Geotextiles and Geomembranes I I (1992) 29-43

Cost Analysis of Reinforced Soil Walls

Zeynep Durukan
Yapi Merkezi Inc.. Gamlica. lstanbul. Turkey
&
Semih S. Tezcan*
Dept. Civil Engineering. Bo~azi¢i University. 80815. Bebek, lstanbul. Turkey
(Received I I October 1990: accepted 22 October 1990)

ABSTRACT

Reinforced .,oil structures are both economically and technically very

advantageous over their conventional counterpart.,, especially under poor soil
condition,,, and also when there are space and property line limitation.,.
Moreover. reinforced ,,oil structures provide numerous other indirect saving,,
and convenience.,, such as speedy construction time. ease in construction
methods, graceful appearance.,, etc.
In this presentation, a systematic method of determining the possible cost of
a reinforced soil-retaining wall is described and an estimate of cost
breakdown is given on the basis of height and length of the retaining wall.
Relative economy of reinforced.,oil.,, in comparison with conventional and
other types of retaining wall.,, is also discussed For purpose,, of illustration.
several case studies of cost analyses and numerical example,, are also
included.

1 INTRODUCTION

Usually, the geotechnical design engineer is c o n f r o n t e d with an

i m p o r t a n t task: w h e t h e r a c o n v e n t i o n a l reinforced-concrete retaining
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
29
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 0266-1144/91/$03.50 © 1991 Elsevier Science Publishers
Ltd. England. Printed in Great Britain.
30 Zeynep Durukan. Semih S. Tezcan

wall, or a reinforced soil wall, should be preferred in a particular project

at a particular site.
In order to be able to give a conscientious decision, questions like
relative economy, factors of safety, feasibility, availability of materials
and even relative speed of construction should be compared carefully.
It is generally accepted in the literature (Ingold, 1982) that, under
normal circumstances, and especially after a wall height of about 6 m,
reinforced soil walls readily become more economical, and also they are
relatively easier and quicker to build than their conventional
counterparts.
Reinforced soil-retaining walls are almost indispensable when
normal slopes may not be constructed due to property line constraints,
high expropriation costs, existence of important structures, or due to
land being reserved for future structures.
In order to arrive at a scientific conclusion, however, it may be
absolutely necessary to perform a comparative cost analysis.

2 EXAMPLES OF COST ESTIMATES

The rate of relative economy is calculated as the difference in cost of

conventional and reinforced soil types of construction, divided by the
cost of the reinforced soil wall.
It was determined by a group of researchers in the UK (Anon., 1979)
that the rate of relative economy of soil-reinforced walls was steadily
increasing with the height of the wall, as seen in Fig. 1.

100%

JCc - Cr
Er =
Cr
75%

u
w
50 */,

)i 25"•,

5 +0 15 20
h= He~Jht of watl,m

Fig. !. Rate of economy in reinforced soil structures.

 Cost analysis of reinforced soil walls 31

A similar cost effectiveness study of the reinforced soil embankments

by Christie (1982) in the UK showed that, when space restrictions or high
land-acquisition costs necessitated steep walls, it was almost unavoidable
to use soil reinforcement. Murray (1982) also reported that a repair
project for a cutting using reinforced in-situ soil saved about 40% when
compared with the conventional replacement techniques.
It was reported by Bell et al. (1984) that the total costs of a series of
geotextile-reinforced retaining walls varied between US $118 and US
$134/m 2 of the wall surface. The average cost breakdown is shown in
Table 1.
Another report prepared by Forsyth and Bieber (1984) revealed that
the geotextile geogrids were the most economical choice among the three
possible soil-reinforcement materials in the La Honda highway slope
repair project, as shown in Table 2.
In the case of a 7-m-high embankment in a highway construction in
Ontario (Canada), Devata (1984) reported that the Reinforced Earth wall
required the least construction cost, and similarly the reinforced soil
embankment with 1/1 steep slope provided significant economy over the
2/1 earth fill and 1.25/1 rockfill counterparts, as shown in Table 3.

TABLE !
Geotextile-Rein forced Soils
(Bell et al.. 1984)

Item Cost Share

(US S/m 2) (%)

Geotextile 23 19
Labor 7 19
Equipment 7 6
Fill 53 44
Facing 30 25

Total 120 100%

TABLE 2
Slope Repair Costs. La Honda, UK (Forsyth & Bieber 1984)

Type Area of reinforcement Unit price Total

(m:) (US $) (US $)

Geogrid (Tansar SR2) 6 000 4-50 27 00

Tire reinforcement 4 800 13.45 65 000
Bar mat reinforcement 2 060 67.30 138 600
32 Z ~ n e p Durukan. Semih S. Tezcan

TABLE 3
Cost of Alternate Methods (Devata, 1984)

Construction method Wall cost Property cost Total cost

(10~ US $) (10~ US $) (10~ US $)

Reinforced-concrete wall 1.52 0 i.52

Bin wall 1.42 0 1.42
Reinforced Earth wall 1.38 0 1.38
Rockfill !.25/1 slope 0.93 0.30 1.23
Earthfill, 2/I slope 0.30 0.90 1.20
Geogrids, 1/I slope 0.48 0 0.48

TABLE 4
Cost Comparisons for an E m b a n k m e n t (Paul, 1984)

Wall type Land width Cost

(m) (US S/m)

Reinforced concrete wall 18-9 2 625

Geogrid-rein forced e m b a n k m e n t 13-5 1 775
Unreinforced e m b a n k m e n t 32.5 1 911

In a blast protection e m b a n k m e n t in L o n d o n (UK). it was established

by Paul (1984) that the geogrid-reinforced design was the most
economical choice when c o m p a r e d with either the conventional
reinforced-concrete wall or the unreinforced soils. The relative costs for a
1-m run of wall are shown in Table 4.
For an Indiana Highway project in the US. the cost analyses indicated
that with a retaining wall of length 600 m a n d height 8 m, the savings in
preferring the reinforced soil wall was in the order o f US $160/m 2of wall.

3 B R E A K D O W N OF COSTS

The elements comprising the total cost of a reinforced soil structure may
be grouped as follows.
1. in-situ cast footing beam
2. precast facing elements (including erection)
3. reinforced soil fill (including haul from source)
4. compaction of fill material
5. laboratory and in-situ testing of soil
 Cost analysis of reinforced soil walls 33

TABLE 5
Breakdown of Cost (Jones. 1985)

Type Work Percent Total

Materials Facing 2 I%
Moulds 4
Reinforcement 36
Drainage 2
Others 4 67%
Labour Site I%
Wall II
Drainage 5 17%
Plant Site I%
Wall l0
Drainage 5 16%
Total 100% 100%

6. reinforcement material and auxiliary parts

7. granular material for use around drainage
8. drainage pipes and cappings
9. transport of all materials
10. overhead and profit (including design)
The total cost depends not only on the relative costs of individual
elements, but also it is influenced by the geometry of the reinforced soil
structure. An approximate breakdown of construction costs was
calculated earlier by Jones (1985), as shown in Table 5.
A comprehensive cost breakdown is presented in Table 6, in which no
soil improvement costs are included. A detailed bill of materials
however, is considered for each item of construction. A detailed
description of this cost estimate methodology is given in another
publication (Durukan, 1988).
The recommended expressions are intended for use in preliminary
cost estimation purposes. The shape of the footing beam and its
reinforcing details are shown in Fig. 2. The height of the wall is measured
in meters from the bottom of the facing to the top of the reinforced fill
and is denoted by h, and similarly the horizontal length of reinforcement
is denoted by L in all formulations.
Although the polymer geogrids (Tensar, Tenax, etc.) are assumed to be
utilized in these calculations, obviously any other type ofgeogrid or any
other kind of reinforcement element, such as polymer strips (Websol) or
metallic strips (Reinforced Earth) may be considered. The exact
quantities of reinforcing elements should be calculated in each case, in
34 Zeynep Durukan. Semih S. Tezcan

TABLE 6
Cost B r e a k d o w n for 1-m-run Wall ( D u r u k a n . 1988)

No. Type of work Unit Quantity Ratio

(approx.%)

1 In-situ footing b e a m
Reinforced concrete m3 0.0387
Reinforcing steel tonne 0.031 3
Formwork m2 2. I
2 Precast facing m3 0.18 (h + 0-6)" 8
3 Reinforced soil fill m3 (L - 0.6)h 33
4 C o m p a c t i o n o f fill h (L - 0.6) h/iO0 I
5 Laboratory a n d in-situ testing unit 0.003 hL 2
6 R e i n f o r c e m e n t a n d auxiliaries
Starters SR 100 m2 0.7 (h/0.3) 47
Lower layers SR I l0 b m2 1.5 hL
U p p e r layers SR 80 b m2 0.6 hL'
7 G r a n u l a r material m3 0-6 (h + 0.2) 5
8 Drainage and capping m I 1

9 Total -- -- 100

10 Transport of materials tonne ~ 20% 20

(of cost above)
II O v e r h e a d and profit -- -- 30

~A vertical strip o f 0.60 m is a s s u m e d to be filled with g r a n u l a r material a d j a c e n t to the

facing.
hThe r e i n f o r c e m e n t is only approximate. T h e exact quantities should be calculated
through a p r o p e r analytical procedure.
'h = Height a n d L = length of the wall must be entered into the formulations in meter
units.

accordance with the design criteria to satisfy the minimum factors of

safety against sliding, overturning, and pull-out or tension failures
(Ingold, 1982).

4 COMPARISONS OF COST ESTIMATES

For the purpose of determining the relative economy, as well as the cost
efficiency, of the reinforced soil-retaining walls, comprehensive cost
analyses have been performed for the following three types of walls:
1. conventional retaining walls on hard ground,
2. conventional retaining walls on piled foundation, and
 Cost analysis of reinforced soil walls 35

MESH REINFORCEMENT

F
" 15 "

i 55 L=150
55

30

t 25 ~ 2sj 2s
L=215
7~

Fig. 2. Typical foundation beam in geogrid walls.

3. reinforced soil-retaining walls using (a) metallic strips,

(b) Paraweb strips, and (c) geogrids.
For each wall type, the wall height has been varied from h = 4 m to
h = 20 m. Due to the volume of numerical work involved in cost
estimates of each wall type, the calculations have been performed by
computers. The results are presented herein in the form of diagrams
illustrating the height-cost variations of each wall type.

4.1 Conventional retaining walls

A typical cross-section of a conventional reinforced-concrete retaining

wall, assuming good subsoil conditions, is shown in Fig. 3.
Various geometrical dimensions of this typical wall are summarized
in Table 7. The cost estimates for a one-run wall for all different wall
heights are calculated using the prevailing construction unit prices in the
market.

4.2 Conventional retaining walls with piled foundations

For reasons of a realistic comparison, an actual conventional reinforced-

concrete retaining wall with piled foundations, as shown in Fig. 4, has
been considered. This is a typical Wing Wall in the Ferhatpa~a Viaduct
No. 41 of the lstanbul Metro Project. The bill of quantities and the cost
estimates, using the market prices for a 1-m-run wall, are given in Table 8.

4.3 Reinforced soil-retaining walls

A typical reinforced soil-retaining wall is shown in Fig. 5. The complete

set of cost estimates have been calculated using the information given in
36 Zeynep Durukan, Semih S. Tezcan

IMPERMEABLE LAYER

,/

O.' : • : : "7."

/ " / / / BACK FILL OF W A L L /

/ / , I /" / / / , ////
./ Q:
.o.-
.
• .. o..
.o: / " // // , " . ~/ / , /
H2 / , / / ,
:.. O~ / / / / " / ,
/" / ////:/,~////
HT /" ,/
,/ / • /~/ / '
o ~': o . . J / / , / •
/
l--COARSEFILTER MATERIAL /
///
i'o ' i : ! . : ///
DRAIN HOLE WITH '. O.:o~
I-"lOcm PVC
f °°. :..:..'.:.
n •

I tO ,o' . '. ~P2OOmm

[:!~, .//o~,,~GE//,"P'~/
1.5

I i°'1 T
°T °' I LEAN

Fig. 3. Typical conventional retaining wall.

TABLE 7
D i m e n s i o n s o f a T y p i c a l C o n v e n t i o n a i Wall

Height 6m 7m 8m 9m lOre 11 m 12.5m

Ht 0.8 0.8 1.0 I-0 i-2 !.2 1.2

H2 5.2 6.2 7.0 8.0 8.8 9.8 !1.0
Di 4.0 4.0 5.5 5.5 6-3 6-3 7.7
DI 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.7
D~ 2.2 2-2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3-5
D6 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 1-3 1.0
 Cost analysis of reinforced soil walls 37

ISTANBUL METRO VIADUCT NO_#I

Cross-section of w~l

'.|| ~"i') , p . . ° " • °" o O~

Fig. 4. Retaining wall with piled foundation.

Table 6, for walls with heights varying from h = 6 m to h = 20 m, and

with length L = 0.8 h.
It is assumed that no soil improvement would be necessary at the base.
Design considerations are based on the requirements o f the external and
the internal stability analyses.
38 Z~nep Durukan. Semih S. Tezcan

TABLE 8
Conventional Wall with Bored Piles

Type of work Unit Price Quanti~. Cost

(h = !1.81 m) (US $) (US $)

Reinforced concrete
at wall m3 -- 10.32 --
at foundation rn 3 -- 13.20 --
at parapet m3 -- ~ --

Sub total 53.55 23.53 1.260

R e i n f o r c e d steel
at wall tonne -- 0.83 --
at foundation tonne ~ 1-056 --
at parapet tonne -- -- --
at piles tonne -- 1.24 --

Sub total 686.35 3.126 2.146

Formwork
at wall m-' 37.79 21.42 809
at foundation m-' 4.92 3.97 20
Lean concrete m -~ 28.16 0.90 25
B o r e d p i l e s . O 80 c m
(3 × 14-05 + 19 × 11.45) m 151.23 22.50 3.403
Excavation ' m3 1.37 118-30 162
G r a n u l a r fill m3 15.37 38.45 591
E a r t h fill m3 9.36 77.01 721

Total -- -- -- 9.136

4.4 Discussion of results

The cost analyses results for all three types of walls, with varying heights,
and also with varying reinforcement elements, are illustrated in Fig. 6. it
is seen that the reinforced soil-retaining walls, irrespective of the type of
reinforcement, are definitely less expensive than the corresponding
conventional reinforced-concrete walls, especially at wall heights greater
than h = 6 m.
The conventional walls become prohibitively expensive when the
foundations are seated on bored piles. Although the tendency is not very
distinct, the rate of economy (in other words, the cost efficiency of the
reinforced soil walls) becomes larger and larger as the height of the wall
increases (lngold, 1982).
 Cost analysis of reinforced soil walls 39

l r . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
:.1
4
! ,'1
a.'l
oll l SR80geogrid
J.'l
', T¢=29kN/rn
,,
~'it4 I
.i,¢ I
i
)
~.~--Sancl c~a.',lgestnp
G60
030
t SR 110geogrld
Tc : 41.5kN/rn

~_~_=_~_am_~~_e__*3_00___
Compacted coarse
granular fill

Fig. 5. Cross-section of reinforced soil-retaining wall. (T~. = characteristic tension

strength).

5 TYPES OF R E I N F O R C I N G ELEMENTS
Three types of reinforcing elements have been included in the cost
analyses. The particular information about each of these types may be
summarized as follows.

5.1 Metallic strips (Reinforced Earth)

Although no Reinforced Earth metallic strips were actually used in the
construction of the lstanbul Metro Project, based on various price
quotations given by the Reinforced Earth Co. Ltd (Walker House,
Telford, UK) in 1988 for various wall projects, the unit length prices for
60-mm-wide metallic strips are calculated, on average, to be US $6.00.
For reasons of consistency, the bill of quantities as well as the unit
prices of all the remaining construction items, other than the metallic
strips, have been assumed to be exactly the same in all walls, irrespective
of the type of reinforcing element used.

5.2 Geogrids
In all of the geogfid-reinforced soil-retaining walls, two different fiber
rupture strengths (Tr = 80 kN and Tr = 110 kN) have been utilized.
40 Zeynep Durukan, Semih S. Tezcan

11000 f

10000

9000

P:lea Retaining Wa i l - ~

8000 I

/ /
7000

/
i

r~/ ,
-'., 6000 /
• ,RE Wad '

•. _ /~ =otvme," ~tr 'Os

3000

2 000 z /
1000 ~ Conventional wall uamg
h.~, unit prices of.:
• Wall --e amm~l ~ o Prele~
& I M e m l l ~ StrT~
m~
0 I --0 , I
0 2 /. 6 ~ 10 12 1/. 16 " 18

H--WALL HEIGHT, m
Fig. 6. Cost comparisons of various retaining systems. (R.E. = Reinforced Earth).
 Cost analysis of reinforced soil walls 41

The layer spacings and the locations of different geogrid materials

have been determined by means of an iterative cost optimization
analysis (Durukan, 1988). The unit prices have been assumed to be US
$4.40 and US $5.40 for l-m-' Tensar geogrid SR80 and SRll0,
respectively.
These values are used only for the purpose of giving numerical
examples. Certainly, in a real project, the competitive prices prevailing
in the market should be used.

5.3 Polymer strips (Paraweb)

The cost estimate for the polymeric strips (Websol system) has been
taken from the Klnah-Sakarya Motorway Construction Project in
Turkey for wall heights varying from h = 6 m to h = 19 m.
Although the unit prices for reinforcing material were not indicated
in the cost estimates of 1-m finished wall in the above mentioned project,
it wasobvious that the reinforced soil walls were more economical than
their conventional counterparts.
In fact, a single quotation by Soil Structures International Ltd
(Highgate Hill, London) for the Istanbul Metro Project indicated that the
cost for a 1-m-run of Websol-reinforced retaining wall, for h = 9.0 m,
would be around US $1682. (This is calculated from an overall cost
quotation of US $327 110 for a total wall face of 1750 m-').
This cost estimate compares and correlates very well with the official
unit price of US $1936 for a 1-m-run reinforced soil-retaining wall in the
Kmah-Sakarya Motorway of the Turkish State Highway Department.

6 N O R M A L I Z E D COST FOR R E I N F O R C E M E N T S

In order to compare the relative cost-performance efficiency of various

reinforcing elements, it would be advisable to reduce their nominal costs
to a c o m m o n platform by means of
ml = Ct/Ti
in which m t = normalized cost of reinforcement carrying a safe tension
load of I kN on a l-m-run wall, C, = cost of I m 2 reinforcement within a
1-m-run wall, and Ti = safe tensile resistance of one-layer reinforcement
for a 1-m-run wall.
Based on the commercial selling prices quoted by their respective
manufacturers for various reinforced soil structures in Turkey, especially
at the construction of the ganah-Sakarya Motorway, the normalized
42 Zeynep Durukan, Semih S. Tezcan

TABLE 9
Normalized Costs of Reinforcing Elements (for I kN tension and also for l-m-run wall)

Ci
Type of reinforcement T, T~,~r,, e ~,¢,h Unit in I m Tt Ct ml = - -
7",
(kN) (kN) (%) (kN) (US S/m e) (US $/kN)

Geogrids
Tensar SR 80 80 29 2 I 29 5.19 0.179
SR II0 110 41.5 2 1 41.5 7-01 0.169
Tenax TI'4 80 28 2 1 28 4-41 0.158
"Vl'7 II0 40 2 I 40 5.48 0-137
Paraweb" Grade 50 50 12.5 3 1.33 16-6 -- --
Grade 100 100 25 3 1.33 33-2 -- --
Metallic strips"
5 × 40mm 69 23 0.1 1.33 30 5.10 0.170
5 × 60mm 105 35 0.1 1.33 46 7.42 0.161

"Strips are placed at0-75 m intervals horizontally. Therefore. there are I/0.75 = 1.33 units
per I-m-run of wall.
he~,~ = Strain corresponding to the allowable tension stress.

prices m t are calculated and listed in Table 9 for various types of

reinforcing elements (Tr = rupture strength, kN/m: T~,f~ = safe design
load, kN/m).
The normalized prices are intended to give a general idea only, and
they do not necessarily represent the exact nature of the relative
efficiency, or the market prices of each type of reinforcement, because the
intial assumptions related to their market prices are very approximate.

REFERENCES

Anon. (1979). Reinforced earth a n d other composite techniques. S u p p l e m a n t a r y

Report No. 457, Transportation and Roads Research Laboratory, London, UK.
Bell, J.R., Barrett, R.K. & R u c k m a n n , A.C. (1984). Geotextile earth-reinforced
retaining wall tests: G l e n w o o d Canyon, Colorado. Transp. Research
Record, 916. P a p e r presented at 62nd Annual Meeting, TRB, W a s h i n g t o n
D.C., pp. 59-69.
Christie, I.F. (1982). E c o n o m i c a n d technical aspects o f e m b a n k m e n t s
reinforced with fabric. Proc. 2nd International Conference on Geotextiles. Las
Vegas, USA, Vol. 3. pp. 659-664.
Devata, M.S. (1984). Geogrid reinforced earth e m b a n k m e n t s with steep side
slopes. In Polymer Grid Reinforcement. Proceedings of a conference sponsored
 Cost analysis of reinforced soil walls 43

by the Science and Engineering Research Council, and Netlon Ltd, Thomas
Telford Ltd, London, UIL pp. 82-7.
Durukan, Zeynep. (1988). Cost effectiveness of reinforced soil retaining walls.
MSc thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Bo~aziqi University, Bebek,
lstanbul, Turkey.
Forsyth, R.A. & Bieber, D.A. (1984). La Honda slope repair with geogrid
reinforcement. In Polymer Grid Reinforcement. Proceedings of a conference
sponsored by the Science and Engineering Research Council, and Netlon
Ltd. Thomas Telford Ltd, London, UK, pp. 54-7.
lngold, T.S. (1982). Reinforced Earth. Thomas Telford Ltd, London, UK.
Jones, J.F.P. Colin. (1985). Earth Reinforcement and Soil Structures. Butterworth
and Co. Ltd, London.
Murray, R.T. (1982). Fabric reinforcement of embankments and cuttings. Proc. of
2nd International Conference on Geotextiles. Las Vegas, USA, Vol. 3. pp. 707-13.
Paul, J. (1984). Economics and construction of blast embankments using Tensar
geogrids. In Polymer Grid Reinforcement. Proceedings of a conference
sponsored by the Science and Engineering Research Council, and Netlon
Ltd. Thomas Telford Ltd, London, UK, pp. 191-7.