IJSTE - International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering | Volume 5 | Issue 3 | September 2018

ISSN (online): 2349-784X

Study of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall

& Its Comparison with R.C.C. Retaining Wall
with Respect To Cost & Time
Sidheshwar D. Puri Prof. R. R. Salgude
PG Student Assistant Professor
Maharashtra Institute of Technology. Kothrud, Pune, India Maharashtra Institute of Technology. Kothrud, Pune, India

Abstract
From yesteryear soil retention has been a problem faced by mankind. In his research for better results man has tried several ways
to retain massive masses of soil ranging from bamboo, wood, and alternative materials to random detritus masonry. As time
progressed RCC retaining wall has become the foremost commonly sought after solution .With the appearance of recent concepts
and materials, technology has found better methods to retain heavy masses of soil. RE wall using Geogrid is new soil retaining
technology have been widely used in recent years worldwide but the implementation is not up the mark in India. Here the paper
focuses on the study of RCC wall and retaining walls using Geogrid for the purpose of cost and time consumption comparison.
Keywords: Retaining Wall, Geogrid, Construction Cost & Time
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

At present situation, all over the world due to increase in competition in construction industry. Quality, Cost and Time are the
biggest priorities of construction industry and this is only obtainable when modern construction techniques are implemented by
construction industry. To retain large and heavy masses of soil retaining walls are structure which are used to retain it. There are
various materials that may be accustomed to construct retentive walls like treated timbers, concrete blocks, rocks or boulders. From
a number of them are easy to use and others have a shorter life span, however all will retain soil. Retaining walls are usually
designed to retain soil mass and even be made for landscaping functions. Retaining walls are structures that are created to retain
soil or any such materials that are unable to withstand vertically by themselves. They’re additionally provided to take care of the
grounds at two completely different levels.
Earlier everyone uses RCC retaining wall for soil retention. Now a day’s RE wall using geogrid technology used in Europe and
North America. . The process was adopted all over the world and become popular in Asia (e.g., Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan,
Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and India)
In India RCC retaining wall construction uses widely but Geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall technology implementation is
not up the mark as per compared to other Asian countries because of lack of knowledge about construction process, cost of
construction, time consumption for construction process.
Hence in this research, detailed study about construction process, types, construction cost, quality, uses, advantages and
disadvantages of RCC retaining wall and geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall for comparing both this walls on the basis of cost
and time consumption.
The previous research studied about the history, design, uses, properties of RCC retaining wall and geogrid reinforced soil
retaining wall but comparison of cost analysis of both retaining wall is not done up till now. Hence this research focused on
comparison of RCC wall and geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall on the basis of Cost and time.

II. OBJECTIVES

 To compare R.C.C. retaining wall and Geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall for the analysis of cost of construction.
 To compare R.C.C. retaining wall and Geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall for the analysis of time consumption for the
construction process.
 To suggest an environmental friendly technology, which can be beneficial for the society.

III. METHODOLOGY

In this study analytical work is done with respect to construction cost and time. For this, bridge construction site selected as a case
study. In this construction geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall was used. Data related to construction of geogrid reinforced soil
retaining wall in terms of cost and time consumed were identified. The height of retaining wall was 6m and 8m. Same height of
R.C.C. retaining wall were designed. Comparison between these walls were done based on cost and time parameter.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 8

 Study of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall & Its Comparison with R.C.C. Retaining Wall with Respect To Cost & Time
(IJSTE/ Volume 5 / Issue 3 / 002)

IV. CASE STUDY: GEOGRID REINFORCED SOIL RETAINING WALL

Details of Project
 Name of project: Road over bridge at dombivli of level crossing gate no.38-c between dombivli and thakurli station.
 Title: Reinforced soil wall with geogrid reinforcement & panel facing.
 Owner: Kalyan dombivli municipal corporation
 Consultant: Best geotechnics pvt. Ltd.
Construction Cost
Table – 1
Construction Cost of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall Case Study
Sr. No. Items Name Cons./sqm. Unit Rate/unit Rate/sqm
1 Loops/Sqm 6.64115881 Nos. 18 Rs. 119.54
2 Hooks 0.96343402 Nos. 10 Rs. 9.63
3 Connecting Rod 1.02292881 Nos. 250 Rs. 255.73
4 EPDM pad 0.96343402 Nos. 47 Rs. 45.28
5 Geo Textiles 0.4 Sqm 55 Rs. 22.00
6 Geo Grid 5.39545455 Sqm 135 Rs. 728.39
7 Pvc Pipe 0.00966667 Nos. 450 Rs. 4.35
8 Hydra Sqm 74.61 Rs. 74.61
9 Labour Sqm 250 Rs. 250.00
10 Office staff Visit at site Sqm 10 Rs. 10.00
11 Wedges Sqm Rs. 16.00
12 Tools Sqm Rs. 5.00
13 Over Head Sqm Rs. 100.00
14 Mobilization & De mob Sqm Rs. 11.75
15 Salary 108 Sqm Rs. 108.00
16 Labour Camp Sqm Rs. 5.69
17 Mould Sqm Rs. 100.00
18 Mould Foundation Sqm Rs. 10.00
19 Security 18 Sqm Rs. 18.00
20 Staff Accommodation 10.8 Sqm Rs. 10.80
21 Concrete 3600 Cu m. 5500 Rs. 990.00
22 Steel 150000 Kg 45 Rs. 337.50
23 Excavation Works 92000 Cu.m. 110 Rs. 506.00
24 Back Filling Murum 220000 Cu.m. 180 Rs. 1,980.00
25 Filter Madia 13000 Cu.m. 1400 Rs. 910.00
Total Rs. 6,628.28
GST 18.00% Rs. 1,193.09
Profit 15% Rs. 994.24
Proposed Rate/sqm. Rs. 8,815.61
8815.61 x 1064.832 =
Total construction cost
RS. 93,87,143.62
V R.C.C. Retaining Wall
Table – 2
Dimensions of Counter fort Retaining Wall
Stem Thk. m
Ht of wall m Total Base Slab m Width of Toe Slab Width of Heel slab Base slab Thk. m
Top Bottom
6 3.5 0.3 3.0 0.28 0.2 0.2
8 4.25 0.5 3.45 0.35 0.3 0.3
Table – 3
Structural Analysis of Counter-fort Retaining wall (Base slab)
Height of Wall m Bending moment (KN.m) Depth of base slab required mm Depth of base slab Provided mm
Toe Heel
6 12.67 158.98 240.03 400
8 47.58 232.12 290.00 450
Table – 4
Design of Base Slab of Counter Fort Retaining Wall
Ht. of wall m. Base slab Thick. Mm Main Steel.
Toe slab Heel slab
Ast. mm2 Bar Dia. & Spacing Ast. mm2 Bar Dia. & Spacing
6 400 168.73 ϕ10 1172.70 ϕ20 @150mm

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 9

 Study of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall & Its Comparison with R.C.C. Retaining Wall with Respect To Cost & Time
(IJSTE/ Volume 5 / Issue 3 / 002)

@150mm
Φ12
8 450 297.07 1538.54 ϕ20 @150mm
@150mm
Table – 5
Moment & Reinforcement Details along Length of Stem for Counter Fort Wall
Ht. of wall m. Moments (KNm) Stem Thickness Steel prov. In Vertical wall
Dreq. Mm Dprov. mm Ast mm2 Bar Dia. & Spacing
6 72 161.51 200 1130.09 Φ10 @70mm
8 73.5 163.19 300 1736.00 Φ12 @65mm
Table – 6
Cost per Running Meter for Counter fort Retaining Wall
Ht. of wall 6m 8m
Location Concrete m3 Steel Kg Concrete M3 Steel kg
Stem 1.2 76.08 2.4 137.6
Base slab 0.98 66.16 1.49 80.08
Counter
2.7 137.2 5.18 234.05
Forts
Total 4.88 279.44 9.07 451.73
Rate 5500 45 5500 45
Amount 26840 12574.8 49885 20327.85
Sum 39414.8 70212.51

V. DATA ANALYSIS

Cost Analysis of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall

Table – 7
Total Cost per Running Meter for Geogrid reinforced soil Retaining wall of 6m height
Description Unit Rate (Rs./ Unit) Quantity Amount (Rs.)
Earth Work Excavtion Cum. 110 9 990
Levelling Pad (M15 Grade Concrete) Cum. 5500 0.0656 360
RE wall with Facia Pannel Sqm. 1350 4 5400
Back Filling (Murum) in Reinforced Zone Cum 180 33 5940
Geogrid Sqm. 135 48 6480
Total 19,170
Table – 8
Total Cost per Running Meter for Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall of 8m Height
Description Unit Rate (Rs./ Unit) Quantity Amount (Rs.)
Earth Work Excavtion Cum. 110 9 990
Levelling Pad (M15 Grade Concrete) Cum. 5500 0.0656 360
RE wall with Facia Pannel Sqm. 1350 6 8100
Back Filling (Murum) in Reinforced Zone Cum 180 44 7920
Geogrid Sqm. 135 72 9720
Total 27,090

Cost Analysis of Counterfort Retaining Wall

Table – 9
Total Cost per Running Meter for Counter Fort Retaining Wall of 6m Height.
Description Unit Rate (Rs./ Unit) Quantity Amount (Rs.)
Earth Work Excavation Cum. 110 7 770
Back Filling (Murum) material Cum 180 33 5940
Concrete Cum 4.88 5500 26,840
Steel Reinforcement Kg 279.44 45 12,575
Total 46,125
Table – 10
Total Cost per Running Meter for Counter fort Retaining Wall of 8m Height
Description Unit Rate (Rs./ Unit) Quantity Amount (Rs.)
Earth Work Excavation Cum. 110 7 770
Back Filling (Murum) material Cum 180 44 7920
Concrete Cum 9.07 5500 49,885
Steel Reinforcement Kg 451.73 45 20,328
Total 78,903

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 10

 Study of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall & Its Comparison with R.C.C. Retaining Wall with Respect To Cost & Time
(IJSTE/ Volume 5 / Issue 3 / 002)

Graph 1: Final Cost Comparison

VI. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

Results
Geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall have many advantages compared with R.C.C retaining walls. They are summarized as
follows:
 Use simple and rapid construction procedures and do not require large construction equipment.
 Do not require experienced craftsmen with special skills for construction.
 Require less site preparation than other alternatives.
 Need less space in front of the structure for construction operations (facia panels)
 Reduce the requirement of space.
 Cost effective.
 Required less time for construction.

Quality Control
 In RCC retaining wall concreting is done cast-in-situ. Whereas in Geo-grid retaining wall precast panels are used to retain the
earth.
 Because of precast concrete products typically are made in a controlled plant environment, they exhibit high quality and
uniformity. Problems affecting quality typically found on a job site- temperature, curing conditions, poor craftsmanship and
material quality are nearly eliminated in a plant environment.
 Precast concrete is less susceptible to vibratory damage while the surrounding soil is backfilled. Consequently, backfilling
operations can usually proceed much faster around precast concrete structures.
 The strength of precast concrete gradually increases over time. Other materials can deteriorate, experience creep and stress
relaxation, lose strength, deflect over time and may not be able to withstand vehicular impacts.
 The load-carrying capacity of precast concrete is derived from its own structural qualities and does not rely on the strength or
quality of the surrounding backfill materials.
 Prolonged exposure of geogrid reinforcement to sunlight should be avoided to prevent change in properties due to ultra violet
rays. Hence, quality control in construction of geo-grid reinforced soil retaining walls is better than RCC retaining wall.

Duration of Construction
 The construction sequence of RCC Retaining 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.
 Geo-grid retaining walls have 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.

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 11

 Study of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall & Its Comparison with R.C.C. Retaining Wall with Respect To Cost & Time
(IJSTE/ Volume 5 / Issue 3 / 002)

VII. CONCLUSION

 The overall cost of RCC retaining wall is Rs. 46,125 and the overall cost of Geo-grid reinforced soil retaining wall is Rs.
19,170 for 6m height. Hence the percentage saving in cost is around 58% for 6m height.
 The overall cost of RCC retaining wall is Rs. 78903 and the overall cost of Geo-grid reinforced soil retaining wall is Rs. 27090
for 8m height. Hence the percentage saving in cost is around 65% for 8m height.
 Hence the percentage saving in cost in geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall is 60%.
 Geo-grid retaining wall requires less amount of time as all the construction processes are simultaneous. RCC retaining wall
requires considerable amount of time as all the construction processes are sequential. Hence Geo-grid retaining wall consumes
less time during construction.
 Quality control is better in Geo-grid retaining wall as compared to RCC retaining wall.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank all those who have contributed in successful completion of my project work. I would like to express my sincere thanks to
Head of Department Prof. Dr. S. S. Pimplikar and my project guide Prof. R. R. Salgude who encouraged me to work on this topic
and gave their valuable guidance wherever required.
I express my immense pleasure and thankfulness to all the faculty and staff of the Department of Civil Engineering, MIT,
Kothrud, Pune as well as to the people who have are associated with this project for their co-operation and support.

REFERENCES
[1] A. J. Khan and M. Sikder (2004), “Design basis and economic aspects of different types of retaining walls”, Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB),page no. 17-
34.
[2] C. V. S. Benjamim1, B. S. Bueno and J. G. Zornberg (2007), “Field monitoring evaluation of geotextile-reinforced soil-retaining walls”, Geosynthetics
International, 2007, 14, No. 2, page no. 100-118.
[3] Harangad Singh and Dr. Saleem Akhtar(2015), “Review on Economic Analysis of Reinforced Earth Wall with Different Types of Reinforcing Materials”,
Volume IV, Issue XII, December 2015, IJLTEMAS ISSN 2278 – 2540, www.ijltemas.in, Page 68 TO 74.
[4] Mena I. Souliman and Claudia Zapata (2011) “Worldwide Applications of Geosynthetics Reinforced Walls for Soil Reinforcement”, Jordan Journal of Civil
Engineering, Volume 5.
[5] R. Kerry Rowe, Graeme D. Skinner (2001), “Numerical analysis of geosynthetic reinforced retaining wall constructed on a layered soil foundation”,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, page no. 387–412.
[6] Richard J. Bathurst and Michael R. Simac(1994), “Geosynthetic Reinforced Segmental RetainingWall Structures in North America”, Keynote Lecture reprint:
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Singapore, September 1994.
[7] Tamadher Abood, Hatem E.Younis Eldawi, Faeza R. Elnaji Abdulrahim (2015) , “Design of Cantilever Retaining Wall with 4m Height”, International Journal
of Civil and Structural Engineering Research ISSN 2348-7607 (Online) Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp: (318-326).

All rights reserved by www.ijste.org 12