Study of Cost Effectiveness of Reinforced Earth Wall Over Conventional Retaining Wall Considering Different Heights

Loading ...
IJTSRD
Education
Volume 4 Issue 5
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) 
Volume 5 Issue 6, September-October 2021 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470 
 
@ IJTSRD   |   Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD47577   |   Volume – 5   |   Issue – 6   |   Sep-Oct 2021 
Page 1166 
Study of Cost Effectiveness of Reinforced Earth Wall Over 
Conventional Retaining Wall Considering Different Heights 
Sami Raj Sahu
1
, Deeksha Shrotriya
2
, Barun Kumar
2 
1Research Scholar, 2Assistant Professor, 
1, 2Department of Civil Engineering, LNCT, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India 
 
ABSTRACT 
Reinforced Earth Wall (RE Wall) is an internally stabilized wall. 
Reinforced earth is a composite material formed by the friction 
between the earth and the reinforcement. By means of friction the 
soil transfers to the reinforcement the forces built up in the earth 
mass. The reinforcement thus develops tension and the earth behaves 
as if it has cohesion. Significant increase in the traffic and congestion 
across urban areas creates a demand for a better, efficient and 
economical soil retention system for bridges, underpasses, flyover 
and any other type of grade separator so the reduce the cost of the 
construction also to make structure more durable, reduce problem of 
the construction following points as has been studied. The objective 
of this study is to study the Cost Effectiveness between Retaining 
wall and Reinforced Earth Wall at different heights. The economic 
benefit achieved from the Reinforced Earth Wall increases with the 
increase in the height of the wall. Further, RE wall can be made more 
cost economical by using the combinations of different types of Geo 
grid and back fill material based on the soil and loading conditions. 
 
 
KEYWORDS: RE Wall, Cohesion, Cost Effectiveness, Cost 
economical, Geo grid, back fill material, loading conditions 
 
 
 
How to cite this paper: Sami Raj Sahu | 
Deeksha Shrotriya | Barun Kumar 
"Study of Cost Effectiveness of 
Reinforced 
Earth 
Wall 
Over 
Conventional 
Retaining 
Wall 
Considering 
Different 
Heights" 
Published 
in 
International 
Journal of Trend in 
Scientific Research 
and Development 
(ijtsrd), 
ISSN: 
2456-6470, 
Volume-5 | Issue-6, 
October 2021, pp.1166-1169, URL: 
www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd47577.pdf 
 
Copyright © 2021 by author (s) and 
International Journal of Trend in 
Scientific Research and Development 
Journal. This is an 
Open Access article 
distributed under the 
terms of 
the Creative Commons 
Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) 
 
INTRODUCTION 
Retaining wall or the Reinforced earth walls play a 
very critical role in the development of modern 
infrastructure due to following reasons such as safe 
environment and economy of the constructions. A 
variety of practices has been considered over the 
years. Planning, design and construction techniques 
are being developed regularly and refined to satisfy 
several parameters including feasibility, ease of 
construction, safety, maintainability, and economy of 
the better soil retention system. 
With the Increase in the traffic and congestion across 
the urban areas has created a demand for an efficient, 
better and economical soil retention system for 
bridges, underpasses, flyover and any other type of 
grade separator. The construction of these Retaining 
wall or Reinforced earth walls plays a critical role in 
the development of modern infrastructure due to 
safety, environmental, and economic reasons. Along 
with this significant development, came in a variety 
of retaining wall types, design and construction  
 
methodology. Over time, the classic gravity retaining 
walls converted into the reinforced cement concrete 
type retaining walls, with supports such as counter 
forts or buttresses. 
A paradigm shift occurred in the 1960s with the 
introduction of (MSE’s) mechanically stabilized earth 
walls, i.e., reinforced layers of soil allowing for 
modular sequential construction, which were 
recognized as being advantageous at many places or 
in most of the situations. Initially the reinforcement 
was steel straps and then welded wire meshes were 
provided as an alternative. RE Wall panel has varied 
from metallic to reinforced concrete to segmental 
units with a variety of shapes and types.  
Mitchell and Zornberg (1993) Experimental studies 
on poorly draining soil-reinforcement interactions 
were reviewed in a companion paper by Zornberg and 
Mitchell in 1994, leading to the conclusion that 
permeable geosynthetic inclusions are useful for 
 
 
IJTSRD47577 
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470 
@ IJTSRD   |   Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD47577   |   Volume – 5   |   Issue – 6   |   Sep-Oct 2021 
Page 1167 
reinforcing marginal backfills. This conclusion is 
strengthened by lessons learned from the case 
histories described in this paper. There are no design 
guidelines for reinforced soil structures using poorly 
draining backfills. Nevertheless, several of these 
structures have already been constructed, and the 
performance of some of them has been reported. 
Good structure performance is strongly dependent on 
maintaining a low water content in the poorly 
draining fill. Large movements occurred in reinforced 
structures when pore water pressures were generated, 
and failures were reported in marginal backfills 
reinforced with impermeable inclusions that became 
saturated after rainfalls. Benefits and applications of 
reinforcing poorly draining backfills are addressed, 
and research needs aimed at formulating a consistent 
design methodology for 
these structures are 
presented. 
Gerald et al. (1994) The use of cohesive soils in 
geogrid‐reinforced backfills requires consideration of 
the performance of these materials under both 
as‐compacted and long‐term conditions. Depending 
on the as‐compacted conditions, the long‐term 
performance, as a result of in service saturation, can 
lead to strength loss and failure of such structures. 
This paper documents the case history of a geo grid 
reinforced retaining wall, constructed with cohesive 
backfill, that failed. Several different failure modes 
were observed along the wall. The results of 
extensive field and laboratory testing programs and 
engineering analyses to investigate the causes of 
failure are presented. These studies permit the 
different observed failure modes to be explained. 
Deficiencies in design and construction quality 
control are identified. The need for site‐specific 
design considerations rather than generic design 
procedures for such structures is demonstrated. 
Bathurst (1994) In this Paper author studied the 
analysis, design and construction of geo-synthetic 
reinforced soil retaining walls that use dry-stacked 
modular concrete units as the facing system (geo-
synthetic reinforced segmental retaining walls). The 
systems have gained wide popularity in North 
America for reasons of performance, aesthetics, cost 
and expediency of construction. However, the 
discrete nature of these modular block systems 
requires that special attention be paid to the design 
and construction of the facing elements. Some on 
sequences of the extension of limit-equilibrium 
(pseudo-static) methods to the stability of segmental 
retaining wall structures were reviewed. 
Fannin (1994) Field data are reported that describe 
the 
load–strain–time 
relationship of geogrid 
reinforcement in a reinforced soil structure. The data 
are for a period exceeding 5 years and reveal a 
continued strain in the reinforcement, which occurs at 
nearly constant load. The response to loading is 
attributed to creep of the polymeric material. A 
comparison of the field  
OBJECTIVE OF THE PRESENT STUDY 
A. Design of Reinforced Earth wall and R.C.C 
Retaining Wall for different heights. 
B. Calculating the Quantity of various components 
of the retaining wall and reinforced earth wall 
C. Calculating the cost of Retaining wall and 
Reinforced Earth Wall at different heights. 
FORMULATION & Methodology  
The examples of the externally stabilized walls are 
reinforced concrete cantilever and reinforced concrete 
counterfort walls. These walls are essentially 
characterized by the concept that the lateral earth 
pressures due to self weight of the retained fill and 
accompanied surcharge loads are carried by the 
structural wall. This necessitates a large volume of 
concrete and steel to be used in such walls.  
standard code. 
Stability Check  
 
 
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470 
@ IJTSRD   |   Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD47577   |   Volume – 5   |   Issue – 6   |   Sep-Oct 2021 
Page 1168 
Setting a Half-Height Panel:  
 Set the first half-height panel at its proper location.  
 Align the panel with the control line.  
 Space the next half-height panel the proper lateral distance from the previous half-height panel using the 
spacing tool.  
 Spacing tool left in place, ensuring proper distance.  
 Batter of the half-height panel is set with wedges.  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
Table 1.RETAINING WALL for 4m Height 
Sl. 
No. 
Description of works 
Unit Length 
Width 
Height 
Qty 
Total 
Quantity 
A Earth work in Excavation 
cum 10.000 
3.000 
1.000 
30.000 
TOTAL Earth work 
30.000 
30.000 
B 
PCC M-15 Grade 
Concrete 
 
 
 
 
 
 
M-15 G. Con. 
cum 10.000 
2.500 
0.150 
3.750 
TOTAL M-15 
3.750 
3.750 
C 
RCC M-30 Grade 
Concrete 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i 
M-30 .G. con Raft 
cum 10.000 
2.500 
0.400 
10.000 
ii M-30 WALL 
cum 10.000 
0.417 
5.000 
20.850 
TOTAL M-30 
30.85 
30.85 
D TOTAL Quantity of Steel MT 
2.71 
 
CONCLUSIONS 
 To study the cost effectiveness of the Retaining 
wall and reinforced earth walls the Retaining wall 
has been designed for a height of 4, 5 and 6 m. As 
it is a well known fact that the retaining wall tend 
to fail after a certain height. To stabilize the 
Retaining walls, counter forts are added to the 
retaining wall and the same has been designed for 
the height of 7m, 8m and 9m. Similarly the 
Reinforced Earth walls also known as RE walls 
have been designed for the heights of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 
and 9 m.  
 The major contribution in the cost difference is 
attributed to the huge amount of concrete and 
steel bars usually required in the retaining walls 
as compared to RE walls due to the basic design 
difference. The retaining wall is designed on the 
basis that the earth is retained behind the wall and 
major loading is on the wall due to earth back fill. 
Whereas, in its counterpart i.e. the Reinforced 
Earth Wall the friction between the earth and the 
reinforcement shares the loadwhich is then 
transferred to the ground. The reinforcement thus 
develops tension and the earth behaves as if it has 
cohesion.  
 The economic benefit achieved from the 
Reinforced Earth Wall increases with the increase 
in the height of the wall. The percentage savings 
of the internally stabilized walls i.e. RE wall may 
range from 40 to 65%. Further, RE wall can be 
made more cost effective by using the 
combination of different types of Geo grid and 
back fill material based on the soil and loading 
conditions. 
REFERENCES –  
[1] AASHTO, (1997) Standard Specifications for 
Highway Bridges, Div. 1, Sect. 5, Retaining 
Walls, Washington, DC, 89pp, 1997.  
[2] Al, H. O., Muhunthan, B., (2006) Numerical 
procedures for deformation calculations in the 
reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 24 (1), 52–57, 2006 
[3] Alborz, Siavash. 
(2016). STUDY ON 
HORIZONTAL 
DISPLACEMENT 
OF 
RESTRAINED EXCAVATION WALLS BY 
CANTILEVER 
RETAINING 
WALL. 
10.5281/zenodo.56029. January 2016 DOI: 
10.5281/zenodo.56029  
[4] Al-Hattamleh, O., Muhunthan, B., (2006) 
Numerical 
procedures 
for 
deformation 
calculations 
in 
reinforced 
soil walls. 
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (1), 52–57, 
2006 
[5] Allen, T. M., Christopher, B. R., Holtz, R. D., 
(1992) Performance of a 12. 6 m high 
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470 
@ IJTSRD   |   Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD47577   |   Volume – 5   |   Issue – 6   |   Sep-Oct 2021 
Page 1169 
geotextile wall 
in Seattle, Washington, 
geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. In: 
Wu, J. T. H. (Ed. ), Balkema, Proceedings of 
the International Symposium on Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls, Denver, 
Colorado, USA, pp. 81–100, 1992 
[6] Anderson, R. B. 
(1993) Construction 
Considerations for Geogrid-Segmental Block 
Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls, 
Transportation Research Record, 1414: 12−15, 
1993 
[7] 
 Aylin Ece Kayabekir, Zülal Akbay Arama, 
Gebrail Bekdaş, Sinan Melih NigdeliZong Woo 
Geem(2020). 
”Eco-Friendly Design 
of 
Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls: Multi-
objective Optimization with Harmony Search 
Applications”, Sustainability 2020, 12(15), 
6087; 
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156087 
Received: 15 June 2020 / Revised: 11 July 
2020 / Accepted: 27 July 2020 / Published: 29 
July 2020  
[8] Azad, A., Yasrobi, S., Pak, A., (2008) Seismic 
active earth pressure distribution behind rigid 
retaining walls. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake 
Engineering 28 (5), 365–375, 2008 
[9] B. Ceranic, C. Fryer and R. W. Banies. (2001) 
An application of simulated annealing to the 
optimum design of 
reinforced concrete 
retaining structures. Computers and Structures, 
79: 1569-1581, 2001 
[10] Baker, R., Klein, Y., (2004) An integrated 
limiting equilibrium approach for design of 
reinforced soil retaining structures, part I: 
formulation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes22 
(3), 119–150, 2004 
[11] Bathurst, R. J., Jarrett, P. M., Benjamin, D. J. 
R. S., (1993) A database of results from an 
incrementally constructed geogrid-reinforced 
soil wall test. In: Proceedings of Soil 
Reinforcement: Full Scale Experiments of the 
80’s. ISSMFE/ENPC, Paris, France, pp. 401–
430, 1993b 
[12] Bathurst, R. J., Simac, M. R., (1994) 
Geosynthetic reinforced segmental retaining 
wall structures 
in North America. 
In: 
Proceedings of 
the Fifth 
International 
Geosynthetics Conference, Singapore, SEAC-
IGA, Keynote Lecture Volume, pp. 29–54, 
1994.  
[13] Bathurst, R. J., Simac, M. R., Christopher, B. 
R., Bonczkiewicz, C., (1993) A data-base of 
results from a geosynthetic reinforced modular 
block soil retaining wall. In: Proceedings of 
Soil Reinforcement: Full Scale Experiments of 
the 80’s. ISSMFE/ ENPC, Paris, France, pp. 
341–365, 1993a 
[14] Berg, R. R., Meyers, M. S., (1997) Analysis of 
the collapse of a 6. 7m high geosynthetic- 
reinforced wall structure. In: Proceedings of the 
Geosynthetics ’97. IFAI, Roseville, MN, pp. 
85104, 1997.  
[15] Berg, R. R., Nelson, B., (2000) Practical 
implications of MBW unit-geosynthetic 
connection 
strength 
requirements. 
In: 
Proceedings of the 14th GRI Conference. GAI 
Publications. Folsom, PA, pp. 307–322, 2000