A

PROJECT PRELIMINARY REPORT

ON

“COMPERATIVE STUDY OF CONVENTIONAL

RETAINING WALL AND REINFORCED EARTH
RETAINING WALL”

Prepared by
RAVI DHADUK U14CE072 BHARGAV VAISHNAV U14CE033 RAVI KOTADIYA U14CE074

VATSAL DESAI U14CE077 AKSHAY CHHABHAIYA U14CE026 HIREN ZADAFIYA U14CE091

GUIDE

Mr J B Patel
Assistant Professor

APPLIED MECHANICS DEPARTMENT

SARDAR VALLABHBHAI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SURAT – 395007, GUJARAT, INDIA

1
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project report entitled “COMPARATIVE

STUDY OF CONVENTIONAL RETAINIG WALL AND REINFORVCED
EARTH REATING WALL” submitted by RAVI DHADUK (U14CE072),
AKSHAY CHHABHAIYA (U14CE026), BHARGAV VAISHNAV
(U14CE033), RAVI KOTADIYA (U14CE074), VATSAL DESAI
(U14CE077), HIREN ZADAFIYA (U14CE091) in fulfillment for the award of
the degree in “Bachelor of Technology” in Civil Engineering during the
academic year 2014-2018, of the Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of
Technology, Surat is a record of his own work carried out under our supervision
and guidance.

Mr. J B Patel Dr. C H SOLANKI

Assistant Professor, HOD Applied Mechanics Department
AMD SVNIT SURAT SVNIT SURAT

APPLIED MECHANICS DEPARTMENT

SARDAR VALLABHBHAI NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SURAT-395007, GUJARAT

2
 EXAMINER CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project report entitled “COMPARATIVE

STUDY OF CONVENTIONAL RETAINIG WALL AND REINFORVCED
EARTH REATING WALL” submitted by RAVI DHADUK (U14CE072),
AKSHAY CHHABHAIYA (U14CE026), BHARGAV VAISHNAV
(U14CE033), RAVI KOTADIYA (U14CE074), VATSAL DESAI
(U14CE077), HIREN ZADAFIYA (U14CE091) in fulfillment for the award of
the degree in “Bachelor of Technology” in Civil Engineering during the
academic year 2014-2018, of the Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of
Technology, Surat

EXAMINER 1 EXAMINER 2

APPLIED MECHANICS DEPARTMENT S. V. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY, SURAT, GUJARAT (INDIA)

3
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to use this opportunity to express our acknowledgement and

deep sense of appreciation to all those who supported us throughout the project.
Their input have played a vital role in completion of this study report.
We would like to give a special gratitude to our seminar guide Mr. J B
Patel (Assistant Professor AMD, SVNIT) for helping us out in every possible way
by providing his valuable input to give to the knowledge regarding the project
topic. We are very grateful to all our classmates for their support. We must
express our sincere heartfelt gratitude to all the staff-members of Applied
Mechanical Engineering Department. The work presented in this project would
not have been accomplished without their unfailing support and attention.
Last but not the least our thanks to all those who directly or indirectly
helped us in making this Project report a success.

Place: SVNIT, Surat

Date:
4
 ABSTRACT

Soil retention system has been revolutionized by the development of

internally stabilized walls. The major reason may be the anticipation that such
walls would be more expensive compared to the conventional externally stabilized
walls, and also that the design procedures involved might be too cumbersome.
This project presents step-by step design procedures for externally stabilized
walls and internally stabilized walls as suggested by different codes/ researchers.
Typical design examples of some of the externally stabilized and internally
stabilized walls, i.e. design of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls,
metal strip reinforced walls, geotextile reinforced walls and anchored earth walls
of different heights have been provided for the purpose of cost comparison. The
analyses reveal that the internally stabilized walls are significantly more
economical compared to the externally stabilized wall considered in this study,
and this economic benefit increases with increasing height of the walls.

5
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Certificate ........................................................................................................... 2

Acknowledgement .............................................................................................. 3

Abstract............................................................................................................... 4

Table of contents ................................................................................................ 5

List of figures...................................................................................................... 7

1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Types of Retaining Walls .................................................................... 10

1.1.1 Conventional retaining walls ............................................................ 10
1.1.1.1 Gravity retaining walls ........................................................ 10
1.1.1.2 Cantilever retaining walls .................................................... 10
1.1.1.3 Counterfort retaining walls ................................................. 11

1.1.2 Mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall ................................... 11

1.1.2.1 Reinforced Retaining Walls ................................................ 12

1.1.2.2 Concrete Cantilever retaining wall...................................... 12

2. Literature review............................................................................................ 15

3. Design Methodology ..................................................................................... 19

3.1 Rankine's Earth Pressure Theory............................................................. 19

3.1.1 At rest earth pressure ...................................................................... 19

3.1.2 Active pressure ............................................................................... 20

3.1.3 Passive pressure ............................................................................... 21

4. Economical Studies Of Retaining Wall........................................................ 22

5. Design of Retaining wall (RCCW) ............................................................... 23

6. Design using excel programme .................................................................... 28

6
7. Mononobe okabe method ........................................................................... 31
8. Reinforced earth wall design ...................................................................... 35
9. Summary ..................................................................................................... 39
10.Reference .................................................................................................... 40

7
 LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE
FIGURE TITLE
NO.
Figure 1 Gravity retaining wall 9

Figure 2 Cantilever wall 10

Figure 3 Counter fort retaining wall 11

Figure 4 Reinforced retaining wall 12

Figure 5 Geogrid 12

Figure 6 Concrete cantilever retaining wall 13

Figure 7 Final cost comparison 14

Figure 8 Comparison of optimal cost 15

Figure 9 Cost vs height 16

Figure 10 Mean cost of retaining wall 17

Figure 11 Lateral earth pressure for at rest condition. 18

Figure 12 Rankine's active earth pressure 19

Figure 13 Rankine's passive earth pressure 20

Figure 14 Initial dimensions and force for the design of a RCCW 23

Figure 15 Gabion Wall Excel sheet 26

Figure 16 Retaining Wall Excel sheet 27

Figure 17 Cost comparison 28

Figure 18 Forms of reinforcement 37
Figure 19 External failure mechanism 38
Figure 20 Internal failure mechanism 38

8
 OBJECTIVE

 Comparison of cost with respect to height of wall between conventional

retaining wall And Reinforced Earth retaining wall.
 Evaluate Suitability of different walls for different purposes considering its
stability and economy.
 Comparison of construction ease and construction time of different walls.

Scope of study
 Study of different types of retaining wall.
 Rankine's theory is used for theoretical analysis and design.
 EXCEL PROGRAM will be prepared for comparative study.
 Geo5 is used for software analysis.

9
 1) INTRODUCTION
A retaining wall is a structure designed and constructed to resist the lateral pressure of
soil, when there is a desired change in ground elevation that exceeds the angle of repose of the
soil.

Retaining walls are relatively rigid walls used for supporting the soil mass laterally so
that the soil can be retained at different levels on the two sides. Retaining walls are structures
designed to restrain soil to a slope that it would not naturally keep to (typically a steep, near-
vertical or vertical slope). They are used to bound soils between two different elevations often
in areas of terrain possessing undesirable slopes or in areas where the landscape needs to be
shaped severely and engineered for more specific purposes like hillside farming or roadway
overpasses

Retaining wall are generally used to retain earth or other material to maintain unequal
levels on two faces. The material on the back face is called backfill. Retaining walls are used
in the construction of basement below ground level, wing walls of bridge and to retain slopes
in hilly terrain roads. Retaining wall can be constructed with masonry as well as reinforced
concrete. In case of masonry retaining wall, the thickness of wall increases with height because
masonry resists the lateral pressure by its weight. Thus it is also called gravity retaining wall.
The reinforced concrete retaining wall resists the lateral pressure by structural action such as
bending and results in thinner section.

Lateral earth pressures are zero at the top of the wall and – in homogenous ground –
increase proportionally to a maximum value at the lowest depth. Earth pressures will push the
wall forward or overturn it if not properly addressed. Also, any groundwater behind the wall
that is not dissipated by a drainage system causes hydrostatic pressure on the wall. The total
pressure or thrust may be assumed to act at one-third from the lowest depth for lengthwise
stretches of uniform height.

10
1.1 Types of Retaining Walls
In general, retaining walls can be divided into two major categories:

(a) conventional retaining walls, and

(b) mechanically stabilized earth walls.

1.1.1 Conventional retaining walls

Conventional retaining walls can generally be classified as

1. Gravity retaining walls

2. Cantilever retaining walls

3. Counterfort retaining walls

1.1.1.1 Gravity retaining walls

Gravity walls depend on their mass (stone, concrete or other heavy material) to resist
pressure from behind and may have a 'batter' setback to improve stability by leaning back
toward the retained soil. For short landscaping walls, they are often made from mortarless stone
or segmental concrete units (masonry units).Dry-stacked gravity walls are somewhat flexible
and do not require a rigid footing.

Figure 1 Gravity Retaining wall

11
1.1.1.2 Cantilever Retaining Wall

Cantilever retaining walls are most commonly and widely used type of retaining wall.
The following figure shows the cantilever retaining wall.

Vertical stem in cantilever retaining wall resists earth pressure from backfill side and
bends like a cantilever. The thickness of cantilever slab is larger at the base of stem and it
decreases gradually upwards due to reduction of soil pressure with decrease in depth.

The base slab form the foundation of the retaining wall. It consists of a heel slab and
the toe slab. The heel slab acts as a horizontal cantilever under the combined action of the
weight of the retaining earth from the top and the soil pressure acting from the soffit.

Figure 2 Cantilever wall

1.1.1.3 Counter-fort retaining wall

Counterfort walls are cantilever walls strengthened with counter forts monolithic with
the back of the wall slab and base slab. The counter-forts act as tension stiffeners and connect
the wall slab and the base to reduce the bending and shearing stresses. To reduce the bending
moments in vertical walls of great height, counterforts are used, spaced at distances from each
other equal to or slightly larger than one-half of the height Counter forts are used for high walls
with heights greater than 8 to 12 m.

12
 Figure 3 Counter fort retaining wall

1.1.2 Mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE or reinforced soil) is soil constructed with artificial
reinforcing. It can be used for retaining walls, bridge abutments, seawalls, and dikes. Although
the basic principles of MSE have been used throughout history, MSE was developed in its
current form in the 1960s. The reinforcing elements used can vary but
include steel and geosynthetics.

The main advantages of MSE walls compared to conventional reinforced concrete walls
are their ease of installation and quick construction. They do not require formwork or curing
and each layer is structurally sound as it is laid, reducing the need for support, scaffolding or
cranes. They also do not require additional work on the facing.

Over the years many different retaining wall materials have helped to alter the landscape
in which we live. Common retaining wall products include railroad ties or treated timbers as
well as wall stones, natural stones, bricks and concrete block.

1.1.2.1 Reinforced Retaining Walls

These walls comprise of horizontally laid reinforcements which carry most or all of
the lateral earth pressure via soil-reinforcement interaction or via passive resistance from the

13
anchor block. If the reinforcements are spaced closely enough, the stiffness of the soil-
reinforcement system may be so high that practically very insignificant lateral thrust will have
to be carried by the wall facing elements.

Figure 4 Reinforced retaining wall

Geogrid:
A geogrid is geosynthetic material used to reinforce soils and similar materials. Geogrids are
commonly used to reinforce retaining walls.

Figure 5 Geogrid

1.1.2.2 Concrete Cantilever retaining wall

14
 A cantilever retaining wall is one that consists of a wall which is connected to
foundation. A cantilever wall holds back a significant amount of soil, so it must be well
engineered. They are the most common type used as retaining walls. Cantilever wall rest on a
slab foundation. This slab foundation is also loaded by back-fill and thus the weight of the
back-fill and surcharge also stabilizes the wall against overturning and sliding.

Figure 6 Concrete cantilever retaining wall

15
 2) LITERATURE REVIEW

PATIL et al., reported the analysis and design of stepped cantilever retaining wall. “ In this
study, Cantilever retaining walls are found best up to a height of 6m.For greater heights earth
pressure due to retained fill will be higher due to lever arm effect, higher moments are produced
at base, which leads to higher section for stability design as well as structural design. This
proves to be an uneconomical design. As an alternative to this, one may go for counter fort
retaining wall, which demands greater base area as well as steel. As a solution to this difficulty,
a new approach that is to minimize effect of forces coming from retained fill, short reinforced
concrete members in the form of cantilever steps are cast along the stem on the retaining face.
Addition of these steps would counterbalance the locally appearing forces and will result into
lesser moment and shear forces along the stem. Also it will reduce the bending action that is
pressure below the base.

Figure 7 Final cost comparison

16
SINGLA et al. studied the Behavior and optimal design of three types of reinforced concrete
walls of varying heights namely cantilever retaining wall, counter fort retaining wall and
retaining wall with relieving platforms is done. Amidst the cost estimates of all the three
optimal designs for particular height, a comparative study is carried out and the alternative with
the least cost estimate is chosen as the best design solution.

Figure 8 Comparison of optimal cost

KHAN et al. presented step-by step design procedures for externally stabilized walls and
internally stabilized walls as suggested by different codes/ researchers. Typical design
examples of some of the externally stabilized and internally stabilized walls, i.e. design of
reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls, metal strip reinforced walls, Geotextile
reinforced walls and anchored earth walls of different heights have been provided for the
purpose of cost comparison. The major reason may be the anticipation that such walls would
be more expensive compared to the conventional externally stabilized walls, and also that the
design procedures involved might be too cumbersome. The analyses reveal that the internally
stabilized walls are significantly more economical compared to the externally stabilized wall
considered in this study, and this economic benefit increases with increasing height of the walls.

17
 Figure 9 Cost vs height

Joseph et al., studied for better results man has tried many methods to retain large masses of
soil starting from bamboo, wood and other materials to random rubble masonry. As time
progressed concrete retaining wall has become the most commonly sought after solution with
the advent of new ideas and materials, technology has found better methods to retain large
masses of soil. The advance of modern technology and research for more greener materials has
lead to new soil retaining techniques such as reinforced earth retaining walls and gabion walls.
Here the paper focuses on the study of reinforced earth retaining walls and gabion walls as a
more economical solution as well as environmental friendly as compared to concrete retaining
walls.

Shinde et al., seen Retaining wall with pressure relief shelves is one of the special types of
retaining wall. High reinforced concrete retaining walls may be used economically by
providing relief shelves on the back fill side of wall. Such walls may be termed as the retaining
wall with relief shelf. lateral earth pressure on wall and increasing overall stability of the
structure. This results in an economical design because less material goes into the wall as
compared to massive structure of cantilever or even counter fort retaining walls without the
shelves.

18
Koerner et al. conducted a survey which included four wall categories like gravity walls, crib
/ bin walls, MSE walls with metal reinforcement and MSE walls with geosynthetic
reinforcement. Gravity walls were seen to be the most expensive, with crib/bin walls and MSE
(metal) walls significantly less expenSive. But the crib/bin walls are rarely above 7m in height.
It was also obvious that MSE (geosynthetic) walls are the least expensive of all wall categories
and over all wall heights. However, convergence seems to occur within the two different MSE
types (metal and geosynthctics) in the high wall height category.

Figure 10 Mean costs of retaining wall

19
 3) METHODOLOGY

3.1 Rankine's Earth Pressure Theory

The Rankine's theory assumes that there is no wall friction , the ground and failure
surfaces are straight planes, and that the resultant force acts parallel to the backfill slope.

Figure 11 Lateral earth pressure for at rest condition.

The element E is subjected to the following pressures: Vertical pressure, Lateral pressure.

If we consider the backfill is homogenous then both increases rapidly with depth z. In that case
the ratio of vertical and lateral pressures remain constant with respect to depth.

3.1.1 At rest earth pressure:

The at-rest earth pressure coefficient is applicable for determining the active pressure
in clays for strutted systems. Because of the cohesive property of clay there will be no lateral
pressure exerted in the at- rest condition up to some height at the time the excavation is made.

The total pressure for the soil at rest condition,

20
3.1.2 Active earth pressure:

Figure 12 Rankine's active earth pressure

The lateral pressure acting against a smooth wall AB is due to mass of soil ABC above
the rupture line AC which makes an angle of with the horizontal. The lateral

pressure distribution on the wall AB of height H increases in same proportion to depth.

The pressure acts normal to the wall AB.

The lateral active earth pressure at A is , which acts at a height H/3 above the
base of the wall. The total pressure on AB is therefore calculated as follows:

21
3.1.3 Passive earth pressure:

Figure 13 Rankine's passive earth pressure

If the wall AB is pushed into the mass to such an extent as to impart uniform compression
throughout the mass, the soil wedge ABC in fig. will be in Rankine's Passive State of plastic
equilibrium. The inner rupture plane AC makes an angle with the vertical AB. The
pressure distribution on the wall is linear as shown.

The lateral passive earth pressure at A is . which acts at a height H/3 above the
base of the wall.

The total pressure on AB is therefore

Where

22
 4) ECONOMICAL STUDIES OF RETAINING WALL
Due to the development of materials and enhancement in technical understanding of
geotechnical engineering, different types of soil retention systems have evolved over the last
three to four decades. These systems may be classified into two groups, externally stabilizes
walls and internally stabilized walls. The examples of first category are gravity walls,
reinforced concrete cantilever and reinforced concrete counterfort. 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. The construction sequence of
these walls involves casting of base and stem followed by backfilling with specified material.
This requires considerable amount of time as concrete has to be adequately cured and
sufficient time spacing has to be allowed for concrete of previous lift to gain strength before
the next lift is cast. The internally stabilized walls include metal strip walls , geotextile
reinforced walls and anchored earth walls . These walls comprise of horizontally laid
reinforcements which carry most or all of the lateral earth pressure via soil-reinforcement
interaction or via passive resistance from the anchor block. If the reinforcements are spaced
closely enough, the stiffness of the soil-reinforcement system may be so high that practically
very insignificant lateral thrust will have to be carried by the wall facing elements. This
reduces the volume of concrete and steel reinforcement in the wall significantly. An
additional feature of the internally stabilized walls is their relatively fast speed of
construction. This is firstly because of less volume of concrete and steel fabrication work,
and secondly because the placing of wall panels, laying of reinforcements and compaction of
reinforced fill are carried out simultaneously.

23
 5) DESIGN OF RETAINING WALL

RC WALL:
RCC Wall is perhaps the most widely used retaining wall. Therefore, the design
procedure is very common and can be found in any text book (e.g., Bowles, 1988). Here the
procedure outlined by Das (1990) is presented. Figure shows the usual geometry of a RCCW
and forces that normally act on it. The dimensions shown in the figure are only initial values
for stability checks. If these dimensions do not satisfy the factor of safety against all the
stability checks, the sections are revised. It should be noted that in the estimate of forces, no
hydrostatic pressure is considered. This is ensured by considering both the backfill and
retained fill as cohesion less soils and by providing sufficient weep holes or toe drains in the
wall. The notations related to Figure are described below:

γ1, γ2, γ3, γc= Unit weight of backfill, retained fill, foundation soil and concrete

Φ1, Φ2, Φ3 = Angle of internal friction of backfill, retained fill and foundation soil

c3 = Cohesion of foundation soil

D = Depth of embedment of foundation (depends on soil type and loading)

H = Height of the wall from EGL to the foundation level

Ws1 = Weight of surcharge on backfill

Ws2 = Weight of surcharge on retained fill

Ka = Rankine’s coefficient of active earth pressure

Pa1 = Active force due to the retained fill = 0.5Ka γ2H2

Pa2 = Active force due to the surcharge on retained fill,

Ws2 = Ka Ws2H

y1 = Vertical distance from base of the wall to the force Pa1 = H/3

y2 = Vertical distance from base of the wall to the force Pa2 = H/2

W1 = Total weight of concrete (stem and base)

W2 = Wt. of backfill and surcharge Ws1 on backfill

X1 = Horizontal distance from toe to the c.g of W1

24
X2 = Horizontal distance from toe to the c.g of W2

B = Width of base of the retaining walle wall.

Check for overturning about toe:

Overturning of the wall may occur about the toe, i.e. point A due to the lateral earth pressures
shown in Figure 2. The Factor of Safety against such overturning can be expressed as:

FS (OT) = ∑MR/∑MO ≥ 1.5

Where, FS(OT) = Factor of Safety against overturning, ∑MR = Summation of resisting

moment about point A, ∑MO = Summation of overturning moment about point A.

FS (OT) = (W1* X1 + W2* X2)/( Pa1* y1 + Pa2* y2)

Figure 14 Initial dimensions and forces for the design of a RCCW

Check for sliding at the base:

The Factor of Safety against sliding at the base may be expressed as FS(sliding) =
∑FR/∑FD ; ≥ 1.5 where, FS(sliding) = Factor of Safety against sliding at the base; ∑FR =
Summation of resisting forces against sliding; ∑FO = Summation of forces causing sliding
at the base

25
FS(sliding)= ((W1 + W2) tan Φ3 / +B * c3 ) / (Pa1 + Pa2)

GRAVITY WALLS:
Forces Acting on the Wall
the main forces acting on gabion walls are the vertical forces from the weight of the gabions
and the lateral earth pressure acting on the back face. These forces are used herein to illustrate
the main design principles.

The weight of a unit length (one foot) of wall is simply the product of the wall cross section
and the density of the gabion fill. The latter value may be conservatively taken as 100 lb/ft3
for typical material (Wg). the total active force of the triangular pressure distribution acting
on the wall is:

Pa = KawsH 2 / 2

The pressure coefficient is Ka is given by:

Where:

α = slope angle of backfill surface

β = acute angle of back face slope with vertical (-value

where as in stepping front face wall; + value when as in stepping back face wall)

δ = angle of wall friction

φ= angle of internal friction of soil

Pa is inclined to a line normal to the slope of the back face by the angle d . However, because
the effect of wall friction is small, d is usually taken as zero. The horizontal component of Pa
is:

Ph = Pa cos β

26
Overturning Moment Check
The active soil pressure forces tend to overturn the wall, and this must be properly balanced
by the resisting moment developed from the weight of the wall and other forces.

moments are taken about the toe of the wall to check overturning.

This check may be expressed as

Mr ≥ SFoMo

Where Mr is the resisting moment, Mo is the overturning moment, and SFo is the safety
factor against overturning (typically 2.0). Each moment is obtained by summing the products
of each appropriate force times its perpendicular distance the toe of the wall. Neglecting wall
friction, the active earth force acts normal to the slope of the back face at a distance H/3
above the base. When a surcharge is present, the distance of the total active force above the
toe becomes.

The overturning moment is

The weight of the gabion wall (Wg) acts vertically through the centroid of its cross section
area. The horizontal distance to this point from the toe of the wall (dg) may be obtained from
the statical moment of wall areas. That is, moments of areas about the toe are taken, then
divided by the total area

Sliding Resistance Check

The tendency of the active earth pressure to cause the wall to slide horizontally must be
opposed by the frictional resistance at the base of the wall. This may be expressed as

Where m is the coefficient of the sliding friction (tan of angle of friction of soil), Wv is the
sum of the vertical forces (Wg in this case), and SFs is the safety factor against sliding.

Check Bearing Pressure

27
First check to determine if the resultant vertical force lies within the middle third of the base.
If B denotes the width of the base, the eccentricity, e, of the vertical force from the midwidth
of the base is

For the resultant force to lie in the middle third:

The maximum pressure under the base, P, is then

The maximum pressure must not exceed the allowable soil bearing pressure, Pb:

P ≤ Pb

The safety factor must be included in Pb.

28
6) DESIGN USING EXCEL PROGRAMME

Figure 15 Gabion Wall Excel sheet

29
Figure 16 Retaining Wall Excel sheet

30
7) Mononobe-Okabe Seismic Coefficient Analysis
The most commonly adopted method for determining the dynamic lateral
pressure on retaining structures was develop by Mononobe (1929) and Okabe
(1926). The method was developed for dry cohesionless materials and was
based on the assumption that:
(1) the wall yields sufficiently to produce minimum active pressure
(2) when the minimum active pressure in attained, a soil wedge behind the is
at the point of incipient failure and the maximum shear strength is mobilized
along the potential sliding surface.
(3) the soil behind the wall behaves as a rigid body so that acceleration are
uniform throughout the mass; thus the effect of the earthquake motion can be
represented by the inertia forces kh ×W and kv ×W where W is the weight of
the sliding wedge k gh and k gv are the horizontal and vertical components of
the earthquake acceleration at the base of the wall.

Fig 17

31
In effect, the active pressure during the earthquake PAE is computed by the
Coulomb theory except that the additional forces kh ×W and kv ×W as shown
above in Fig. are included in the computation. Determining the critical sliding
surface is the usual way and the active pressure corresponding to this surface
lead to the following

Mononobe and Okabe considered that the total pressure computed by their
analytical approach would act on the wall at the same position as the initial
static pressure; that is at the height of H/3 above the base. With the analysis
on effect of the vertical components on the dynamic pressure with varied data;
it was also found that in most of earthquakes the horizontal acceleration
components are considerably greater that the vertical components and it
seems reasonable to conclude that in such cases the influence of vertical
components v k can be neglected for the practical purpose. 11 Finally it may
be noted that the values of the KAE represent the total maximum earth
pressure developed on the wall. For many purpose it convenient to separate
this pressure into two components – the initial static pressure on the wall and
32
the dynamic pressure increment due to the base motion. For practical purpose
we may write

and the dynamic lateral pressure components becomes

33
34
 8) Reinforced earth wall design
8.1) Reinforced earth

Reinforced Earth The concept of combining two materials of different

strengths characteristics to form a composite material of greater strength is
quite familiar in civil engineering practices and is in use for ages. The
reinforced concrete constructions are examples for such composite materials.
It combines the high tensile strength of steel with the high compressive, but
relatively low tensile strength of concrete. Likewise, soils which have little if
any tensile strength can also be strengthened by the inclusion of materials
with high tensile strength. This mobilisation of tensile strength is obtained by
surface interaction between the soil and the reinforcement through friction
and adhesion. The reinforced soil is obtained by placing extensible or
inextensible materials such as metallic strips or polymeric reinforcement
within the soil to obtain the requisite properties. 1 Soil reinforcement through
metallic strips, grids or meshes and polymeric strips sheets is now a well
developed and widely accepted technique of earth improvement. Anchoring
and soil nailing is also adopted to improve the soil properties. The use of
reinforced earth technique is primarily due to its versatility, cost effectiveness
and ease of construction. The reinforced earth technique is particularly useful
in urban locations where availability of land is minimum and construction is
required to take place with minimum disturbance traffic

8.2) Soil reinforcement interaction

For soil reinforcement interaction to be effective reinforcement is required
absorbs strains which would be otherwise cause failure. In this context an
ultimate state of collapse in terms of interaction with the soil and
reinforcement this state can be bought by rapture of reinforcement or failure
of bond between soil and reinforcement. In serviceability limit state is
occurred when deformation occur beyond serviceable limit or strain within
the reinforcement exceed prescribed limit. If the soil is cohesion less the bond
resistance will be friction and will depend upon surface roughness and soil. If
soil is cohesive the bond stress will be adhesive. In case of grid reinforcement
the bond stress will be governed by the shear strength of the soil and
roughness of the reinforcement.
35
 Having absorbed load it is necessary for the reinforcement to sustain this load
during the design life without rupture or without suffering time dependent
deformation which might give rise to serviceability limit. To maximise the
tensile load capacity the flexible reinforcement are install horizontally to
coincide with the principle tensile strain. The axial forces absorbed by the
reinforcement are statically determinate.
8.3) Reinforcement Geometry
Soil reinforcement can take a variety of forms , some of which are shown in
Fig 4 . Grids meshes and strips can be metallic or polymeric whilst sheet
reinforcement takes the form of polymeric geotextiles. Anchored earth fill
employs multiple layers of flexible steel bars or polymeric materials, which
are shaped, at the end remote from the face of the wall, to form an anchor.
When used as soil nails, steel bars have a simple circular cross section. Sheet
reinforcement, and polymeric grids are generally installed full width, such
that each metre length of face is associated with a 1 m width of reinforcement,
and so, in a multiplayer system, the total stabilizing force developed by the
reinforcement is a function of the number of layers of reinforcement and their
vertical spacings. Strip reinforcement, including wide strips of metallic or
polymeric grid, are not placed full width . Consequently, the total stabilizing
force developed by such reinforcement will be a function of the number of
reinforcement elements and both their horizontal and vertical spacing. The
total length of each reinforcing element will influence the overall geometry of
the reinforced mass and this in turn will influence external stability. For
example, in the case of a reinforced fill wall, the length of the reinforcing
elements at the base of the wall determine the width of the base of the wall
and therefore affect the performance of the reinforced mass with respect to
forward sliding on the base, bearing, tilting, settlement and overall stability.

36
Fig 18. Forms of reinforcement

37
8.4) Basis for design
In the reinforced earth wall two type of stability checked:

i) External stability : It consider the reinforced structure as whole and check

the stability for sliding, overturning, bearing/tilt and slip

Fig 19 External failure mechanism

ii) Internal stability: It cover internal mechanism ( tension and pull out failure)
such as shear within the structure , arrangement and behavior of the
reinforcement and backfill. It checks the stability for each
reinforcement layers and stability of wedges within the reinforced fill.

Fig 20 Internal failure mechanism

38
 SUMMARY

Here in externally stabilized wall it is economical for smaller

height retaining wall but with increase in height of the wall the lateral
pressure needs higher width of retaining wall as externally stabilized
wall resists the lateral pressure by the virtue of its own weight So, it
becomes uneconomical while having taller wall.
For taller retaining wall we need to have a different alternative
like cantilever wall, reinforced retaining wall.

Width 3
Gabion wall
2 RE Wall

0
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5
Height

39
 9) REFFERENCES

BS 8006 CODE OF PRACTICE FOR STRENGTHENED / REINFORCED SOIL AND OTHER

FILLS

IRC SP 102 GUIDELINE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF REINFORCED SOIL WALL

JOSEPH A et al.," CONDUCTED A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GABION WALLS AND

REINFORCED EARTH RETAINING WALLS." VOL.3, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2015.

KHAN A et al., “INVESTIGATED THE DESIGN BASIS AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF

DIFFERENT TYPES OF RETAINING WALLS”, JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING (IEB), 32
(1) (2004).

PATIL S ,“THE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF STEPPED CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL. "
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY (IJERT)
VOLUME, NO 4 ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY-2015

SHINDE D et at.," REPORTED OPTIMUM STATIC ANALYSIS OF RETAINING WALL WITH &
WITHOUT SHELF /SHELVE AT DIFFERENT LEVEL USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS.

SINGLA S et al., “INVESTIGATED THE OPTIMIZATION OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

RETAINING WALLS OF VARYING HEIGHTS USING RELIEVING PLATFORMS.”
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY (IJERT)
VOLUME ,NO 4 ISSUE 06, JUNE-2015.

Seismic Design of Earth Retaining Structures By Atop Lego, M.Tech (Struct.)

CONCEPT AND DESIGN OF REINFORCED EARTH STRUCTURES

Report No. GE: R - 73 JUNE - 2005 GEO-TECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE
RESEARCH DESIGNS AND STANDARDS ORGANISATION
WEB REFERENSES
www.sciencedirect.com
www.scribd.com
www.ijarse.com
www.nptel.ac.in
www.researchgate.net

40