Analysis of Reinforced Retaining Wall Failure Based On Reinforcement Length
Analysis of Reinforced Retaining Wall Failure Based On Reinforcement Length
Analysis of Reinforced Retaining Wall Failure Based On Reinforcement Length
*Correspondence:
ucesyjl@seoultech.ac.kr Abstract
5
Department of Civil Reinforced retaining walls are structures constructed horizontally to resist earth pres‑
Engineering, Seoul National
University of Science sure by leveraging the frictional force imparted by the backfill. Reinforcements are
Technology, Seoul, Korea employed because they exhibit excellent safety and economic efficiency. However,
Full list of author information insufficient reinforcement can lead to collapse, and excessive reinforcement reduces
is available at the end of the
article economic efficiency. Therefore, it is important to select the appropriate type, length,
and spacing of reinforcements. However, in actual sites, although the stress and frac‑
ture mechanisms in the straight and curved sections of reinforced soil retaining walls
differ, the same amount of reinforcements are typically installed. Such an approach
can lead to wall collapse or reduce economic feasibility. Therefore, in this study, the
behaviours of straight and curved sections fortified with reinforcements of various
lengths (1, 3, 5, and 7 m) are predicted through a three-dimensional numerical analysis.
The retaining walls are of the same height, but the reinforcement variations in the
aforementioned sections influence the wall behaviour differently. Based on the results,
the optimum reinforcement lengths for the straight and curved parts were selected. By
installing reinforcements of different lengths in these sections, the maximum reinforc‑
ing effect with minimum reinforcement was derived. This study further found that
the curved section of the wall required more reinforcements, and the reinforcement
lengths for the curved and straight sections should be separately optimized.
Keywords: Reinforced retaining wall, Straight parts, Curved parts, Length,
Reinforcement, Numerical analysis
Introduction
Reinforced retaining walls are horizontally installed structures invented by a French
engineer named Vidal. These walls, which include thin galvanised steel plates, geogrids,
and geotextiles, resist earth pressure using the frictional resistance imparted by the back-
fill. The reinforced retaining wall is regarded as a gravity wall fortified with reinforce-
ments constituting a single body and must be appropriately designed to be capable of
resisting external forces exerted by the backfill and external loads [2]. The reinforcement
must provide stability to the wall to prevent failures, such as those shown in Fig. 1. Two
cases of geosynthetic reinforced retaining wall collapse are shown in Fig. 2. As shown
in Fig. 2(a), the front section (height: 20 m) of the retaining wall collapses with the soil,
destroying the piles supporting the building. Cracks and displacements continued to
© The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativeco
mmons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Kong et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:13 Page 2 of 14
propagate because of groundwater and surface water infiltration; nevertheless, the col-
lapse occurred due to negligence. The curved front section of the retaining wall bulges
and cracks, as shown in Fig. 2b. This was because the retaining wall was constructed
without sufficient reinforcement to support the curved segment [10].
Evidently, the appropriate selection of retaining wall reinforcement is crucial. The
construction of a retaining wall without considering various factors, such as reinforce-
ment type, length, and spacing, leads to collapse or economic loss. In general, the rein-
forcements should receive sufficient frictional force or passive resistance at the contact
surface between the reinforcement and soil. They must also possess sufficient tensile
strength, strain capacity, and durability [9]. The recommended maximum and minimum
ranges of vertical spacing of reinforcements are 80–100 and 20–30 cm, respectively,
and the reinforcement length is calculated using Eq. (1). In this study, depending on the
Kong et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:13 Page 3 of 14
retaining wall conditions, the maximum reinforcement length used was 3 m. To simulate
over-reinforcement, four cases (1, 3, 5, and 7 m) were compared and analysed. Based
on the comparison, the appropriate reinforcement length was calculated, and various
lengths were used for the straight and curved sections of the retaining wall. Hence, this
study shows that the maximum reinforcement effect can be derived at a minimum cost
by employing different reinforcement lengths for the straight and curved parts.
ϕ Ka ·Sv ·FSp
L = (H − z) tan 45◦ − + (1)
2 2tanϕuw
Literature review
A retaining wall is a structure that supports steep soil in the transverse direction to pre-
vent collapse; it is mainly built to optimise the use of limited land. In addition to the
study of retaining walls, the investigation of the stability of steep slopes has been consist-
ent. Kim et al. [6] analysed the stability of slopes using geotextiles, and Salamatpoor and
Salamatpoor [17] improved slope stability using blended ground materials. Nadi et al.
[12] assessed slope stability by investigating the seepage of water through rock-jointed
materials. Subsequently, Nadi et al. [13] proposed a method for evaluating the seismic
response of slopes based on the shear wave velocity in soil.
The safety of employing a reinforced retaining wall is ensured by installing horizontal
reinforcements to reduce earth pressure by leveraging the frictional resistance imparted
by the backfill. In view of its simplicity, this approach is deemed economical. Accord-
ingly, the publication of paper on reinforced soil retaining walls has continued.
Kim [7] observed the behaviour of the ground supported by retaining walls via a model
test. Subsequently, they proposed Eq. (2), which is an expression that considers the
retaining wall height, reinforcement spacing, and reinforcement length. The ground was
simulated using 1.6 and 3.0 mm thick aluminum rods. The vertical wall was built out-
doors to observe the stability or collapse of the reinforced retaining wall through photo-
shooting techniques. Employing Eq. (2), the required reinforcement length obtained was
1.40 m, which was between the lengths in cases 1 and 2. This confirmed that the case
conditions in the study were appropriate.
L
= 0.0975D + 0.2296 (2)
H
maximum horizontal displacement occurred in the curved sections. Moreover, the gen-
erated horizontal displacements were greater in the convex-shaped reinforced retain-
ing wall than in the wall with a concave shape. Based on the foregoing, the condition of
the convex-shaped reinforced soil retaining wall was chosen. And, the behaviours of the
curved and straight parts were compared in terms of the reinforcement length in this
study.
Lee et al. [10] investigated the extent of damage in reinforced retaining walls and ana-
lysed the behaviours of the straight and curved sections (convex and concave) using
numerical analysis. In their study, the reinforced soil retaining wall height was 5.2 m, and
the reinforcement length was 4.2 m. Lee et al. [10] found that the horizontal displace-
ments and settlements in the curved parts were larger in the case of the convex-shaped
wall than in the concave-type reinforced retaining wall. The 5.2 m convex-shaped retain-
ing wall was adopted in this study, and reinforcements of various lengths were consid-
ered to determine the most appropriate length.
Kong et al. [8] predicted the fracture behaviours of curved and straight parts based on
the reinforced retaining wall height using 3D numerical analysis. Bulging was observed
to increase with the wall height, and larger horizontal displacements occurred in the
curved sections than in the straight parts. In this study, based on the four cases of Kong
et al. [8] the wall height in case 2, i.e., 5.2 m, was adopted (2018), satisfying the minimum
height of 5 m of reinforced soil retaining walls. Their study found that horizontal dis-
placement increased with the wall height; this tendency was also observed in the present
study.
Lee et al. [11] regarded the degradation of the retaining wall drainage as the cause of
wall bulging. Subsequently, they predicted the extent of wall of displacement based on
field test results. Through numerical analysis, the reinforcement interval of the soil nail
was calculated, and stability was assessed to preclude bulging. The soil nail length and
spacing were calculated as 5.0 and 1.5 m, respectively. Moreover, their study confirmed
that horizontal displacement (i.e., bulging) rarely occurred after reinforcing the region
where displacement generally occurred. This study compares the reinforcement effects
according to the reinforcement length using geogrid, which is primarily employed as soil
retaining wall reinforcement along with soil nailing. In future field tests, geogrids will
potentially be used.
Several studies on reinforced retaining walls and reinforcements have been conducted
[1, 4, 14, 18]. The current study found that the use of the same reinforcement length
for the straight and curved sections of retaining walls for construction convenience was
problematic. This approach can lead to wall collapse accidents because of inadequate
reinforcement or may be uneconomical because of over-reinforcement. Accordingly, the
present work aims to predict the reinforcement effect based on reinforcement length
using 3D numerical analyses. Reinforcements of different lengths are installed in the
curved and straight sections, and strategies for improving economy are suggested.
Numerical analysis
Modelling
This study analysed the behaviour of reinforced retaining walls based on the length
of reinforcements using PLAXIS 3D (PLAXIS, Netherlands, [16]). PLAXIS 3D is a
Kong et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:13 Page 5 of 14
1 1.0 5.2
2 3.0 5.2
3 5.0 5.2
4 7.0 5.2
Kong et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:13 Page 6 of 14
in the straight parts of the retaining wall decreased by 37.39, 40.15, and 46.83% in
cases 2–4, respectively, and those of the curved parts decreased by 17.53, 23.28, and
26.42%, respectively, compared with the displacements in case 1 in these parts. The
decreasing rates of horizontal displacements in the curved and straight sections are
shown in Fig. 5. The average wall heights calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2) for the
straight and curved sections were 1.47 and 1.40 m, respectively; the numerical anal-
ysis yielded similar results. The reinforcement effect was low in case 1 but rapidly
Kong et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:13 Page 7 of 14
γ (kN/m3) 20 15.88 23
E (kN/m2) 300,000 40,000 18,420
v 0.33 0.3 0.1
c (kN/m2) 50 5 -
φ (˚) 35 35 -
γ Unit weight of soil, E Young’s modulus, ν Poisson’s ratio, c Cohesion, φ’ Angle of shearing resistance
increased in case 2. When the reinforcement length exceeded 3 m, the rate of hori-
zontal displacements did not considerably vary.
The curved section is determined to be weak because the vectors are concentrated in
this section. Hence, in the curved sections, the use of reinforcements with appropri-
ate lengths and the introduction of countermeasures in the design and construction of
retaining walls are crucial.
Kong et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:13 Page 10 of 14
Fig. 8 Decreasing rate of ground surface settlements to straight and curved parts
9.72% at the top of the wall (4 m point) due to the stiffener applied to the curved section.
Therefore, it is economical to employ 1 and 3 m long reinforcements in the straight and
curved sections, respectively, instead of only using 3 m long reinforcements in these sec-
tions. Moreover, the use of these reinforcement lengths is safer than solely installing 1 m
long reinforcements in both sections.
Kong et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:13 Page 13 of 14
Conclusions
This study predicted the behaviours of the straight and curved sections of reinforced
retaining walls according to the reinforcement length using 3D numerical analysis.
The derived results are summarised as follows.
1. The overall failure of the reinforced retaining wall appears in the form of wall
bulging, which decreases as the reinforcement length increases. The horizontal dis-
placements according to the reinforcement length in cases 2–4 compared with case
1 were reduced by 37.39%, 40.15%, and 46.83%, respectively, in the straight sections,
whereas those in the curved sections decreased by 17.53, 23.28, and 26.42%, respec-
tively. These results suggest that in case 1, the reinforcement effect is low, whereas the
reinforcement effect in cases 2–4 (reinforcement length = 3 m or longer) is sufficient.
However, the variation of this effect between cases 2–4 is insignificant. Hence, suf-
ficient reinforcement lengths lead to a stable retaining wall, and excessive reinforce-
ment amounts reduce economic efficiency.
2. In case 1 (reinforcement length: 1 m), as the reinforcement length increased
from 1 to 3 m, the ground surface settlements and vertical displacements rapidly
decreased, and the total vertical displacement vectors sharply increased. The ground
surface settlements in cases 2–4 compared with that in case 1 in the straight sections,
decreased by 25.5 28.25, and 32.12%, respectively, whereas those in the curved sec-
tions decreased by 12.41, 18.34, and 19.23%, respectively; these confirmed that the
reinforcement length should exceed 1 m. In addition, the ground surface settlements
in the straight sections compared with those in the curved sections decreased by
12.95, 25.97, and 23.52% in cases 2–4, respectively. Thus, additional reinforcements
are required in the curved sections. Short reinforcement lengths lead to insufficient
reinforcements; hence, it is important to ensure that the reinforcements in curved
sections are adequate.
3. In the numerical analysis, different reinforcement lengths, i.e., 1 and 3 m, were used
in the straight and curved sections, respectively. In the curved sections, the reinforce-
ment effect in terms of the vertical displacements was the same. However, the horizontal
displacements in the straight sections decreased by 9.72% at the top of the wall (4 m
point) as a result of the reinforcements applied to the curved sections. Therefore, instead
of using the same reinforcement length, it is economical to employ different lengths in
the straight and curved sections. In the future, the authors intend to conduct research
on the optimal stiffener length and its details through model tests.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government
(MSIP) (No. NRF-2017R1A2B2055676 and NRF-2017R1A2B2012993).
Authors’ contributions
SMK has drafted and revised the manuscript. DWO and SYL have contributed on numerical analysis. HSJ and YJ Lee have
contributed on conception and design of the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author details
1
Future Infrastructure Research Center, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Goyang, Korea.
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Seoul National University of Science Technology, Seoul, Korea. 3 Department of Rail‑
road Construction and Safety Engineering, Dongyang University, Yeongju, Korea. 4 Department of Railroad Construction
Kong et al. Geo-Engineering (2021) 12:13 Page 14 of 14
and Safety Engineering, Dongyang University, Yeongju, Korea. 5 Department of Civil Engineering, Seoul National Univer‑
sity of Science Technology, Seoul, Korea.
References
1. Baral P, Bergado DT, Duangkhae S (2016) The use of polymeric and metallic geogrid on a full-scale MSE wall/
embankment on hard foundation: a comparison of field data with simulation. Int J Geo-Eng 7(1):1–29
2. Chun BS, Kang IG, Kang IS, Ko GS, Ko YI, Kwon HS, Kim KM, Kim DY, Kim BH, Kim SR, Kim WC, Kim JC, Nam SS, Do JN,
Park DH, Park HG, Sa GM, Song CY, Shin YH, Ahn SR, Ahn TB, Yoe YH, Oh MY, Yoo HK, Lee SH, Lee TY, Lim HS, Jung HC,
Jung HS, Jo CH, Jin MS, Chae HY, Choi CS, Ha KH, Hwong SG (2012) Geotechnical engineering—theory and practice.
Goomibook, Seoul, pp 328–334
3. Das BM (2009) Principles of geotechnical engineering. CENGAGE Leaning, Boston, pp 302–367
4. Jung HS (2017) Comparison of behaviour of straight and curved mechanically stabilized earth walls from numerical
analysis results. J Korean Geosynth Soc 16(4):83–92
5. Ki JS, Rew WH, Kim SK, Chun BS (2012) A behavior of curve section of reinforced retaining wall by model test. Korean
Soc Civil Eng 32(6):249–257
6. Kim KM, Kim HT, Lee HK (2005) Slope stability analysis considering reinforcing effects od geosynthetics. J Korean
Geo-Environ Soc 6(1):73–82
7. Kim ST (2005) Critical faolure condition of reinforced earth wall by change of length and vertical distance of rein‑
forcements, Master thesis, University of Sunchon, Seoul, p 43–44.
8. Kong SM, Lee JH, Jung HS, Lee YJ (2018) 3D numerical prediction of failure behaviour for the straight and curved
parts of retaining wall according to various heights. Int J Geo-Eng 9(1):1–18
9. Kwon HJ, Kim DS, Park JB, Jung SK (2011) Foundation engineering. Goomibook, Seoul, pp 320–325
10. Lee JH, Oh DW, Kong SM, Jung HS, Lee YJ (2018) Investigation of behaviours of wall and adjacent ground consider‑
ing shape of geosynthetic retaining wall. J Korean Geosynth Soc 17(1):95–109
11. Lee WH, Moon BJ, Lee SY (2019) A study on reinforcement method of reinforced soil retaining wall through field
experiment. J Korea Inst Struct Maint Insp 23(4):103–112
12. Nadi, B., Tavasoli, O., Kontoni D. N., Tadayon, A. (2019), “Investigation of rock slope stability under porewater pressure
and structural anisotropy by the discrete element method”, Geomechanics and Geoengineering, pp.1–13.
13. Nadi B, Tavasoli O, Esfeh PK, Kontoni DN (2020) Characteristics of spatial variability of shear wave velocity on seismic
response of slopes. Arab J Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2019.1680879
14. Oh DW, Kong SM, Lee JH, Hong SK, Jung HS, Lee YJ (2018) Behaviour characteristic of convex for geosynthetic
retaining wall according to curvature radius. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on geosynthetics,
p 16–21.
15. Patki MA, Mandal JN, Dewaikar DM (2015) Computation of passive earth pressure coefficients for a vertical retaining
wall with inclined cohesionless backfill. Int J Geo-Eng 6(1):1–17
16. Plaxis (2018) Plaxis 3D reference manual, p 85–90. Plaxis
17. Salamatpoor S, Salamatpoor S (2017) Evaluation of adding crushed glass to different combinations of cement-
stabilized sand. Int J Geo-Eng 8(1):1–12
18. Sridhar R, Kumar MTP (2018) Effect of number of layers on coir geotextile reinforced sand under cyclic loading. Int J
Geo-Eng 9(1):1–14
19. Yoo CS, Jung HS, Lee SW (2004) A case study of the collapsed retaining wall. J Korean Geosynth Soc 3(2):13–21
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.