,
PP-MS and PE-MS sections at different levels of the embankment (0.00 m at the base of
the embankment and 5.50 m at the top of embankment) are plotted together with the
simulated data in Figs. 19a,b, 20, 21a,b, respectively. Overall, the simulation results are
consistent with the vertical deformations measured in the field.

Strains in reinforcement
The measured and simulated strains in the metallic and polymeric reinforcement were
in good agreement. The strains were measured using vibrating-wire strain gauges in the
metallic reinforcement (SWG and MS) and using fibre optic strain gauges in the poly-
mer geogrids (PET, PP and HDPE). For the metallic reinforcement, the strains were
lower than the geogrid strains because the metallic reinforcement was much stiffer
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 18 of 29

PET
INCLINOMETER NO. 05
PP

MSEW
SWG
MS
PE I5 A+
B+ Net Lateral Displacement : A-axis (mm.)
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0
Elev (m.)

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0
16-Nov-10 (Base Reading Setup, +6.000 m Layer 13)
21-Jan-11 (Monitoring no.11, Surcharge 100%)
Inclinometer5_MS_FEM
Fig. 17  Inclinometer readings at the facing of the metallic strip (MS) reinforcement

Fig. 18  Figure showing tilt of inclinometer at the top of RSS facing

than the polymer geogrids. The measured and simulated strains in the metallic strips
(MS) and steel wire grids (SWG) are plotted in Figs.  22 and 23, respectively, after 125
and 186 days. The corresponding strains in the polymer geogrids (PET, HDPE and PP)
are plotted in Figs.  24, 25, 26, respectively. In general, good agreement was observed
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 19 of 29

Fig. 19  Compression profile of the PET-SWG section. a Compression of the foundation 186 days after
construction (Level 0.00 m). b Compression of the embankment (Level 0.00 m to Level 5.50 m) 186 days after
construction

between the measured and simulated strains. The line of maximum strain corresponded
to bilinear rather than linear behaviour.

Total pressure cells

Total pressure cells were installed at various locations at the base of the embankment
at level 0.00 m (see Fig. 27). The total pressure cell TP2 indicated that the highest total
pressure measured was 275  kPa after 186  days, while the maximum total pressure
recorded by TP5 was 175  kPa. These values are abnormally higher than the weight of
the embankment. The pressures measured by TP1, TP3, TP4 and TP6 ranged from 130
to 150 kPa, which are consistent with the weight of the embankment. The variation in
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 20 of 29

Fig. 20  Compression profile of the PP-MS section. a Compression of the foundation 186 days after con-
struction (Level 0.00 m). b Compression of the embankment (Level 0.00 m to Level 5.50 m) 186 days after
construction

the total pressures measured by the six pressure cells at ground level are compared with
the results from the 3D simulations in Fig.  27. There was an unexpectedly high value
recorded for TP2, which might have been due to some problem with the instrumenta-
tion. This issue can be confirmed by plotting the polynomial distribution of total pres-
sures from each of the pressure cells with respect to embankment height, as shown in
Fig. 28. The total pressures after surcharge and after consolidation were almost constant
and good agreement between the measured and simulated values were obtained.
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 21 of 29

Fig. 21  Compression profile of the PE-MS section. a Compression of the foundation 186 days after con-
struction (Level 0.00 m). b Compression of the embankment (Level 0.00 m to Level 5.50 m) 186 days after
construction

Discussions of the results

The field data obtained from full-scale reinforced embankment are compared with the
results obtained from FEM 3D simulation of embankment. PLAXIS 3D (ver. 2011) was
used as a tool for FEM Simulation. Comparisons were mainly made on lateral and verti-
cal displacement, strains in the reinforcements and total pressures. The horizontal field
deformation indicated by inclinometers for all polymeric and metallic reinforcements
agreed well with simulation data and larger deformation were noticed for successfully
simulated polymeric reinforcements in comparison with metallic reinforcements due
to higher stiffness of the metallic reinforcements. In addition, larger deformation was
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 22 of 29

0.06

Layer 11

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
% Strain of Steel Strip

0.06

Layer 6
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5

0.06

Layer 3

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5

Distance from facing (m)

Fig. 22  Strains in metallic strip (MS) reinforcement

observed on the top of the embankment after the 1.2-m-thick surcharge has been added,
which was confirmed by tilting of embankment on topmost part in field too as shown in
Fig. 18. Similarly, the measured vertical compression data for each section are compared
with simulated data and it was found that vertical settlement was found to be varied
from 60 to 80  mm. Furthermore, the vertical compression of the embankment (Level
0.00 m to Level 5.50 m) was found to be varied between 20 and 40 mm (see Figs. 19, 20,
21). The value of settlement is found to be low as the embankment was constructed on
hard ground.
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 23 of 29

0.06

0 Layer 11
0 1 2 3 4 5
% Strain of Steel Wire Grid

0.06

0 Layer 6
0 1 2 3 4 5

0.06

0 Layer 3
0 1 2 3 4 5

Distance from facing (m)

Fig. 23  Strains in steel wire grid (SWG) reinforcement

Vibrating wire strain gauges for metallic reinforcements and fibre optic strain gauges
for polymeric reinforcements are installed on the embankment and results from field
measurement were compared with the simulation results. Theoretically, the strains
should be zero at the end of embankment (at a distance of 5 m from the facing) but due
to the difficulties and inaccuracies associated with sensitive strain gauges, there is cer-
tain value of strain at the end of reinforcements (see Figs. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). In general,
good agreement was observed between simulated and measured strains and the line of
maximum strain for both the metallic and polymeric reinforcements exhibited bilinear
behaviour as expected.
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 24 of 29

% Strain
1
Layer 11

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
% Strain of PET Geogrid

2
% Strain

1
Layer 6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5

2
% Strain

1
Layer 3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Distance from facing (m)

Fig. 24  Strains in polyester (PET) geogrid reinforcement

Six total pressure cells are installed at the base of embankment in order to measure
total pressure at 125 and 186 days after construction and compared with the simulated
data. It was found that the pressures varied from 130 to 150  kPa (see Fig.  27). Unex-
pected high value (i.e., 275  kPa) was noted by TP2 and might have been due to some
instrumentation problem which was confirmed by plotting polynomial distribution of
total pressures with height (see Fig.  28). Overall, the simulation results are consistent
with measured field data.

Conclusions
A full-scale reinforced embankment was designed and constructed on a hard founda-
tion in Phitsanulok, Thailand, with polymeric reinforcement on one side and metallic
reinforcement on the other side. The metallic reinforcement in the mechanically stabi-
lised earth wall (MSEW) facing consisted of metallic strips (MS) and steel wire grids
(SWG). The polymer reinforcement in the reinforced steep slope (RSS) facing consisted
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 25 of 29

% Strain
Layer 11

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
% Strain of HDPE Geogrid

1
% Strain

Layer 6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5

1
% Strain

Layer 3

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Distance from facing (m)

Fig. 25  Strains in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid reinforcement

of polypropylene (PP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester (PET) geogrids.

The behaviour of both the metallic and polymeric reinforcement was monitored and
observed. The lateral and vertical embankment deformations in the MSEW facing were
very small, according to the field monitoring results. The deformations of the RSS facing
were much greater than those in the MSEW facing because the polymeric reinforcement
was not as stiff as the metallic reinforcement. The reinforcing materials can be listed in
the following descending order in terms of stiffness: metallic strips (MS), steel wire grids
(SWG), polypropylene (PP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyester (PET). The
measured lateral and vertical deformations for both facings, with the different types of
reinforcement, agreed well with those predicted from the numerical simulation using
PLAXIS 3D. The data from the total pressure cells showed that the total pressures after
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 26 of 29

% Strain
Layer 11
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
% Strain of PP Geogrid

1
% Strain

Layer 6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5

1
% Strain

Layer 3
0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Distance from facing (m)

Fig. 26  Strains in polypropylene (PP) geogrid reinforcement

surcharge (125 days) and after consolidation (186 days) were almost the same and that
the measured and simulated values were in good agreement, except for the total pressure
measured by cell TP2, which was found to have an instrument error. Furthermore, the
strains in the metallic reinforcement and polymeric reinforcement agreed well with the
strains predicted from the simulation. The line of maximum strain for both the metal-
lic and polymeric reinforcement exhibited bilinear behaviour as expected. Although
the embankment was made up of mixed soils and abrupt changes were noted in the soil
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 27 of 29

Fig. 27  Observed data from total pressure cells 125 and 186 days after the start of construction

Fig. 28  Polynomial distribution of total pressures corresponding to each pressure cell

profile at the field site, the simulations from PLAXIS 3D were able to simulate the overall
embankment behaviour and good agreement was observed between the field measure-
ments and simulation results.
Authors’ contributions
PB performed numerical simulation, conducted laboratory experiment and analysed the field data. DTB contributed in
designing the embankment and provided the guidance throughout the execution of the project. SD performed labora-
tory experiment (including large scale direct shear test) and monitored the field data. All authors read and approved the
final manuscript.

Author details
1
 School of Engineering and Technology, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 10120,
Thailand. 2 Department of Highway (DOH), 40/2 Vibhavadi Rangsit Road, Sanambin, Don Mueang, Bangkok, Thailand.
Acknowledgements
Funding was provided by Department of Highway, Thailand and Asian Institute of Technology.
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 28 of 29

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Received: 16 November 2015 Accepted: 10 November 2016

References
1. Abdelouhab A, Dias D, Freitag N (2011) Numerical analysis of the behavior of mechanically stabilized earth walls
reinforced with different types of strips. Geotext Geomembr 29(2):116–129
2. Abiera HO (1991) Mechanically stabilized earth using TENSAR, bamboo and steel grid reinforcements with lateritic
soil as backfill. M. Eng. Thesis GT-90-21, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
3. Al Hattamleh O, Muhunthan B (2006) Numerical procedures for deformation calculations in the reinforced soil walls.
Geotext Geomembr 24(1):52–57
4. Alfaro MC (1996) Reinforced soil wall-embankment system on soft foundation using inextensible and extensible
grid reinforcements. PhD Thesis, Saga University, Saga
5. Alfaro MC, Hayashi S, Miura N, Bergado DT (1997) Deformation of reinforced soil wall-embankment system on soft
clay foundation. Soils Found 37(4):33–46
6. Asanprakit A (2000) Analytical model on the distributions of frictional and bearing resistance as well as deforma-
tions of hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement with weathered Bangkok clay backfill. M. Eng. Thesis No. GE-99-13,
Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
7. Auvinet G, Gonzalez JL (2000) Three-dimensional reliability analysis of earth slopes. Comput Geotech 26:247–261
8. Bergado DT, Teerawattanasuk C (2008) 2D and 3D numerical simulations of reinforced embankments on soft
ground. Geotext Geomembr 26:39–55
9. Bergado DT, Chai JC, Miura N (1995) FE analysis of grid reinforced embankment system on soft Bangkok clay. Com-
put Geotech 17:447–471
10. Bergado DT, Youwai S, Teerawattanasuk P, Visudmedanukul P (2003) The interaction mechanism and behavior of
hexagonal wire mesh reinforced embankment with silty sand backfill on soft clay. Comput Geotech 30:517–534
11. Bourgeois E, Lekouby A, Soyez L (2012) Influence of the strip-backfill interaction model in the analysis of the behav-
ior of a mechanically stabilized earth wall. Soils Found 52(3):550–561
12. Briaud J, Lim Y (1999) Tieback walls in sand: numerical simulation and design implications. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng ASCE 125(2):101–111
13. Chai JC (1992) Interaction behavior between grid reinforcement and cohesive frictional soils and performance
of reinforced wall/embankment on soft ground. Doctoral Dissertation No. GT-91-1, Asian Institute of Technology,
Bangkok
14. Chai JC, Bergado DT (1993) Performance of reinforced embankment on Muar clay deposit. Soils Found 33(4):1–17
15. Chai JC, Bergado DT (1993) Some techniques for FE analysis of embankment on soft ground. Can Geotech J
30:710–719
16. Chai JC, Miura N, Bergado DT, Long PV (1997) Finite element analysis of geotextile reinforced embankment failure
on soft subsoil. Geotech Eng J 28(2):249–276
17. Cisneros CB (1989) Pullout resistance of steel grids with weathered clay as backfill material. M. Eng. Thesis No. GT-88-
7, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
18. Hinchberger SD, Rowe RK (2003) Geosynthetic reinforced embankments on soft clay foundations: predicting rein-
forcement strains at failure. Geotext Geomembr 21:151–175
19. Huang B, Bathurst RJ, Hatami K (2009) Numerical study of reinforced soil segmental walls using three different
constitutive soil models. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 135(10):1486–1498
20. Kabiling MB (1997) Pullout capacity of different hexagonal link wire sizes and configurations on sandy and volcanic
ash (Lahar) backfills. M. Eng. Thesis No. GE-96-4, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
21. Karpurapu R, Bathurst RJ (1995) Behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls using the finite element
method. Comput Geotech 17:279–299
22. Kongkikul W (2001) Numerical and analytical modeling on pullout capacity and interaction of in-soil pullout tests
between hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement and silty sand. M. Eng Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
23. Lai YP, Bergado DT, Lorenzo GA, Duangchan T (2006) Full-scale reinforced embankment on deep jet mixing
improved ground. Gr Improv 10(4):153–164
24. Long, P.V., 1996. Behavior of geotextile reinforced embankment on soft ground. PhD Thesis GE-96-1, Asian Institute
of Technology, Thailand
25. Mir EN (1996) Pullout and direct shear test of hexagonal wire mesh reinforcements in various fill materials including
lahar from mt. Pinatubo, Philippines. M. Eng. Thesis No. GE-95-18, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand
26. Modmoltin C (1998) Behavior of hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement in full scale embankment load during pullout
test. M. Eng. Thesis No. GE-97-6, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
27. Nualkliang M (2011) Behavior of MSE wall/embankment with geogrid and metallic reinforcements on hard founda-
tion. M. Eng. Thesis No. GE-10-5, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
28. PLAXIS BV (2011) PLAXIS manual—PLAXIS 3D-version. PLAXIS, Delft
29. Prempramote S (2005) Interaction between geogrid reinforcement and tire chip-sand mixture. M. Eng Thesis No.
GE-04-12, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
30. Rittirong A (2003) Large triaxial test of shredded rubber tire with and without sand mixture and the constitutive
model verification. M. Eng. Thesis No. GE-02-13, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
31. Rowe RK, Ho SK (1998) Horizontal deformation in reinforced soil wall. Can Geotech J 35:312–327
Baral et al. Geo-Engineering (2016) 7:20 Page 29 of 29

32. Shivashankar R (1991) Behavior of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) embankment with poor quality backfills on
soft clay deposits, including a study of the pullout resistances. PhD Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
33. Skinner GD, Rowe RK (2005) Design and behavior of a geosynthetic reinforced retaining wall and bridge abutment
on a yielding foundation. Geotext Geomembr 23(3):235–260
34. Smith IM, Su N (1997) Three-dimensional FE analysis of a nailed soil wall curved in plan. Int J Numer Anal Meth
Geomech 21:583–599
35. Srikongsri A (1999) Analytical model for interaction between hexagonal wire mesh and silty sand backfill. M. Eng.
Thesis No. GE-98-14, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
36. Supawiwat N (2002) Behavior of shredded rubber tires with and without sand, its interaction with hexagonal wire
reinforcement and their numerical simulation. M. Eng. Thesis GE-01-14, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
37. Tanchaisawat T (2008) Interactions and performances of geogrid reinforced tire chips-sand lightweight embank-
ment on soft ground. PhD Thesis No.GE-07-01, AIT, Bangkok
38. Tin N (2009) Factors affecting the kinked steel grid reinforcement and modification of K-stiffness method in MSE
structures on soft ground. M. Eng. Thesis No.GE-08-03, AIT, Bangkok
39. Visudmedanukul P (2000) FEM analysis on the interaction mechanism between hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement
and silty sand backfill. M. Eng. Thesis No. GE-99-6, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
40. Voottipruex P (2000) Interaction of hexagonal wire reinforcement with silty sand backfill soil and behavior of full
scale embankment reinforced with hexagonal wire mesh. PhD Thesis No. GE-99-01, Asian Institute of Technology,
Bangkok
41. Wongsawanon T (1998) Interaction between hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement and silty sand backfill. M. Eng.
Thesis No. GE-97-14, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok
42. Youwai S (2003) Strength and deformation characteristics of reinforced rubber tire chip with and without sand
mixtures and its application on reinforced wall simulation. PhD Thesis No. GE-03-2, Asian Institute of Technology,
Bangkok
43. Zdravkovic L, Potts DM, Hight DW (2002) The effect of strength anisotropy on the behavior of embankments on soft
ground. Geotechnique 52(6):447–457